Q: You and
your colleagues have made many FOIA requests to public health
agencies around the world. You've been asking for records that
show the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists.
How did you develop this
approach?
A: In 2014, a lady in Edmonton submitted a freedom of
information request to Health Canada asking for studies relating
to the addition of hydrofluorosilisic acid (industrial waste
fluoride acid) to public drinking water (water fluoridation).
HealthCanada's response indicated that they had no studies
whatsoever to back up their claims that the practice is safe or
effective.
A few years later, some high quality government-funded studies
showed that common fluoride exposure levels during pregnancy are
associated with lower IQs and increased ADHD symptoms in
offspring.
Nevertheless, dentists and the public health
community continued to promote and defend the so-called "great
public health achievement" of forcing this controversial
preventative dental treatment onto entire communities, and were
dismissive of those studies.
So I used freedom of information
requests to show that
various institutions promoting and
defending water fluoridation in Ontario, Alberta and Washington
State could not provide or cite even one primary study
indicating safety with respect to those outcomes.
So once I learned from people like David Crowe, Dr. Andrew
Kaufman, Dr. Stefan Lanka and Dr. Thomas Cowan that the alleged
[COVID] virus had never been isolated (purified) from a patient
sample and then characterized, sequenced and studied with
controlled experiments, and thus had never been shown to exist,
I realized that freedom of information (FOI) requests could be
used to verify their claims.
Most people are not going to take the time to check all of the
so-called "virus isolation" studies for themselves, so FOIs were
a way to,
-
ensure that nothing had been overlooked
-
cut
to the chase and back-up what these gentlemen [Kaufman, Cowan,
Crowe, Lanka] were saying, if they were indeed correct
So in May 2020 I began submitting FOI requests for any record
held by the respective institution that describes the
isolation/purification of the alleged "COVID-19 virus" from an
unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient, by anyone,
anywhere on the planet.
Q: How many public health and government agencies have you
queried with FOIA requests?
A: I have personally queried and received responses from
22
Canadian institutions...
These are public health institutions,
universities that claim to have "isolated the virus", and 3
police services - due to their enforcement of "COVID-19"
restrictions.
I have also personally received responses from
several institutions outside of Canada including the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
and Prevention and
Anthony Fauci's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
I
await responses from a number of additional institutions.
Many people around the world have obtained responses to the
same/similar, or related, [FOIA] requests, from institutions in
their own countries.
One person who has done a lot of work on
this in New Zealand and other countries is my colleague
Michael
S.
Also a fellow named
Marc Horn obtained many in the UK. A
handful of other people obtained several responses, and lots of
people have obtained 1 or 2.
I have been compiling all of the responses that are sent to me
on my
FOI page, and as I type this (October 4, 2021) we have FOI
responses from 104 institutions in well over 20 countries all
relating to the purification/existence of the alleged virus.
Additionally, there are court documents from South Africa and
Portugal.
In total,
110 instructions are represented at this
moment on my website...
There are FOI responses from more
institutions that I haven't had a chance to upload yet.
Q: How would you characterize the replies you've gotten from
these agencies?
A: Every institution without exception has failed to provide or
cite even 1 record describing purification of the alleged virus
from even 1 patient sample.
Twenty-one of the 22 Canadian institutions admitted flat out
that they have no such records (as required by the Canadian
legislation). Many institutions outside Canada have admitted the
same, including the CDC (November 2, 2020), Australia's
Department of Health, New Zealand's Ministry of Health, the UK
Department of Health and Social Care...
And in some cases, silly excuses were provided.
For example, the
Norwegian Directorate of Health's response was that they do not
own, store or control documents with information about patients.
Public Health Wales told Dr.
Janet Menage that they have not
produced any such records, and that while they would normally be
willing to point her towards records that are in the public
domain it would be too difficult in this case.
Brazil's FDA-like injection-approver, the Health Regulatory
Agency (Anvisa), told Marcella Picone that they have no record
of virus purification and are not required to by law, thus it is
(in their minds) not their obligation to make sure that the
virus actually exists.
Q: What is the exact text of your FOIA requests?
A:
The text has varied somewhat over time.
For example, in the
beginning I used the word "isolation". But since that term gets
abused so badly by virologists, I now stick to "purification".
In all requests I specified exactly what I meant by
isolation/purification (separation of the alleged virus from
everything else), and that the purified particles should come
directly from a sample taken from a diseased human where the
patient sample was not first adulterated with any other source
of genetic material (i.e. the monkey kidney cells aka Vero cells
and the fetal bovine serum that are typically used in the bogus
"virus isolation" studies).
I always clarified that I was not requesting records where
researchers failed to purify the alleged virus and instead
cultured something and/or performed a
PCR test and/or sequenced
something.
I also clarified that I was requesting records
authored by anyone, anywhere - not simply records that were
created by the institution in question.
And I requested
citations for any record of purification that is held by the
institution but already available to the public elsewhere.
The latest iteration [of the FOIA request] is posted on a page
of my website where I encourage others to submit requests to
institutions in their own country:
Template for "SARS-COV-2
isolation" FOI requests.
Q: These agencies are all saying they have no records proving
SARS-CoV-2 exists, but at the same time some of these agencies
sponsor and fund studies that claim the virus does exist.
How do
you account for this contradiction?
A:
I will address this by way of an example.
The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) is the only Canadian
institution that failed to provide a straightforward "no
records" response thus far. Instead, they provided me with what
they pretended were responsive records.
The records consisted of some emails, and a study by Bullard et
al. that was supported by PHAC and their National Microbiology
Laboratory, and by Manitoba Health and Manitoba's Cadham
Provincial Laboratory.
Neither the study nor the emails describe purification of the
alleged virus from a patient sample or from anything else.
The
word "isolate" (or "isolation" / "purify" / "purification") does
not even appear, except in the study manuscript in the context
of isolating people, not a virus.
...in the Materials And Methods section we find that these
researchers performed PCR "tests" for a portion of the E gene
sequence (not a virus), and they incubated patient samples (not
a virus) on Vero cells (monkey kidney cells) supplemented with
fetal bovine serum, penicillin/streptomycin, and amphotericin B,
and they monitored for harm to the monkey cells.
No virus was looked for in, or purified from, the patient
samples.
No control groups of any kind were implemented in the
monkey cell procedures. No virus was required or shown to be
involved anywhere in the study, but "it" was blamed for any harm
to the monkey cells and "it" was referred to repeatedly
throughout the study (I counted 26 instances).
Nevertheless, this was the sole paper provided by the Public
Health Agency of Canada.
And although the researchers did not claim to have "isolated"
the alleged virus in this paper, they performed the same sort of
monkey business / cell culture procedure that is passed off as
"virus isolation" by virologists in country after country.
(Because virology is not a science.)
...Note the admission in the [study] Abstract: "RT-PCR detects
RNA, not infectious virus"...
...So I wrote back to the Public Health Agency of Canada and
advised the that none of the records they provided me actually
describe separation of the alleged virus from everything else in
a patient sample, and that I require an accurate response
indicating that they have no responsive records.
In their revised response, the Agency insisted that the gold
standard assay used to determine the presence of intact virus in
patient samples is visible cytopathic [cell-killing] effects on
cells in a cell culture, and that "PCR further confirms that
intact virus is present".
...As you have pointed out to your readers again and again: No one
has isolated/purified "the virus".
They simply assume that
patient samples contain "it" (based on meaningless PCR tests).
They adulterate patient samples with genetic material and toxic
drugs, starve the cells, then irrationally blame "the virus" for
harm to the cells.
They point to something that has never been
purified, characterized, sequenced or studied scientifically, in
a cell culture and insist "that's the virus".
They fabricate the
"genomes" from zillions of sequences detected in a soup.
It's
all wild speculation and assumptions, zero science...
So the people responsible for the blatantly fraudulent claims
made by these institutions are either wildly incompetent or
intentionally lying.
