by Jon Rappoport
Information sent by
of a typical
claim of isolation.
There is no
proof that the virus exists...
The global medical community has been asserting that "a pandemic is
being caused by a virus, SARS-Cov-2."
But what if the virus doesn’t exist?
People have been asking me for a step-by-step analysis of a
mainstream claim of virus-isolation. Well, here it is.
"Isolation" should mean the virus has been separated out from all
surrounding material, so researchers can say,
"Look, we have it. It
I took a typical passage
from a published study, a "methods" section, in which researchers
describe how they "isolated the virus." I sent it to Dr.
Kaufman, 1 and he provided his analysis in detail.
I found several studies that used very similar language in
explaining how "SARS-CoV-2 was isolated."
Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus
Disease, United States - (Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 26,
No. 6 - June 2020)". 2
First, I want to provide
a bit of background that will help the reader understand what is
going on in the study.
The researchers are creating a soup in the lab. This soup contains a
number of compounds.
The researchers assume,
without evidence, that
"the virus" is in this soup.
At no time do they separate the
purported virus from the surrounding material in the soup.
of the virus is not occurring.
They set about showing that the monkey (and/or human cells) they put
in the soup are dying. This cell-death, they claim, is being caused
by "the virus."
However, as you’ll see,
Dr. Kaufman dismantles this claim.
There is no reason to
infer that SARS-CoV-2 is in the soup at all, or that it is
Finally, the researchers
assert, with no proof or rational explanation, that they were able
to discover the genetic sequence of "the virus."
Here are the study’s statements claiming isolation, alternated with
Dr. Kaufman’s analysis:
used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage…"
"Vero cells are foreign cells from the kidneys of
monkeys and a source of contamination.
Virus particles should be
purified directly from clinical samples in order to prove the
virus actually exists. Isolation means separation from
So how can you separate/isolate a virus when
you add it to something else?"
"…We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549,
and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM)
supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or
"Why use minimal essential media, which provides
incomplete nutrition [to the cells]?
Fetal bovine serum is a
source of foreign genetic material and extracellular vesicles,
which are indistinguishable from viruses."
"…We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus
For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of
the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns
2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of
clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold
across the plate…"
"Once again, misuse of the word isolation."
"…We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM
containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin,
2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a
concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL…"
"Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme that digests proteins.
Wouldn’t that cause damage to the cells and particles in the
culture which have proteins on their surfaces, including the so
called spike protein?"
"Why are antibiotics added? Sterile technique is used
for the culture. Bacteria may be easily filtered out of the
clinical sample by commercially available filters (GIBCO).
Finally, bacteria may be easily seen under the microscope and
would be readily identified if they were contaminating the
The specific antibiotics used, streptomycin and amphotericin (aka ‘ampho-terrible’), are toxic to the kidneys
and we are using kidney cells in this experiment!
Also note they
are used at ‘2X’ concentration, which appears to be twice the
These will certainly cause damage to the Vero
"…We added [not isolated] 100 μL of cell suspension
directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by
We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified
37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily.
We used standard plaque assays
for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East
respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols…"
"When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with
the back of a pipette tip…"
"There was no negative control experiment described.
Control experiments are required for a valid interpretation of
the results. Without that, how can we know if it was the toxic
soup of antibiotics, minimal nutrition, and dying tissue from a
sick person which caused the cellular damage or a phantom virus?
A proper control would consist of the same exact experiment
except that the clinical specimen should come from a person with
illness unrelated to covid, such as cancer, since that would not
contain a virus."
"…We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid
extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used
50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent
"How do you confirm something that was never previously
shown to exist? What did you compare the genetic sequences to?
How do you know the origin of the genetic material since it came
from a cell culture containing material from humans and all
their microflora, fetal cows, and monkeys?"
-end of study quotes
and Kaufman analysis-
Dr. Kaufman does several things here.
He shows that
isolation, in any meaningful sense of the word "isolation," is
Dr. Kaufman also shows that the researchers want to use damage to
the cells and cell-death as proof that "the virus" is in the soup
they are creating. In other words, the researchers are assuming that
if the cells are dying, it must be the virus that is doing the
But Dr. Kaufman shows there are obvious other reasons for
cell damage and death that have nothing to do with a virus.
Therefore, no proof exists that "the virus" is in the soup or exists
And finally, Dr. Kaufman explains that the claim of genetic
sequencing of "the virus" is absurd, because there is no proof that
the virus is present.
How do you sequence something when you haven’t
shown it exists?
Readers who are unfamiliar with my work (over 300 articles on the
subject of the "pandemic" during the past year) 4 will
Then why are people dying?
What about the huge number of cases
I have answered these and other questions in great
The subject of this article is:
have researchers proved
The answer is no...