The twelve behind COVID misinformation

vibise

Well-known member

Over the past year, he has landed in hot water – because his findings about the standard pharmaceutical test apply directly to what is happening with world-famous Covid-19. This virus, as Saeed quietly notes, has never been isolated. Therefore there cannot possibly be any test for it. One can test only for what has been isolated. In other words, none of the tests for Covid-19 have any validity.


He further notes that there has been the use of confusing terminology, perhaps intended. While the virus has not been isolated, a similar-sounding term, “virus isolate,” is widely used. Though a virus isolate has nothing to do with an isolated virus, the term, “virus isolate” is likely to make lay people believe the virus has been isolated.


While the mainstream has not hailed Saeed, he has become a major contributor to Principia Scientific, which is committed to facts and logic.

Babylon Bee

To Defeat Delta Variant, Experts Recommend Doing All The Things That Didn't Work The First Time
Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organisation based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI was formed in 2010 around the time they published their first book, titled Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.

 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
Nothing here refutes his claims about COVID isolation. Logic fallacies are inconsistent with science.


o conduct such experiments accurately,
scientists/technicians must-have reference
samples or standards to calibrate the equipment
and validate the tests. The reference standards
can only come from independently isolated and
thoroughly characterized pure virus. However, as
the pure virus has never been isolated, one cannot
have reference standards and calibrators; hence
all the claimed experimentation becomes
scientifically null and void, reflecting a fraud.
Such requirements are not unique to virus
isolation or assessment. These are standard and
must requirement, referred to as validation, for
product assessment by the authorities, such as
FDA and USP.
It is impossible to get products
approved for marketing without this validation
step. However, validation of tests and testing for
viruses and their components are slipping through
the regulatory oversight.

Currently, for the SARS-CoV-2 assessment, the
 

LifeIn

Well-known member
o conduct such experiments accurately,
scientists/technicians must-have reference
samples or standards to calibrate the equipment
and validate the tests. The reference standards
can only come from independently isolated and
thoroughly characterized pure virus.
So now you take it upon yourself to set the rules as to what constitutes sequencing SARS-Cov/2 ?
 

inertia

Super Member
...

o conduct such experiments accurately,
scientists/technicians must-have reference
samples or standards to calibrate the equipment
and validate the tests. The reference standards
can only come from independently isolated and
thoroughly characterized pure virus. However, as
the pure virus has never been isolated, one cannot
have reference standards and calibrators; hence
all the claimed experimentation becomes
scientifically null and void, reflecting a fraud.
Such requirements are not unique to virus
isolation or assessment. These are standard and
must requirement, referred to as validation, for
product assessment by the authorities, such as
FDA and USP.
It is impossible to get products
approved for marketing without this validation
step. However, validation of tests and testing for
viruses and their components are slipping through
the regulatory oversight.

Currently, for the SARS-CoV-2 assessment, the

Quotes from "thereisnopandemic.wordpress.com" should be read-only- after adding more than a grain of salt if scientific accuracy is the goal. If propaganda is the goal then it should be viewed as a primary source. This is especially notable when compared with an actual peer-reviewed scientific paper from Nature Communications about double-blinded benchmarking calibration.


Look Honey.JPG
 

Harry Leggs

Super Member
Quotes from "thereisnopandemic.wordpress.com" should be read-only- after adding more than a grain of salt if scientific accuracy is the goal. If propaganda is the goal then it should be viewed as a primary source. This is especially notable when compared with an actual peer-reviewed scientific paper from Nature Communications about double-blinded benchmarking calibration.


View attachment 1517
That does not refute anything. Either the pure virus has been isolated or it has not. You have not proved it has been isolated. At least not with an opinion piece and a comic.

It sound like they have isolated the HIV virus and grew cell lines to study. If cell lines are not grown outside the body then the virus cannot be studied. Not only that. They isolated the monkey version and that is how they know HIV/AIDS is zoonotic.



With C-19 no animal source identified. Pure virus not isolated. Same with delta. That is their whole point and they predicted tests would be faulty before the fact. Now we know the test considered the gold standard was retired. Prediction fullfilled. If they have not isolated then they have not grown outside the body to study and the whole thing falls apart.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Nothing here refutes his claims about COVID isolation. Logic fallacies are inconsistent with science.
https://thereisnopandemic.wordpress...xist-it-is-confirmed-by-saeed-a-qureshi-ph-d/

the pure virus has never been isolated,

Correct, good points from Saeed A. Qureshi, and interesting material on LinkedIn.

And a far more basic question than waffling around with anecdotal cases and rigged statistics. (Which do have their place in the sun.)

Christine Massey has been very good on this issue, including her twitter posts, where Christine Carson and Francois Balloux are two of those who I believe claim full purification and isolation. Generally, there is a huge amount of circularity in the virus claims.

==================

Another interesting point is the wacky theory of the "life-cycle of the virus" Which includes the inactive/dead virus coming "alive", and the theorized hijacking of cell replication and supposed creation of gazillions of new viruses, and then bursting the cell (lysis).

Try to find out where this theory started, and the supposed evidence.

==================

Steven
 
Last edited:

Harry Leggs

Super Member
Correct, good points from Saeed A. Qureshi, and interesting material on LinkedIn.

And a far more basic question than waffling around with anecdotal cases and rigged statistics. (Which do have their place in the sun.)

Christine Massey has been very good on this issue, including her twitter posts, where Christine Carson and Francois Balloux are two of those who I believe claim full purification and isolation. Generally, there is a huge amount of circularity in the virus claims.

==================

Another interesting point is the wacky theory of the "life-cycle of the virus" Which includes the inactive/dead virus coming "alive", and the theorized hijacking of cell replication and supposed creation of gazillions of new viruses, and then bursting the cell (lysis).

Try to find out where this theory started, and the supposed evidence.

==================

Steven

Did find this

 

Bonnie

Super Member
Then show it or go home. How hard can this be? If they are looking for animal origins then they may be looking in the wrong place.

Lab period.

From my link above

This was surprising because both the SARS1 and MERS viruses had left copious traces in the environment. The intermediary host species of SARS1 was identified within four months of the epidemic’s outbreak, and the host of MERS within nine months. Yet some 15 months after the SARS2 pandemic began, and a presumably intensive search, Chinese researchers had failed to find either the original bat population, or the intermediate species to which SARS2 might have jumped, or any serological evidence that any Chinese population, including that of Wuhan, had ever been exposed to the virus prior to December 2019. Natural emergence remained a conjecture which, however plausible to begin with, had gained not a shred of supporting evidence in over a year.
------------------------
4 months is not 12 years.


And they may never find animal origins because they are looking in the wrong place. It is called the drunkard's search. Looking for the car keys under the street lamp only.

Wishful thinking does not get you there.
Not wishful thinking. We still do not know exactly how the virus originated, but I hope we do...and the truth comes out, no matter what it is...man-made, or natural.
 

inertia

Super Member
That does not refute anything. Either the pure virus has been isolated or it has not. You have not proved it has been isolated. At least not with an opinion piece and a comic.

It sound like they have isolated the HIV virus and grew cell lines to study. Not only that. They isolated the monkey version and that is how they know HIV/AIDS is zoonotic.

With C-19 no animal source identified. Pure virus not isolated. Same with delta. That is their whole point and they predicted tests would be faulty before the fact. Now we know the test considered the gold standard was retired. Prediction fullfilled

The scientific journal Nature is not an opinion piece. The science is real.

In fact, the full-genome of a SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated. --->(June 2020) Full-genome sequence of a SARS-CoV-2 strain isolated from a female patient with COVID-19


 

Bonnie

Super Member
The scientific journal Nature is not an opinion piece. The science is real.

In fact, the full-genome of a SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated. --->(June 2020) Full-genome sequence of a SARS-CoV-2 strain isolated from a female patient with COVID-19


The full genome was fully sequenced early on. The Pasteur Institute did so, in early 2020, right after the Chinese did it. Did not take them very long, either.

 
Last edited:

Harry Leggs

Super Member
The scientific journal Nature is not an opinion piece. The science is real.

In fact, the full-genome of a SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated. --->(June 2020) Full-genome sequence of a SARS-CoV-2 strain isolated from a female patient with COVID-19


it was taken using the obsolete test** on an asymptomatic 62 yr old female and not a group according to this.


here’s the proper way to isolate, characterize and demonstrate a new virus. First, one takes samples (blood, sputum, secretions) from many people (e.g. 500) with symptoms (she was asymptomatic) which are unique and specific enough to characterize an illness...

** From your link.

Hygiene at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf by real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR), as described previously (
---------

That looks like the test that was rendered obsolete referenced in my previous post. Perhaps two pages back. Because the test failed to distinguish the difference between flu and C-19.

So it sounds like you still have a difference in opinion among experts and the errors are things that i have been able to pull but it does sound reasonable to use multiple sick people and not just one 62 yr old asymptomatic female. That means she was not even sick.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Nothing here refutes his claims about COVID isolation. Logic fallacies are inconsistent with science.


o conduct such experiments accurately,
scientists/technicians must-have reference
samples or standards to calibrate the equipment
and validate the tests. The reference standards
can only come from independently isolated and
thoroughly characterized pure virus. However, as
the pure virus has never been isolated, one cannot
have reference standards and calibrators; hence
all the claimed experimentation becomes
scientifically null and void, reflecting a fraud.
Such requirements are not unique to virus
isolation or assessment. These are standard and
must requirement, referred to as validation, for
product assessment by the authorities, such as
FDA and USP.
It is impossible to get products
approved for marketing without this validation
step. However, validation of tests and testing for
viruses and their components are slipping through
the regulatory oversight.

Currently, for the SARS-CoV-2 assessment, the
This makes no sense. What do you mean by "pure virus"? We have the complete genome sequence. We have EM pictures of the virus and structural images of its various proteins, including the spike protein. The necessary standards vary for the tests being done, so a PCR assay can use DNA from a cell line infected with the standard virus.

The insistence on virus isolation is not a standard and must requirement. Do we have a pure HIV virus, or one for polio? You tell me.
 

vibise

Well-known member
it was taken using the obsolete test** on an asymptomatic 62 yr old female and not a group according to this.


here’s the proper way to isolate, characterize and demonstrate a new virus. First, one takes samples (blood, sputum, secretions) from many people (e.g. 500) with symptoms (she was asymptomatic) which are unique and specific enough to characterize an illness...

** From your link.

Hygiene at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf by real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR), as described previously (
---------

That looks like the test that was rendered obsolete referenced in my previous post. Perhaps two pages back. Because the test failed to distinguish the difference between flu and C-19.

So it sounds like you still have a difference in opinion among experts and the errors are things that i have been able to pull but it does sound reasonable to use multiple sick people and not just one 62 yr old asymptomatic female. That means she was not even sick.
At this point there are thousands of covid-19 virus samples that have been sequenced from different patients, and they all align nicely, with a few differences here and there.

There are over 800K entries of these different sequences in the NCBI genome database repository:

 
Top