Leading corona researchers admit that they have no scientific evidence of the existence of a virus

Translated from German Language

Source… http://diamanten-magazin.com/wordpress/2020/07/04/fuehrende-corona-forscher-geben-zu-dass-sie-keinen-wissenschaftlichen-beweis-fuer-die-existenz-eines-virus-haben/

My first words in the article are: “Buckle up, the shock will be violent”.

What you will learn in this article breaks your horizons. The latest information has the explosive power to uncover the greatest fraud in humanity. According to this information, every citizen should support the people who have fought for this important information. It’s finally out, all the leading scientists on COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) have admitted that the scientific rules for proving COVID-19 have not been met.

But one after anonther. I will explain what this means. I ask you to read this article until the end. Spread this article. The
Plandemie
 | ( Telegram Post ) would by these statements terminated with immediate effect be to be more than that, He has the complete Virology questioned!

The detection method of the PCR tests is completely meaningless

I have already discussed the topic of PCR tests in two of my articles
The PCR test is not validated ] | [ PCR: A DNA test is treated as a manipulation instrument ]. There I prove without a doubt that the PCR test, which is considered the “gold standard” in COVID tests, is completely “meaningless”.

The question now is: what is required for virus isolation / detection first? We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.

From textbooks (eg, White / Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9), as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer , state that particle cleaning – ie the separation of an object from everything that is not this object, such as For example, the Nobel laureate Marie Curie 1898 purified 100 mg of radium chloride by extraction from tons of pitchblende – an essential prerequisite for proving the existence of a virus and thus proving that the RNA of the particle in question comes from a new virus.

The reason for this is that the PCR is extremely sensitive, which means that it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA – but it cannot determine where these particles come from. This has to be determined beforehand.

And because the PCR tests for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is probably an RNA virus) are calibrated, we need to know that these gene clippings are part of the virus we are looking for. And in order to know that, the suspected virus must be properly isolated and cleaned.

Koch’s postulates are the decisive criteria for scientifically proving a virus


Before the electron microscope was invented in the 1930s, it was not possible to see such small particles. The new generation of virologists began using the electron microscope to examine dirty materials and claimed that they could detect the viruses. The problem is that just looking at a particle cannot tell you what it is or what it does without fulfilling Koch’s postulates.
Koch’s postulates were created by the great German bacteriologist Robert Koch in the 19th century.

Definition:
Four requirements made by Robert Koch that must be met in order for one

Microorganism may be called the causative agent of a certain disease.

  1. Koch’s postulate
    • The microorganism must be able to be detected in all cases of the same symptoms, but not in healthy individuals.
  2. Koch’s postulate
    • The microorganism can be transferred from the diseased individual to a pure culture (isolation)
  3. Koch’s Postulate
    • A previously healthy individual shows the same symptoms after infection with the microorganism from the pure culture as that from which the microorganism originally came.
  4. Koch’s postulate
    • The microorganism can be transferred from the infected and diseased individuals back to a pure culture.

The leading scientists admit that none of you isolated a virus!

Torsten Engelbrecht (  award-winning journalist) and Konstantin Demeter (independent researcher) asked the scientific teams of the relevant work referred to in connection with SARS-CoV-2 to provide evidence that the electron microscope images depicted in their in vitro experiments had been cleaned Show viruses.

But not a single team was able to answer “yes” to this question – and nobody said that cleaning was not a necessary step. We only received responses such as “No, we have not received an electron micrograph showing the level of cleaning” (see below).

We asked several study authors: ” Show your electron micrographs the purified virus (isolation)?” , And they gave the following answers:

Study 1: Leo LM Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health”  Nature Medicine , March 2020 [ Nature ]

Answering author:  Malik Peiris

Date: May 12, 2020

Answer:  “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus. ”

Translated: “The picture is the virus emerging from an infected cell. It is not a purified virus ”.


Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”,  Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives , February 2020
Pubmed ncbi ]

Answering author:  Myung-Guk Han

Date: May 6, 2020

Answer:  “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.”

Translated: “We couldn’t estimate the level of purification because we don’t purify and concentrate the virus grown in cells.”


Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”,  Journal of Korean Medical Science , February 24, 2020 [ Pubmed ncbi ]

Answering author:  Wan Beom Park

Date: March 19, 2020

Answer:  “We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”

Translation: “We have not received an electron micrograph showing the degree of cleaning.”


Study 4:  Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019,  New England Journal of Medicine , February 20, 2020 [ nejm ]

 Answering author: Wenjie Tan

Date: March 18, 2020

Answer:  “[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”

Translated: “[We are showing] an image of sedimented virus particles, not of cleaned ones”.

Note: There was no need for this publication, the authors openly state “our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates”
translated: “our study does not meet Koch’s postulates 


Source: COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless

Regarding the work mentioned, it is clear that what is shown in the electron micrographs (EMs) is the end result of the experiment, ie there is no other result from which they could have produced EMs.

That is, if the authors of these studies admit that their published EMs do not show purified particles , then they definitely do not have purified particles that are said to be viral. (It should be noted in this context that some researchers use the term “insulation” in their work , but the procedures described therein do not constitute a proper insulation (cleaning) process. Consequently, the term “insulation” is misused in this context ).

For example, the authors of four of the most important works published in early 2020, which claim the discovery of a new corona virus, admit that they had no evidence that the origin of the virus genome was viral particles or cell debris, pure or unclean, or particles of any kind , were. In other words, the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on belief , not facts.

Torsten Engelbrecht (  award-winning journalist) and Konstantin Demeter (independent researcher) have Dr. Charles Calisher, who is an experienced virologist, contacted. In 2001, Science published a “passionate plea… to the younger generation” by several veteran virologists, including Dr. Charles Calisher

[Modern virus detection methods such as] the smooth polymerase chain reaction […] says little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals it carries, [or] how it makes people sick. It’s like trying to tell if someone has bad breath by looking at their fingerprints ”[1].

And so the two asked Dr. Calisher if he knows a single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 was isolated and finally cleaned. His answer:

“I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one. ”
Translated: “I don’t know of any such publication. I was looking for such a publication ”[2]

What does that mean?
In short: NO ONE COOK’S POSTULATE HAS BEEN COMPLYED!
To put it in more detail:
This actually means that it cannot be concluded that the RNA gene sequences that the scientists extracted from the tissue samples prepared in the in vitro experiments mentioned above and for which the PCR tests are finally “calibrated” are too belong to a certain virus – in this case SARS-CoV-2.
In addition, there is no scientific evidence that these RNA sequences are the causative agent of the so-called COVID-19.

In order to establish a causal connection in one way or another, ie beyond virus isolation and purification, it would have been absolutely necessary to carry out an experiment that fulfills the four Koch postulates. But there is no such experiment, as Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei recently showed for OffGuardian.

The need to fulfill these postulates regarding SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated not least by the fact that attempts have been made to fulfill them. But even researchers who claimed to have done so were actually unsuccessful .

Sources:
[1] Martin Enserink. Virology. Old guard urges virologists to go back to basics, Science, July 6, 2001, p. 24
Addition: Science


[2] E-mail from Charles Calisher from May 10, 2020
These can be requested from Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter .
[3] Main source: COVID19 PCR tests are Scientifically Meaningless

The publication in Nature “The pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 in hACE2 transgenic mice” also does not meet any of Koch’s postulates

An example of this is a study published in Nature on May 7th. In addition to other procedures that invalidate the study, this study did not meet any of the postulates.
The allegedly “infected” laboratory mice did not have any relevant clinical symptoms that can clearly be attributed to pneumonia, which according to the third postulate should actually occur if a dangerous and potentially fatal virus were actually at work there. And the light bristles and weight loss observed temporarily in the animals are negligible, not only because they may have been caused by the procedure itself, but also because the weight returned to normal.

Neither did an animal die, other than those who killed them to perform the autopsies. And let’s not forget: these experiments should have been done before developing a test, which is not the case.

None of the leading German representatives of the official theory on SARS-Cov-2 / COVID-19 could answer the question of how they can be sure without having a purified virus that the RNA gene sequences of these particles belong to a specific new virus ?

Torsten Engelbrecht (  award-winning journalist) and Konstantin Demeter (independent researcher) have the leading German representative of the official theory on SARS-Cov-2 / COVID-19 – the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) , Alexander S. Kekulé (University of Halle), Hartmut Hengel and Ralf Bartenschlager (German Society for Virology) , the already mentioned Thomas Löscher, Ulrich Dirnagl (Charité Berlin) or Georg Bornkamm (virologist and professor emeritus at the Helmholtz Center Munich) asked the following question:

“If the particles that are said to be SARS-CoV-2 have not been purified, how do you want to be sure that the RNA gene sequences from these particles belong to a particular new virus?

Especially if there are studies that show that substances such as antibiotics, which are added to the test tubes in the in vitro experiments for virus detection, can “stress” the cell culture so that new gene sequences are formed that were previously undetectable – an aspect that the Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock pointed out in her Nobel Lecture in 1983. 

It shouldn’t be left unmentioned that we finally got Charité – the employer of Christian Drosten, Germany’s most influential virologist in relation to COVID-19, advisor to the German government and co-developer of the PCR test, which was the first to be “accepted” by the WHO worldwide ( not validated! ) – was able to answer questions on this topic.

But we didn’t get answers until June 18, 2020 , after months of not responding. Ultimately, we only made it with the help of Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer.

To our question: ” Has the Charité convinced itself that a corresponding particle cleaning was carried out”, the Charité admits that it did not use any cleaned particles.
And although they claim that “the Charité virologists are certain that they are testing for the virus,” they find in their work ( Corman et al. ):
“RNA was extracted from clinical samples with the MagNA Pure 96 system (Roche, Penzberg, Germany) and from cell culture supernatants with the viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany)”
Translated:
“RNA was extracted from clinical samples with the MagNA Pure 96 system (Roche, Penzberg, Germany) and extracted from cell culture supernatants with the viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany). “
That means they simply assumed that the RNA was viral.

Incidentally, the paper published on January 23, 2020 by Corman et al. not even a proper peer review process , and the processes described therein were not accompanied by controls – although scientific work only becomes really solid with these two things.

But it is much worse, the Charité test was created before the Chinese were first published. So there was no clinical data available to develop a test at all. There are even drosten!
Please read my previously summarized chronological publication
” The science fraud by Prof. Christian Drosten ” or the complete article in the Science Plus magazine by Dr. Stefan Lanka . Also read breaking news in the newsletter of Dr. Stefan Lanka from June 13th, where you will find out, among other things, that Dr. Stefan Lanka has reported Prof. Drosten for crimes against humanity!

Dr. In an incredibly good analysis, Stefan Lanka showed that Covid-19 was never detected.

Excerpt from the Wissenschaftsplus magazine 1st edition 2020:
Now follows an excerpt from the magazine, which Dr. Stefan Lanka (molecular biologist and virologist) wrote in connection with the misconception about SARS-CoV-2. It is worth buying its complete edition!
“Individual components are removed from the components of the dead tissues and cells, misinterpreted as components of a virus and put together in a mental model to form a virus model. A real and complete virus does not appear in the entire “scientific” literature. The process of finding consensus, in which the parties involved argued about what belongs to the virus and what does not, took decades for the measles virus. With the supposedly new China Coronavirus 2019 (2019-nCoV, now renamed), this process of finding consensus only took a few mouse clicks. With a few mouse clicks, a program was created that consisted of the molecular sequence of short pieces of the nucleic acids of the dead tissues and cells whose composition was determined biochemically, depending on the specification, the much longer, now supposedly constructed complete and supposed genetic material of a certain old or a new virus. In fact, even these manipulations, called “alignment”, do not result in 

a “complete” genetic material of a virus called its genome. In the process of conceptually constructing the “viral genome strand”, unsuitable sequences are “smoothed” and missing ones are added. In this way, a “genetic material sequence” is invented that does not exist, that has never been discovered and proven as a whole. In summary: From short pieces, mentally and in line with a model of a viral genome, a larger piece is constructed, which in reality does not exist. For example, the only “intellectual” construction of the measles virus inheritance is missing

in the short fragments of cell molecules that are actually present, far more than half of the molecular sequences that are supposed to represent an entire virus. Some of them are artificially created biochemically and the rest are simply made up. ”

Anyone who knows English can directly see the fact that the “genome of viruses” (complete genome) is only conceptually constructed in this publication, in which the RKI played a key role: “Complete Genome Sequence of a Wild-Type Measles Virus Isolated during the Spring 2013 Epidemic in Germany ” , which can be found at: RKI

Prof. Mankertz, co-author of this publication and head of the National Reference Institute for Measles, Mumps and Rubella at the Robert Koch Institute

(RKI), when asked, claimed that the control experiments were carried out for this study, which rule out that typical cell components are misinterpreted as virus components. However, it refused to publish the documentation of these control attempts. In the complaint path, Ms. Mankertz replied that there were no control attempts and that her colleagues in Munich had undoubtedly carried out and documented these control attempts. Dr. Stefan Lanka wrote to all authors and their laboratory managers and asked about the control experiments, which have been mandatory since 1998. None of those contacted replied. The rectors of the institutes contacted also did not respond, and so the complaint process fizzled

Dr. Stefan Lanka analyzed the first two relevant publications of the CCDC on Covid-19

In the first authoritative publication by the authors of the CCDC ( A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019 ) on the results of their research, “A new coronavirus with pneumonia in China, 2019” , no increase in cases of atypical pneumonia is mentioned (“Patient with pneumonia of unknown cause”) reported. They report that the patients found form a ” cluster”,can be combined into a group with common characteristics. The common feature was the more or less frequent visit to a seafood wholesale market in Wuhan. How small the group of patients with atypical pneumonia actually was can be seen from the fact that the CCDC of only four patients took swabs and fluids from the lower respiratory tract to look for known and unknown pathogens.

In this study, which is considered authoritative, the discussion states :

” Our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates “

Translated: “Our study does not meet Koch’s postulates”

This clearly proves that this study can never be evidence of a new virus!

Source: Dr. Stefan Lanka – Scienceplus-misinterpretation-virus-part-2


In the investigations of the five people, which are documented in the two publications relevant to the corona crisis [1] [2], no possible presence or history, signs, mechanisms and effects of these known causes of atypical pneumonia were investigated. Virologists usually don’t do this anyway and the members of the CCDC were not able to do so due to the circumstances of the panic. Excluding the mention of atypical pneumonia proves a serious medical malpractice and prevents correct treatment of the patient. Those affected therefore run the risk of being mishandled with a cocktail of antibiotic substances that is rich in side effects and which, especially when overdosed, is capable of independently causing the death of patients.So happened and documented in the Lancet .
The CCDC virologists testify in both publications that there is no evidence yet that these sequence proposals can actually cause disease. On January 10 and January 12, 2020, the Chinese sequence suggestions were still preliminary and had not yet been subjected to the strict process of scientifically prescribed review.

[1] A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019

[2] A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China

Further source: Dr. Stefan Lanka – Scienceplus-misinterpretation-virus-part-2

Other authors were so honest to admit that they did not adhere to Koch’s postulates

In the publication dated January 24, 2020 Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lance t. the authors openly admit:
“we did not perform tests for detecting infectious virus in blood”
Translated: “we did not carry out tests for the detection of an infectious virus in the blood” (this does not meet Koch’s postulates)

For a comprehensive analysis of the publications and further studies on Coivid-19, I strongly recommend the gigantic summary by
David Crowe – Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory .

This work is constantly updated with the latest findings. It offers one of the most comprehensive analyzes to date.


Matthew B. Frieman, PhD associate professor of microbiology and immunology, and virologist at the School of Medicine at the University of Maryland, was skeptical! he said: ” I am stunned by the timeline and speed of this isolation and characterization, if it’s all true,”
translated “I am taken aback by the timing and pace of this isolation and characterization, if that’s all true”

Dr. Andrew Kaufman also analyzed the studies on SARS

Andrew Kaufman MD references:

– Bachelors of Science in Biology MIT

Doctor of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina

Psychiatric Residence, Duke University 

– Former medical lecturer in hematology and oncology, South Carolina Medical University

– Former assistant professor of psychiatry, SUNY Upstate Medical University 

-Licensed and certified by the board in psychiatry and forensic psychiatry

Kaufman not only dealt with the publications of the new corona virus SARS-CoV-2, but also with his predecessor from 2003 (SARS-CoV-1).

He realized that not only was SARS-CoV-2 not scientifically proven, but noticed that the same mistakes had also been made in the alleged SARS-CoV-1 virus. To start with:
The following applies to all publications:
-> The Koch postulates were not followed!

-> The postulates according to River were not adhered to (modified postulates)

Ergo: not a single scientific proof of a pathogenic virus.

Those who would rather watch a video to get all the details (I will only list some information in writing) should do so in one of the two videos below.
The Video by Andrew Kaufmann ( German ) | ( English ) backups are available.

SARS 2003

In the publication in NATURE – Koch’s postulates fulfilled for SARS virus, the heading suggests, as is so often the case, that the Koch postulates were fulfilled. 

There are 5 relevant studies.

However, under MAIN it says  According to Koch’s postulates, as modified by Rivers for viral diseases, six criteria are required to establish a virus as the cause of a disease”

Translated: “According to Koch’s postulates, which were modified by Rivers for viral diseases, six criteria are required to establish a virus as the cause of a disease”
So here it becomes clear that it is not Koch’s postulates, but modified postulates.

In the video from Dr. Andrew Kaufmann’s Koch postulates are compared with those of RIVER, so you can understand the differences.

Rivers Postualte do not consist of 4 (Koch postulates), but of 6.

Rivers, TMJ Bacteriol. 33, 1-12 (1937) .

• Genetic material (DNA, RNA) is not mentioned in any criterion

English
•… now it is possible to bring excellent evidence that an organism is the cause of a malady without the complete satisfaction of the [Kochs] postulates. (Page 3)

• … particularly those [diseases] caused by viruses, the blind adherence to Koch’s postulates may act as a hindrance instead of an aid. (Page 4)

•… It is obvious that Koch’s postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases. (Page 6)

• … In the first place, it is not mandatory to demonstrate the presence of a virus in every case of the disease produced by it. (Page 6)

•… Viruses, regardless of whether they are parasites or the fabrications of autocatalytic processes, are intimately associated with host cells (page 6)

•… “by means of inoculation of material…
obtained from patients with the natural disease“ (page 11)

•… If the inoculated animals become sick or die in a characteristic manner, and, if the disease in them can be transmitted from animal to animal by means of inoculations with blood or emulsions of involved tissues free from ordinary microbes or rickettsiae, one is fairly confident that the malady in the experimental animals is induced by a virus (page 7)


English
•… It is now possible to provide excellent evidence that an organism is the cause of an illness without fully fulfilling the [Kochs] postulates. (Page 3)

• … Especially in the case of [diseases] caused by viruses, blind adherence to Koch’s postulates can be more of a hindrance than a help. (Page 4)

• … It is obvious that Koch’s postulates regarding viral diseases were not fulfilled. (Page 6)

• … First, it is not mandatory to prove the presence of a virus in every case, the disease it causes. (Page 6)

•… Viruses, whether they are parasites or autocatalytic processes, are closely linked to the host cells. (Page 6)

•… Viruses, whether they are parasites or autocatalytic processes, are closely linked to the host cells. (Page 6)

• … by vaccinating material obtained from patients with the natural disease. (Page 11) (So ​​not that it was manufactured in a laboratory or from a laboratory, but by another patient with the natural disease, it is very important to understand this)

• … If the vaccinated animals get sick or in a characteristic way, and if the disease in them from animal to animal through vaccinations with blood or emulsions of involved tissues that are free of common microbes or rickettsiae, one is pretty sure that the disease in the experimental animals is triggered by a virus. (Page 7)


So, in summary, he says if you apply your criteria and meet everyone, it is not certain, but you can be pretty confident that a virus caused this disease. In other words, even if all 6 criteria have been applied, this only leads to them being fairly confident, not conclusive, not sure, not 100%, just fairly confident.

The Nature article claims that the first 3 criteria (river) have been met for subsequent publications.

The first three criteria – isolation of virus from diseased hosts, cultivation in host cells, and proof of filterability – have been met for SCV by several groups 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 .

Translated:
The first three criteria – isolation of the virus from diseased hosts, cultivation in host cells and evidence of filterability – were met by several groups for SCV2,3,4,5.

Now I will briefly summarize what Dr. Kaufman analyzed, please keep in mind that this is only brief information and you should really see the video (see above).

I would like to say in advance that none of the following studies (not even those of Prof. Drosten) comply with any of the Postulate Rivers.


2. Poutanen, SM et al. N. Engl. J. Med. (In the press) .

• No positive isolation of a virus (an attempt was actually made to isolate it, but this was negative).

• They did not cultivate in host cells (they took Vero cells from monkeys) These produce in connection with antibiotics (exosomes = body’s own RNA!).

• Proved no filterability. Instead, they used various screening tests for the presence of bacteria and other viruses.


3. Drosten, C. et al. N. Engl. J. Med. (In the press).

• No virus isolation, interestingly you found particles that looked like another virus (paramyxovirus) in one sample, but not in other samples.

• They did not cultivate in host cells (they took Vero cells from monkeys).

• No filterability proven.

Prof. Christian Drosten’s work does not even comply with River’s modified, lighter postulates.


4. Ksiazek, TG et al. N. Engl. J. Med. (In the press).

• No isolation of a virus (again, just as with Drosten’s work, only the genetic material obtained).

• They did not cultivate in host cells (they took different cells from Vero E6, NCIH292, MDCK, LLC-MK2 and B95-8 cells).

• Proved no filterability. Instead, they used various screening tests for the presence of bacteria and other viruses.


5. Peiris, JSM et al. Lancet 361, 1319-1325 (2003).

• No isolation of a virus (again, as in Drosten’s work, only the genetic material obtained was used)

• They did not cultivate in host cells (they took fetal resus monkey cells)

• Did not demonstrate filterability, instead using various screening tests for the presence of bacteria and other viruses


In summary (SARS 2003):

In none of these studies were the first 3 criteria met and therefore cannot be claimed as evidence of a pathogenic virus.

SARS-CoV-2 (2019)

So let’s take the River’s criteria for Covid-19 and check if they were met in the publications.

In advance: none of the following studies

1. Fulfilled the first 3 criteria.

2. tried to meet the 4th and 5th criteria

By not even trying to meet the 4th and 5th criteria, you can conclude from this that you cannot say that this could be a new pathogen.

In advance: none of the following studies

1. met the first 3 criteria.

2nd tried to tackle the 4th and 5th criteria at all

By not even trying to meet the 4th and 5th criteria, you can conclude from this that you cannot say that anything could be a cause


1. Peng Zhou – Discovery of a novel coronavirus associated with the recent pneumonia outbreak in humans and its potential bat origin

• No isolation of a virus (only genetic material obtained).

• They did not cultivate in host cells (they took Vero cells and Huh7 cells, they only did this in 1/7 patients).

• Proved no filterability

In your study, you admitted that this study cannot provide any evidence, but that many more clinical studies are needed to make a statement.

By means of a PCR sequence test, they assumed that the one found was similar to the 2003 coronavirus, since the test showed an agreement of 80%. A person’s DNA is 96% identical to that of a chimpanzee …


2. Na Zhu – A Novel coronavirus From Patients With Pneumonia in China, 2019 (2020 Feb. 20; 382 (8): 727-733)

• No isolation of a virus (only genetic material obtained).

• They did not cultivate in host cells (they took lung cancer cells).

• Proved no filterability (they used centrifugation).

You admit in your publication under Discussion:
“our study does not fulfill Koch’s 

“Our study does not meet Koch’s postulates”


3. Jeong-Min Kim – Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19 () 2020 Feb; 11 (1): 3-7

• No isolation of a virus (only genetic material obtained).

• They did not cultivate in host cells (they took Vero cells and also used antibiotics)

• proved no filterability


4. McMaster University Canada 

Very little information is available on this study. Since only a fraction was published.

• No isolation of a virus (only genetic material obtained).

• They did not cultivate in host cells (they took a different type of mammalian cell).


Summarized:

Dr. Andrew Kaufmann comes to the same conclusion as everyone else that there is no scientific evidence of a pathogenic virus. (SARS-CoV-1 and 2)

Despite the claim in ( NATURE ) that Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled 

in none of the publications on SARS-CoV-1/2 did Koch’s and River Postulates not be met (0/6 criteria).

only one of the criteria for 2019 was met. The 6th criterion, the least important of all criteria.

Rumors and lies have created a pandemic even though there is no evidence!

Please watch the video of Dr. Andrew Kaufman!


The Rotterdam Monkey Experiment (SARS) Issue 32, May 2020 ExpressZeitung (pp. 66 – 69)

Conclusion on the article

My appeal to you is as follows, the burden of proof is so devastating that the plenemic would have to end from one day to the next, please support everyone who can bring us out of this misery. Simply speaking and encouraging also helps.

This article was first here appeared

The book Climate Socialism – now available again in a new and updated edition.

+++++ Now learn the whole truth behind the dizziness of “man-made climate change.” +++++
The book is a real cracker! Dr. Wolfgang Thüne, meteorologist

Now e-book for 9.99 € here available or in paperback for 17.90 euros on Amazon order

Mass poverty – millions of deaths – decline of cultures. What is the global CO2 fraud really about? The updated and expanded edition was published with a new contribution by the former ZDF Wettermann Dr. Wolfgang Thüne added. In addition, the authors discuss the current situation and the VW exhaust gas scandal in a few new articles. In memoriam, the new edition contains the particularly noteworthy last article by our dear friend and publisher Susanne Kablitz
Spread the love

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *