Unofficial English translation of ‘Frauds and falsehoods in the medical field’
The scam has been confirmed: PCR does not detect SARS-CoV-2
Number 242 - November 2020
Reading time: 15 minutes
The genetic sequences used in PCRs to detect suspected SARS-CoV-2 and to diagnose
cases of illness and death attributed to Covid-19 are present in dozens of sequences of the
human genome itself and in those of about a hundred microbes. And that includes the
initiators or primers, the most extensive fragments taken at random from their supposed
"genome" and even the so-called "target genes" allegedly specific to the "new
coronavirus". The test is worthless and all "positive" results obtained so far should be
scientifically invalidated and communicated to those affected; and if they are deceased, to
their relatives. Stephen Bustin, one of the world's leading experts on PCR, in fact says that
under certain conditions anyone can test positive!
We have been warning you since March: you cannot have specific tests for a virus without
knowing the components of the virus you are trying to detect. And the components cannot be
known without having previously isolated/purified that virus. Since then we continue to
accumulate evidence that no one has isolated SARS-CoV-2 and, more importantly, that it can
never be isolated for the reasons we explained last month (read the report "Can you prove that
there are pathogenic viruses?" on our website -www.dsaiud.com-). And in the present report we
are going to offer new data that show that RT-PCR does not detect the so called SARS-CoV-2 as
it is known, but fragments of human RNA and those of numerous microbes.
We have already explained the numerous problems that RT-PCR poses, recognised by
organisations or governments such as the WHO or the CDC and by prestigious international
experts such as Dr. Stephen Bustin who considers both the arbitrariness of establishing criteria
for results and the choice of the number of cycles to be nonsense because they can lead to
anyone testing positive.
In this report we are going to add the results of a particular research we have done from the data
published on the alleged SARS-CoV-2 and on the protocols endorsed by the WHO for the use of
RT-PCR as well as the data corresponding to the rest of the "human coronaviruses". And the
conclusions are extremely serious: none of the seven "human coronaviruses" have actually been
isolated and all the sequences of the primers of their respective PCRs as well as those of a large
number of fragments of their supposed genomes are found in different areas of the human
genome and in genomes of bacteria and archaea, such as these: Shwanella marina JCM, Dialister
succinatiphilus, Lactobacillus porcine, Lactobacillus manihotivorans, Leptospira sarikeiensis,
Bizionia echini, Sanguibacteroides justesenil, Bacteroides massiliensis, Lacinutrix venerupis,
Moraxella bovis, Leptospira saintgironsiae, Winogradskyella undariae, Acetobacterium puteale,
Chryseobacterium hispanicum, Paenibacillius koleovorans, Tamiana fuccidanivorans, Fontibacillua
panacisegetis, Ru bacter ruber, Skemania piniformis, Chryseobacterium shigense, Caloramator
peoteoclasticus, Cellulosilyticum ruminicola, Nitrosopumilius evryensis and a long list of others.
We are going to explain step by step the research that has led us to such an unusual conclusion.
HAVE ANY HUMAN CORONAVIRUSES BEEN ISOLATED?
During the first half of April, when the first research we conducted indicated that SARS-CoV-2 had
not been isolated and since those who claimed to have done so were relying on "isolates" of
previous "human coronaviruses", we began to do a thorough review of those claimed isolates.
Specifically, we reviewed the alleged isolation work of suspected human coronaviruses 229E (said
to have been isolated in 1965), OC43 (in 1967), SARS-CoV (in 2003), NL63 (in 2004), HKU1 (in
2005) and MERSCoV (in 2012). And these have been the results:
Reference article : Dorothy Hamre and John Procknow. A new virus isolated from the human
respiratory Tract. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 121: 1:
190-193. January 1, 1966.
Since the authors refer to other articles to explain the method of isolation - which they call
Complement Fixation - we consulted a reference article for that method: that of Janet W. Hartley
et al. Complement Fixation and tissue culture assay for mouse leukaemia viruses PNAS, 53(5):
931-938, May 1965. This is a procedure already in disuse that uses the antigen-antibody reaction
to detect either one or the other. In the case we are dealing with, the aim was to detect the
antigens of the supposed new virus but, as we have already explained, specific antibodies are
needed which cannot be obtained the first time a virus is detected.
Reference article : Paul Lee. Molecular epidemiology of human coronavirus OC43 in Hong Kong.
Thesis for the Department of Microbiology, University of Hong Kong, August 2007. The HKU
What was considered to be viral RNA was extracted from cultures without any proof that the
RNA belongs to a virus. The tool used - a QIAamp kit - removes reagents, inhibitors and
contaminants but what it cannot do is determine where the extracted RNA comes from. And
there are no controls. It is then amplified by PCR and sequenced assuming (!) that it is genetic
information of a virus. Finally, the author speculates about mutations, recombinations, genotypes,
molecular evolution, strains and other jargon that conveys the idea -unproven- that a "virus" is
being worked with.
Reference article: J. S. M. Peiris and others. Coronavirus as a possible cause of SARS. Lancet
361: 1319-25, April 2003.
There is no mention of purification in the article. There is not even any mention of filtration or
centrifugation. It is only stated that " the viruses were isolated in fetal monkey liver cells from
nasopharyngeal aspirates and lung biopsies of two patients". There are no controls . The only
mention is of a "cytopathic effect" that is attributed to a virus and that PCR was done for known
viruses and retroviruses without obtaining results. Finally, RT-PCR was done with "random
initiators" and a sequence "of unknown origin" is detected to which "a weak homology with the
coronaviridiae family " is found. Then they designed primers for that sequence and when testing 44
samples from SARS patients only 22 were positive.
Reference article: Lia van der Hock and others. Identification of a new human coronavirus.
Nature Medicine, 10, 4 April 2004.
The authors state that “the identification of unknown pathogens using molecular biology tools is
difficult because the target sequence is not known so that PCR-specific initiators cannot be
What they used is a tool they developed themselves called VIDISCA which, they claim, does not
require prior knowledge of the sequence! Is that possible? Let's see how it works: first the culture
is prepared and it is assumed that a virus is present due to the evidence of "cytopathic effect".
The novelty introduced by this method is that "restriction enzymes" are added, enzymes that cut
the nucleic acid molecules at certain locations and always by the same length. In this way, if after
the action of these enzymes they observe many fragments of DNA or RNA that are the same or
very similar, they deduce that it comes from a virus, since the host genome would present random
cuts, while the virus genome presents a large number of copies that are the same due to the
replication of the virus. And is such a deduction correct? Of course not! This assumption (which
adds to the previous assumption that there is a virus) does not take into account that there are
"virus-like particles", "retrovirus-like particles", "endogenous retroviruses", "exosomes",
"extracellular" particles and even mitochondrial DNA. In denial, there are a multitude of particles
that possess the same reproductive characteristics in large quantities as "viruses" and therefore
can falsify results by producing large numbers of identical copies when cut by enzymes as
recognised in an article on the VIDISCA technique entitled Enhanced bioinformatic proSling of
VIDISCA libraries for virus detection and Discovery. It was published in volume 263 of Virus
Research on April 2, 2019, and its authors-Cormac M. Kinsella et al. -recognise that "no
redundancy is expected in the VIDISCA insert from the host background nucleic acid except in
the case of 'virus-like' characteristics, i.e., high copy numbers as in mitochondrial DNA.
Reference article: Patrick C. Y. Woo and others. Characterisation and Complete Genome
Sequence of a Novel Coronavirus, Coronavirus HKU1, from Patients with Pneumonia. Journal of
Virology, 79, 2, January 2005.
The article, incredibly, begins with these words: "Despite extensive research in patients with
respiratory tract infections, no microbiological cause has been identified in a significant
proportion of patients . RNA is extracted from non-purified cultures.” And a PCR with coronavirus
genes is used. For the sequencing they use two protein databases organised in families, domains
and functional sites -PFAM and INterProScan- combined with two computer programs that carry
out "predictions" on how nucleotides should be combined. The text adds: "The sequences were
manually assembled and edited to produce a final sequence of the viral genome". And once
again there are no controls.
Reference article : Ali Moh Zaki and others. Isolation of a Novel Coronavirus from a Man with
Pneumonia in Saudi Arabia. The New England Journal of Medicine, 367:19, November 2012.
The genetic material is extracted directly from the culture supernatant and sputum sample with
a tool called High Pure Viral Nucleic Acid Kit and then tested with different PCRs for various
known microorganisms. There is no mention of purification and there are no controls.
In short, what had been done with the first coronaviruses -and with many other supposed
viruses- is to cultivate supposedly infected tissues - any "cytopathic effect” was attributed to
the presence of a virus only - and then either some proteins are obtained which without any
test are considered "virus antigens" and when these "antigens" are detected in cultures it is
interpreted as "isolation", or fragments of nucleic acids are extracted assuming that they
belong to a virus.
We already explained in the article published in the previous issue of the magazine that according
to Dr. Stefan Lanka the so-called "cytopathic effect" is actually an effect caused by the
conditions of the culture itself. This is recognised for example in the article Antibiotic-induced
release of small extracellular vesicles (exosomes) with surface-associated DNA published on
August 15, 2017 on the website of Nature and signed by Andrea Nemeth and others
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5557920/pdf/41598 2017 Article 8392.pdf
It explains that certain substances -such as antibiotics- added to in vitro experiments can stress
the cell cultures so that they generate new sequences that had not been previously detected. This
had already been noticed by none other than Dr. Barbara McClintock in 1983 during her Nobel
Prize lecture, as can be seen at https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/mcclintock-
In essence, NOT ONE OF THE SEVEN SUPPOSED HUMAN CORONAVIRUS HAS REALLY
BEEN ISOLATED. The only thing that has been different between them are the laboratory
procedures and techniques that were becoming progressively more sophisticated which, in this
case, has implied not a greater accuracy but a greater capacity for deception and self-deception
that has culminated in the virtual manufacture of the SARS-CoV-2.
And the obvious consequence of the lack of evidence of its isolation is that such "coronaviruses"
cannot be held responsible for any disease. Moreover, all tests - of whatever kind - based on
the presumed components of these "viruses" (nucleic acids or proteins) are completely
disqualified as "infection tests" and even more as "diagnostics" of diseases.
MORE UNANSWERED REQUESTS
In the previous issue we already collected the answers given by the authors of several articles that
supposedly described the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in which they acknowledged that they had not
"purified" which implicitly means acknowledging that the virus was not isolated. And now we are
going to add one more piece of evidence: the responses given by different authorities - political
and health - from various countries about the purification and isolation of SARS-CoV-2.
James McCumiskey -author of the book The Latest Conspiracy: The Biomedical Paradigm- tells
us that the National Virus Reference Laboratory of Ireland requested information about it from the
University of Dublin and the latter responded that "it has no records that could provide an
answer to their request". The director of legal services of the laboratory insisted on his request
to the university and the university responded as follows: "The position of the university is that
material of academic debate cannot be subject to the Freedom of Information Act". It follows from
the NVR's request that they have not cultivated SARS-CoV-2 or purified it. They only
acknowledge having "detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA in diagnostic samples.”
On June 22, a group of experts sent a consultation in similar terms to British Prime Minister Boris
Johnson. The letter was signed by Dr. Kevin Corbett, Piers Corbyn - professor at Imperial
College London the engineer and independent researcher - who we interviewed in the journal at
the time - David Crowe, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, the Edinburgh professor of biology Roger
Watson and the biologist and chemist David Rasnick - and to this day they still have not
received a reply!
Another similar request - in this case to the National Research Council of Canada - received the
following response: 'We have not been able to carry out a complete search of the NRC's records
so we regret to inform you that no records have been identified that respond to your request.”
We will add that two journalists have been sending similar requests - under the Freedom of
Information Act - to various institutions in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, the United
Kingdom and the United States, and as of September 5, twelve institutions have responded, all
indicating the same thing: that they have no record of work describing the isolation of the
virus that is supposed to cause Covid-19. The details and the answers can be seen at
LOOKING FOR THE ORIGIN OF THE FALSE GENOME