The scam has been confirmed: PCR does not detect SARS-CoV-2

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 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. 


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: 

Coronavirus 229E. 

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. 

Coronavirus OC43. 

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 
Scholars Hub. 

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. 

SARS-CoV Coronavirus. 

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. 

Coronavirus NL63. 

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. 

Coronavirus HKU1. 

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. 

MERS-CoV Coronavirus. 

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 
( 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 

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.


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 

covid- 19-virus-isolation/ 


[pdfembedder url=’’]

Leave a Reply