Italian Nobel Candidate: It’s Not Sure This Virus Exists

0
23

Dr. Stefano Scoglio, Ph.D., B.Sc., 2018 Candidate Nobel Prize in Medicine, is one of the increasing number of medical doctors and researchers who doubt the reality of the claimed “isolation” of the SARS-Cov-2 virus and the validity of the RT-PCR (Reverse Transcriptase – Polymerase Chain Reaction) test supposedly able to detect it.

I’m abundantly quoting from him because he has the ability to explain in a clear, simple, albeit scientifically-sound way the reasons behind this never-ending nightmare they decided to call “pandemic”, despite its having very little in common with other pandemics, including the brand-new invention of locking up at home entire healthy populations:

“The reality is that the SARS-Cov-2 virus has never been isolated and tested. I have looked at all the studies that claim to have isolated and even tested the virus, but all of them did something very different: they took patients’ pharyngeal or bronchoalveolar fluid, then they centrifuged it to separate the larger, heavier molecules from the smaller, lighter molecules, such as the alleged viruses; they then took the supernatant (the upper part of the centrifuged material) and called that extremely complex matrix “isolated virus” to which they then applied the RT-PCR [Zhu N et al, A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019, N Engl J Med. 1, 2020 Feb 20; 382(8): 727–733].

This is pretty technical, but I’ll try to simplify: the supernatant contains many different types of molecules, billions of different micro and nano particles, including what are called extracellular vesicles (EVs) and exosomes, useful particles produced by our bodies and absolutely indistinguishable from viruses:


“Nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate extracellular vesicles and viruses through the canonical methods of isolating vesicles, such as differential ultra-centrifugation, because they are often co-pelleted (collected together) due to their similar size.” [Giannessi F. et al., The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS Viruses, 2 Viruses 2020, 12, 571; doi:10.3390/v12050571, p.4.]

So, how do you isolate a specific virus from this huge mixture of billions of indistinguishable particles, which includes beneficial exosomes?

Well, you don’t, it’s impossible, and so you “recreate” the virus via RT-PCR: you take two primers, two existing genetic sequences available in gene banks, and put them in contact with the broth of the supernatant, until they anneal to some RNA fragment in the broth, thus creating an artificial DNA molecule, which is then multiplied by a number of PCR cycles: each cycle doubles the amount of DNA, so in theory the more cycles the greater the amount of DNA produced; but the greater the number of cycles, the lower the reliability of the PCR, or its ability to actually “produce” something significant from the supernatant, something which has anything to do with the virus that you are looking for: beyond 30 cycles the result is essentially meaningless (as stated by one of the world’s leading experts in PCR, Prof. Stephen Bustin). All studies, as well as current swab tests, always use between 35 and 40 cycles.

That’s what Dr Scoglio writes in an article titled The Invented Pandemic, The New Pathology of Asymptomaticity, and the Non Validity of the Covid-19 Test.

It’s interesting that a piece headlined “Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be”in that media outlet of Leftist dominant orthodoxy, the New York Times, is along similar lines, pointing out the question of number of cycles yet again:

The most widely used diagnostic test for the new coronavirus, called a PCR test, provides a simple yes-no answer to the question of whether a patient is infected.

But similar PCR tests for other viruses do offer some sense of how contagious an infected patient may be: The results may include a rough estimate of the amount of virus in the patient’s body.

“We’ve been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus — that’s all,” Dr. Mina [Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health] said. “We’re using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making.”

But yes-no isn’t good enough, he added. It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient’s next steps. “It’s really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,” Dr. Mina said.

The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.

This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.

In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.

One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.

Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.

A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on. [Emphasis added]

To a layperson, basically, it looks like they try and try until they get a positive result, although sometimes they have to give up.

There is a plausibly clear link between isolation of a virus, namely separating it from everything else, and tests to find the carriers of the virus: the isolation leads to a clear identification of the virus, upon which an effective test can be based.

Going back to Dr Scoglio and his idea of an invented pandemic, he writes:

“And that raises the next question: if you have no idea what the virus is, what it looks like, how can you say it’s responsible for anything?…

Because this virus has never really been isolated, and therefore there is no gold standard to support further studies or tests, no standard to guide them, anyone is free to build his own private SARS-Cov-2 virus! This is the reason why now there are, in GISAID genome bank, the organization that collects and archives all the genomic sequences, more than 70,000 gene sequences of the virus SARS-Cov-2, each claiming to be the real thing.

As Shakespeare wrote: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.
Too many gene sequences indicate a vague identification.

“To accommodate this madness, we are now told that the virus mutates, and that’s why there are so many different sequences. But is it credible that 70,000 different gene structures all correspond to the same virus? …

Several studies have found many mutations and variations between different geographic strains: one paper, which includes Robert Gallo among the authors, found dozens of mutations increasing over time in parallel with the alleged spread of the virus from Asia to Europe to the USA; while another author analyzed 85 different SARS-Cov-2 genomic sequences available at GISAID, and found as many as 53 different SARS-Cov2 strains from various areas of China, Asia, Europe, and the United States.

So which of these viral strains is the swab looking for? If the virus mutates constantly (assuming and not conceding the virus exists), then the test is useless, because it is going to look for a virus which is always preceding the one currently in circulation. This alone would be enough to understand that the Covid-19 swab test is completely, 100% fallacious!

This is really what happens in reality. [Emphasis added]”

This is a good point: new variants and mutations are believed to be born every minute very possibly because the virus has never been isolated and sequenced in a clear, unique way.

“In short, we have entrusted the end of our freedom to such unchecked, never validated and never authorized tests, be they swabs or serological!”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.