Author: Dr. Saeed Qureshi, Ph.D.

Scientists and virologists use the word “isolate” for isolation – very important to watch for this mix-up.

Virologists appear to have been taught that “isolate” means virus or isolated virus, which is incorrect. “virus isolate” and “isolated virus” are two very different things. As an analogy, “virus isolate” is chicken soup, not chicken (”isolated virus”). Yet, medical professionals and virologists describe and promote chicken soup as chicken. This is where the confusion is. For a more detailed explanation, please see here (link)

Literature related to virus isolation describes this aspect in a  convoluted and confusing way. However, surprisingly, one publication (link) clearly (without hiding) describes what is being isolated, stating, “In this study, we describe the isolation and genome sequencing of two SARS-CoV-2 isolates from infected humans in Turkey” (note not the virus). Scientifically, one determines and establishes the RNA sequence, and by extension, the associated virus not of the “isolate” (soup). It is unclear whether experts are ignorant about the difference or intentionally deceiving the public, but they certainly make a false scientific claim.

In general, all the publications use the same approach, i.e., they isolate the “virus isolate” but never the virus. You may find my review of one such publication from the CDC (link).

So, in short, the virus has never been isolated, identified, and characterized. Therefore, all claims and pictures of the virus one see in literature are imaginary and computer-generated, not reality or scientific. Hence, all claims about the existence of the virus must immediately be withdrawn.

Recently, I was asked to provide my views on different aspects of the pandemic in a question/answer format. Considering my responses would be helpful to the visitors to this site, I am sharing them here as well.

Is virus detection possible with PCR test?

Why is the question or confusion? To answer this, allow me to describe my academic background and expertise. I can describe myself as a developer, validator, and user of tests with academic qualification of a post-graduate degree, Ph.D., and 40 years experience on the subject, including 30 years working at a regulatory authority (Health Canada) as a scientist. (Continue here)

Yesterday, I responded to a question received through LinkedIn. Considering my response would be helpful to the visitors to this site, I am sharing it here as well.

Question: Does your background and resources allow you to perform such an isolation?

Response: I am a retired and now a freelance scientist. Therefore, I lack needed laboratory resources. However, given the resources and my background, yes, it is possible to isolate the virus.

Scientifically and technically, I would not say it would be a piece of cake to isolate the virus but a relatively easy job to do. However, the issue would be that the virus has to exist to be isolated. Unfortunately, there is no evidence provided in the literature that it exists.

I would further explain this with the following analogy, i.e., if someone asked me to extract/isolate gold, believing that a given large piece of land contains a significant amount of gold. I or anyone else would ask how it is considered that gold exists in the land. In response, they would show me a test, and its report/results establishing the gold’s existence there. That is from where I would take over and work on extracting/isolating the gold.

Similarly, in the medical/virus area, isolating the virus requires a valid test and report to show that it is there. Unfortunately, there is no such test available at present. Instead, everything is imaginary, or based on word of mouth. Mainly, some published computer-generated photographs without any control or reference are presented. Hence, it is not possible to isolate the virus. No wonder no one has isolated the virus.

So, in short, a virus can be isolated easily. First, however, it has to exist. Second, there has to be a test or measurable (biochemical or pharmacological) parameter to indicate the presence of the virus.

The PCR test is a fraud – it is a scientific fact.

However, why is it taking long to figure this out? Because “experts” drag RNA/DNA, genome, sequencing, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and so-called “science of medicines” into it, which confuses people and forces them to accept and believe whatever gibberish/garbage is thrown at them.

On the other hand, if one considers the PCR test, like any test, the fraud would be exposed immediately. The reason being, a test cannot be developed for anything if a specimen (reference standard) of such is unavailable. As the samples of  RNA and virus (SARS-COV-2) are not available, the test cannot be developed. This is not an opinion but a scientific fact and requirement.

If someone says that they have a test or developed the test for RNA or virus, they must show where the specimen was obtained. In the case of SARS-COV-2 (and others), no purified isolated sample is available. Hence there cannot be a valid test. Anyone saying otherwise is lying. There is no need to indulge in sequencing the RNA, genome, viruses, or variants and their varieties. It is all irrelevant and useless to the testing and/or diagnosis.

If there is no reference standard available, then there cannot be a test. Period! It is the law of science, which is being violated!

How could the FDA recent letter, Letter of Authorization [1], be considered FULL APPROVAL when the document clearly and repeatedly uses the term EUA (Emergency Use Authorization)? The document ends with a statement,

“This EUA will be effective until the declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of the emergency use of drugs and biological products during the COVID-19 pandemic is terminated under Section 564(b)(2) of the Act or the EUA is revoked under Section 564(g) of the Act.”  Continue here