The most fundamental question of our time is not being asked never mind answered - How does a virologist discover a new virus and prove that it causes disease? Without understanding the answer to this simple question, nobody can possibly claim the existence of a virus or a pandemic, so with that in mind, I will explain in this article the answer to that question. The answer is two-fold. The first part answers how virus discovery should be conducted; the second part answers how it is conducted. If you have an open mind and reasonable intelligence, you will see the obvious flaws in the fraud known as virus discovery. I have gathered this information from watching interviews and video explanations from medical doctors and virologists as well as interviews for my podcast Second Opinion, conventional scientific explanations of viruses and viral discovery and examining the published scientific literature. Anyone with an open mind can verify this information for themselves.
Virus Isolation
The foundation requirement for discovering a virus is to isolate the virus from any other material. The reasons for this will become clear as we proceed. The steps to isolate a virus are very simple and easily understandable. First, a body fluid sample is taken (blood, phlegm, mucus, lung fluid etc.) and passed through a filter with customised pore size. The particular type of filtration is known as micropore filtration leaving nanoscopic particles. This discards bacteria and other microbes and material bigger than viral particles. This technique leaves filtered fluid and not isolated viral particles. The next step involves an ultracentrifuge, a column spun at high speed using centrifugal force, hence the name, with a density gradient solution added, which separates material by molecular weight. Viral particles, if there are any to be found, will form one of various bands in the centrifuge which can then be extracted with a pipette and examined under an electron microscope which is the only microscope which can see particles the size of a virus. This process leaves you with only viral particles and no other genetic or bodily material hence the term ‘isolation’ also known as purification, in other words, a pure sample. This technique can be used to purify viruses which attack bacteria known as bacteriophages, giant viruses living on sea algae and exosomes which are naturally occurring secretions of a damaged cell in the body with remarkable resemblance to viruses as I will explain later. In short, the technology exists to perform this technique with viruses and has existed for decades. Any virology laboratory has this equipment as standard. However, this process has never been performed for any pathogenic virus. As extraordinary as that statement might seem, anybody seeking to disprove that claim will not find a single scientific paper describing this process for any disease-causing virus in the entire history of viral scientific literature.
Viral Culture
A process called viral isolation involves the use of a tissue culture to prove viral existence, disease causation, to sequence the genome, to take electron microscope images of the virus and to produce a vaccine for the virus. This method was developed in 1954 and has become the standard method of virus proof and causation. The process begins also with the extraction of bodily fluid which is then inoculated onto tissue in a culture, which is most commonly Vero cells (monkey kidney tissue). Before the experiment, the tissue is kept healthy and grows incredibly well. Then, the experiment starts and a culture medium known as minimal nutrient medium is added to the culture. The mediums have different names with different compositions and amounts of material in the mediums - amino acids, vitamins, glucose - which offer vital nutrition and allow the cells to continue their healthy growth. The different mediums are called DMEM, MEM or EMEM. These are known as basal media, meaning they contain only the minimum composition of vitamins, minerals and sugars to keep the tissue healthy. These must be supplemented with a source of protein which is lacking in the basal media and the most commonly used is FBS or Fetal Bovine Serum, sometimes called FCS or Fetal Calf Serum - the blood from a baby cow. Manufacturers state that 10% FBS should be added to the culture and this is the amount described in scientific papers before the experiment. However, once the experiment starts, the FBS is drastically reduced as low as 7% or 2%, meaning as much as 30% to 80% of the nutrition is removed from the culture thus starving the tissue, which is already only receiving minimal nutrition even at 10%. In cases when the nutrition is not reduced, and to compound the issue when it is, potent nephrotoxic drugs are added to rule out bacterial contamination. Nephrotoxic means toxic to kidneys! The most commonly used drugs are streptomycin, which is prescribed for strep throat, penicillin, gentamicin and amphotericin, the latter of which is nicknamed amphoterrible because of its effect on kidney tissue. A medical website describes a form of amphotericin, known as amphotericin B, also used in viral tissue cultures, and its nephrotoxicity in this way:
Amphotericin B binds to sterols in cell membranes, thereby creating pores that compromise membrane integrity and increase membrane permeability. It binds not only to ergosterol in fungal cell walls but also to cholesterol in human cell membranes; this is what accounts for its nephrotoxicity.
An article on the website of the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, describes gentamicin:
A recent study has shown that even one dose of this agent can lead to acute kidney injury. Nephrotoxicity induced by gentamicin represents a complex phenomenon which is characterized by ...severe proximal renal tubular necrosis.
The website of the National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine website in America says of gentamicin nephrotoxicity:
Gentamicin (GM) is causing tubular damage through: 1) necrosis of tubular epithelial cells, predominantly in proximal segment and 2) alteration of function of main cellular components involved in transport of water and solutes. The central aspect of GM nephrotoxicity is tubular cytotoxicity.
There are other antibiotics and antifungal drugs which could be used which are not nephrotoxic and other methods which don’t involve the use of drugs at all to remove bacteria from the culture but this is never done. The combination of starvation and poisoning of the tissue causes a cytopathic effect, meaning the monkey kidney tissue breaks down, which is the proof of viral existence and disease causation. More than that, this is the only proof virologists ever have for viral existence and disease causation. Everything else which follows is based on the viral culture, either through assumption that a virus has been proven in the culture or using the culture directly. Rigorous documented control experiments are never performed to establish that a virus caused the cytopathic effects and not the starvation and poisoning, in other words, the technique of the experiment itself. Again, anyone who disputes this claim, I would challenge them to find a paper proving this claim wrong. This process is fraudulently known as virus isolation when isolation means separation from anything else. This process involves mixing the ‘virus’ assumed to be present in the body fluid sample inoculated onto the tissue in the culture with everything else. When tissue breaks down, particles known as extracellular vesicles or microvesicular bodies are released. Tissue itself also breaks down into these vesicles which are erroneously labelled viruses. Without first purifying the virus, there is no way to conclude it was responsible for the cytopathic effect or that the particles seen in the culture are the virus but it can be concluded that the particles are extracellular vesicles which are naturally present in the body and are responses to damaged tissue. These particles are known to be latent in primate cells.
Summary
We can see that these two methods are very different and neither have been employed in the history of virology to present day to genuinely prove the existence of a pathogenic virus. Virology is far from an exact science. Virologic study would benefit greatly from a revision of its methods, a crucial step necessary in the field given the societal, governmental, economic and personal implications of relying on its methods and conclusions, never more so than now.