The SARS CoV2 virus never existed
The statement published by the US health agency CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) on March 1, 2024, according to which Covid 19 can now be treated like a normal flu caused a stir. In truth, we have known that the disease known as Covid 19 is a normal flu since January 2020, that is, since the study known as Corman Drosten was published. What is Corman Drosten? The Corman Drosten is the scientific study on which the diagnostic methodology used by private and public laboratories in the USA and Europe to screen for the virus known as SARS CoV 2 is based.
On December 14, 2020, after three months of hard work researching and collecting the most relevant scientific literature on the diagnostic methodology known as RT-PCR, I published the following article:
“The Corman Drosten disaster puts an end to the Covid 19 pantomime”.
The article has as its starting point the research work carried out by the group of the Dutch microbiologist Pieter Borger, who, as soon as the Corman Drosten was published in the Eurosurveillance magazine, analyzed it point by point, highlighting the macroscopic errors which converged in a study known as Borger et al. This study highlighted all the discrepancies and inconsistencies of the Covid 19 test and consequently of the SARS CoV2 virus. Pieter Borger’s group subsequently sent a letter to Eurosurveillance demanding the withdrawal of the Corman Drosten.
My research work therefore consisted in making a simple summary of the scientific literature existing up to that moment on the diagnostic methodology used to screen the virus known as SARS CoV 2 and drawing conclusions, these conclusions are that it does not exist and has never existed no new virus identifiable as SARS CoV2.
The conclusions on the non-existence of the virus known as SARS CoV2 are given by scientific evidence provided by the same authors of the Corman Drosten, in whose front cover the authors bluntly declare that at the time of developing the test they did not have a sample of the virus and consequently used one from 2003 (the 2003 SARS CoV) morphologically similar and discovered by Christian Drosten himself.
Without having to go into detail, as established by the authors in the front cover of their own study, the Covid 19 test was developed in the absence of a biological isolate, or morphological body of the virus.
This is because, according to Dr. Victor Corman, co-author of the study and test, “the Chinese government never provided Dr. Drosten the virus isolate but only the virus pattern in digital format.” Since Dr. Drosten and Dr. Corman did not have the isolate of this virus known as SARS CoV2 available, Dr. Drosten by his own admission compared the genomic scheme of the virus in digital format and found that it was very similar to the 2003 SARS CoV , a virus he discovered in 2003.
Therefore the Covid 19 test used in public and private laboratories in the Western world (USA and EU) is based on a virus, the 2003 SARS CoV, discovered by Christian Drosten in 2003 and in circulation since that date. This statement is present on the front cover of the Corman Drosten which you can read below and on Eurosurveillance.
Therefore, when an individual goes to a laboratory to take a Covid 19 test, if they test positive, it means that they are positive for a virus that has currently been in circulation for more than twenty years.
We therefore understood that Christian Drosten used the 2003 SARS CoV virus as the gold standard to develop the Covid 19 test. This virus discovered by Drosten in 2003 is therefore, according to what Christian Drosten states in his 2003 study, known as Drosten et al, the virus that causes SARS. Drosten states that “the virus was isolated by cell culture technique and a 300 nucleotide strand was obtained by RT-PCR amplification.” In the Results section of the aforementioned study Drosten tells us verbatim that: “Genetic characterization indicated that the virus is only distantly related to known coronaviruses (identical in 50 to 60 percent of the nucleotide sequence). Which means that the virus in question cannot be classified as 100% coronavirus but only 50-60%.
In the Discussion section, Drosten tells us that: “Virus was detected in a variety of clinical specimens from patients with SARS but not in controls” (because control studies, which are crucial in order to reach 100% proof of virus isolation were not conducted).
Drosten goes on by affirming that: “One should bear in mind, however, that in the past, viruses have been initially isolated from patients with a specific disease but subsequent investigations revealed no actual association at all. (between the detected virus and the disease)Thus, larger studies with appropriate control groups are needed to verify or eliminate our HYPOTHESIS about the cause of SARS”.
If we read the conclusions of the aforementioned study, Drosten candidly admits that: “The new coronavirus could play a role in causing SARS.” This means that the 2003 SARS CoV is not only not a coronavirus and not even the virus that causes SARS but “it may have a role in causing the syndrome in question”.
In conclusion, the virus used by Christian Drosten as the gold standard for testing Covid 19 is actually only “a hypothesis of a virus”. And this is Christian Drosten himself that tells us this in the front cover of his study Identification of a Novel Coronavirus in Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 15, 2003.
Regarding the sensational news of recent days that the CDC now considers the virus known as Covid 19 as a normal flu, as you can see in the image below and in the link below. The British government agency UK Health Security Service has classified Covid 19 as a non-dangerous virus since March 19, 2020.
And in general if you read my article it is clear that British government institutions such as the UK Health Security Service or academic institutions such as the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) at the University of Oxford have never lied, nor hidden the truth, indeed, all the studies I shared and cited and on which my article is based were mostly published by the University of Oxford. The problem is that people, instead of delving deeper into the topic by seeing what exactly the health or academic institutions were saying, listened to the alarmist campaign of the mainstream media.
The Center for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) is a center for the dissemination of scientific evidence, whose director we remember is Carl Henegan co-author of Jefferson et al, the most complete study carried out on Covid 19 because Dr. Jefferson collected and examined all 29 existing studies up to then on the virus known as SARS CoV 2, highlighting all the inconsistencies and discrepancies but leaving the final judgment to the reader. On the contrary, Pieter Borger’s group in Borger et al openly denounced the Corman Drosten fraud.
The CEBM has always published updates from the studies I cited in the article: Jefferson et al, Bullard et al, Jafaar et al, Young et al etc. Which means that official British science has always known the true extent of this fake epidemic and has always published the results of the studies and it must be recognized that this credit must be attributed to the University of Oxford, without which we would not have known anything about this today fake virus but we would have remained totally in the panic created by our governments and the media.
Unfortunately, my article was not published in a famous scientific journal nor in a mainstream news media but was only published on my amateur blog on the blogspot.com platform and today if you want to read it, Google places two limitations. The first is to warn you that sensitive content is published on my blog and you must declare that you agree. The second is that to read the article you must be of age and therefore log in with a Google account. For this reason I had to publish it on my personal website. Despite all this, the article has been read by more than 50,000 readers from December 2020 to today but has never been reported by any mainstream news media outlet.
