NOTE: Readers have sent me electron microscope images of what are claimed to be “isolated COVID virus.” An image here, an image there—this is NOT the way science is done, as I will explain fully in this article.
I have also been sent a CDC document that claims the COVID virus has been isolated. However, that document is dated two months earlier than the CDC document that admits they do not have the virus. So it means nothing.
Last week, I wrote and published two articles exposing the root of the poisonous tree: the CDC admits it does not have an isolated COVID virus.
Therefore, SARS-CoV-2, the pandemic virus, has never been proved to exist.
This shattering fact reveals the whole pandemic is a fraud. The virus, the test, the case numbers—all fraud. And the lockdowns were unnecessary and criminal.
Now I want to reveal the study that should have been done, at the outset, when scientists were first claiming there was a pandemic based on the discovery of “a new virus.”
Here’s what you would do if you were an actual scientist: you would line up a minimum of 500 people who have been diagnosed with the epidemic illness. From each of them, you would extract tissue samples.
Then you would correctly and meticulously put each sample through a procedure that would result in 500 viewable electron microscope photographs—one from each patient. You would lay all these photos side by side.
You would answer three burning questions: do you see, in each and every photo, MANY particles of the same virus? Do you see, in all 500 photos, that same virus? Do you see, in all 500 photos, a virus you’ve never seen before?
If your answer to any of these questions is no, you go back to the drawing board. You haven’t found sufficient evidence of a new virus that is causing widespread illness.
If your answer is yes to every question, other researchers will then line up 500 new volunteers who have been diagnosed with the epidemic illness, and they will perform this same experiment, in order to confirm or deny the findings of the first team of scientists.
If they, too, answer every burning question with a yes, then a third team of researchers performs their own experiment on 500 more volunteers. And if their answer to every question is yes, then you have something. Then you have an indication, according to conventional and traditional methods, that a new disease could be on the rise.
People continue to send me an occasional electron microscope photo from a research study on “the coronavirus.” Of course, as you can see, that is not what I’m talking about at all. A single photo from here, from there—irrelevant.
If you were an honest medical researcher, would you claim the result of giving a new drug to three patients justified the approval of that drug for use on a few hundred million patients? Not a chance. The same basic principle applies here.
The study I just described, with 500 patients each time, done several times with new teams, is what the scientific method demands: large studies; clear results; and then confirmation or rejection of the initial finding, by more scientists employing the same methods and materials.
One critic, after reading my description of the proper way to do a study on the purported “new coronavirus,” said, “This wouldn’t work because it is extremely labor-intensive.” Well, guess what? The result of declaring a pandemic caused by a virus that isn’t there…and the ensuing lockdowns and economic and human destruction stemming from that declaration…is “labor-intensive” to a far greater degree.
Stopping the production engine of the world on the pretext of finding a new virus, when no new virus has been correctly found and isolated, is a crime that supersedes the sweat and effort of doing proper science.
As far as what is actually going on in labs where researchers are fiddling with genetic sequences of this and that and making vast proclamations; don’t talk to me about science. Talk to me about liability and prison.
(The link to this article posted on my blog is here.)
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.