About a year ago, I wrote and published my position on the existence of SARS-CoV-2.
I still stand by it.
It’s worth revisiting. File it under: “follow the actual science.”
If researchers had actually been interested in proving the virus exists, they would have a conducted a large-scale study. Here it is.
Take 500 people who have been diagnosed with the pandemic disease, line them up, and take swab samples from them.
Using correct and meticulous procedures, which involve centrifuging those samples, produce 500 clear electron microscope photos—one good photo for each sample.
Place the 500 photos side by side, and answer the following questions:
One: In each and every photo, do you see MANY particles of what is unmistakably a virus?
Two: In each and every photo, are these particles the same virus?
Three: Are these particles of a virus you’ve never seen before?
If you answer any of the three questions with a no, you go back to the drawing board.
Your attempt to prove the existence of a new virus which is causing disease has failed.
(You might have shown a new virus exists, but it is non-relevant, because you haven’t shown it is causing disease.)
If you answered yes to the three questions, you bring in a new team of researchers, who enroll a new group of 500 volunteers who have been diagnosed with the pandemic disease, and they conduct the same experiment. Why? Because confirmation of results by an independent group is part of what is called the scientific method. At one time, every high school student was taught the scientific method.
If this new group of researchers carries out the study and answers no to any of the three questions, the attempt to prove a new virus exists and is causing disease has failed.
If the new group answers yes to the three questions, a third group of researchers would enlist 500 new volunteers and carry out the test once again. This would constitute further confirmation.
If this third group answers yes to the three questions, then you have strong evidence. (Of course, the electron microscope is registering dead virus. It isn’t looking at viruses in action or motion in the body. So it isn’t infallible.)
Now you see the futility of claiming that samples taken from one, two, or three patients in a study prove anything at all.
Correct studies of this kind should always use large numbers of people. For example, what would you say to the clinical trial of a new drug that only enlisted three people as volunteers? Would the outcome be sufficient to apply for FDA approval of the drug? Of course not.
The large-scale study—with confirmation—I’ve described above has never been done in the case of “COVID-19.”
Therefore, no proof exists that SARS-CoV-2 is real and is causing disease.
The burden of proof rests with the researchers who assert that SARS-CoV-2 is real and is the cause of a pandemic.
They have told that story.
Since their story can’t be backed up, there is no reason to believe in the existence of SARS-CoV-2.
I could say a new measles virus or a new hepatitis virus or a new virus from outer space is causing a pandemic, but that, too, would just be a story.
(The link to this article posted on my blog is here
— with sources.)
(Follow me on Gab at @jonrappoport)