The missing COVID virus—answering critics’ objections
And… Dr. Tom Cowan explores the COVID virus invented out of sheer nonsense
For months, I’ve been providing evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been proven to exist.
Several recent objections to my analysis have been brought forward.
I’m not interested in mentioning names or getting into disputes with people who might otherwise be doing important work.
One objection that’s been raised: a key CDC document  I quoted , which openly admitted that the virus was “not available,” was not really published in July of this year. It was reprinted or updated in July; it was originally published in February, when presumably, the CDC might have had a problem obtaining isolated virus.
Really? The “pandemic” was already underway in February. The CDC, one of the two most powerful public health agencies in the world, couldn’t get isolated virus then—couldn’t get it anywhere. In other words, there was a declared pandemic without a proven virus.
That is a damning fact. I don’t care whether it was February or July. If the CDC couldn’t get the virus, no one had it.
No one had it, because no one had isolated it. Researchers simply assumed it existed.
Not only that, the CDC document   in which the agency admitted the virus was “not available” was a long article describing how to perform the PCR test for the virus. What virus? The one that wasn’t there?
You put together a test procedure that will change the fate of humanity, but you don’t have the item the procedure is supposed to detect. This is permissible? This is excusable? Not unless science is fairy tales.
A few superficial critics of my work should also realize this CDC document is far from my only evidence showing the virus hasn’t been isolated. They should read all my articles on the subject.
Another objection to my analysis: labs do, in fact, have isolated virus in the form of “viral stocks.”
But what does that phrase mean? It means SOUP. In dishes, in labs, researchers assume they have virus mixed with cells, mixed with chemicals and drugs and who knows what else. If this is “isolation,” a rabbit is a spaceship.
Further, it is claimed, because some of those cells—monkey cells—die in the dish in the lab, this means the virus is there and is doing the killing.
Nonsense. First of all, the cells are being starved of nutrients. Second, they’re open to being poisoned by the drugs and chemicals in the soup. The presumption of the virus doing the killing is unwarranted and absurd.   
The third objection to my analysis: researchers can assemble the PCR test without actually having the virus. They can substitute “synthetic RNA” which is a close match to the virus.
I see. And they know the synthetic RNA is a close match to the missing virus exactly how? Answer: they don’t know. They assume. They pretend.      
This would be like saying: “Ahem. There is an unknown planet in our solar system. We haven’t seen it, we don’t know where it is, we don’t know what it looks like, but we do know the moon is a very close version of the unknown planet. Therefore, we can use everything we know about the moon to infer a precise description of the unknown planet.”
This kind of tap-dancing might win you a prize at a junior high school variety show, but it has nothing to do with science.
For those who want to further explore the core issue of the existence of the virus—e.g., medical professionals, who have large gaps and blind sports in their understanding—I STRONGLY suggest accessing the work of Dr. Andrew Kaufman  and Dr. Tom Cowan .
I understand that some people who are very much opposed to the lockdowns and the economic destruction want to keep the argument along the channels of: the deceptive PCR test; the false case and death numbers; the dangerous vaccine; the ripping away of Constitutional and natural freedoms.
Anyone who has been reading my more than 200 articles about COVID  knows I’ve been tackling those issues since the beginning. But the existence of the virus is not merely a distraction. It’s at the starting gate of the whole effort to initiate new levels of enslavement for all humans. It can’t be brushed aside.
It would be foolish of me to criticize people who are otherwise doing very important work to stem the tide of the technocratic takeover of Earth, simply because they aren’t addressing the existence of the virus.
If a few of them want to criticize me, fine. I’ve been around the block more times than I can count. It’s not a problem. I’d suggest, though, they do more than a dip a toe into the water of the stupendous virus-fraud.
And don’t try the tactic of accusing me of “confusing people about the pandemic.” That is not a standard for measuring veracity. It’s actually a low-level con. When two sides disagree, proponents of one side assert the other side is sowing confusion. Baloney. The confusion, in this case, is inherent in the conventional view of virus-isolation and proof of discovery.
One disease one germ, a thousand diseases a thousand germs—this lock-step ironclad pharmaceutical propaganda of more than a century has caused monstrous harm. It’s time to end the madness.
We don’t need unanimity on every issue. But we do need a measure of good will and decency. I’m glad to report that, with only a few exceptions, this is what I find.
Coda: Blithely accepting the existence of the virus puts people on a slippery slope. From that point on, they may accept at least partial anti-human “containment measures.” Lockdowns under certain circumstances, some mask wearing, some distancing, some restrictions on the size and nature of gatherings, some isolation from loved ones, some tracing, some testing. Before they know it, they’re dealing from a position of weakness and compromise: “I agree that a certain amount of destruction is necessary, but not as much destruction as Fauci wants…” On moral, spiritual, strategic, political, economic, and scientific grounds, that’s disastrous.
Now, as a backgrounder, here is my article about Dr. Tom Cowan’s recent exploration of the COVID virus invented out of sheer nonsense: 
Dr. Tom Cowan explores the COVID virus invented out of sheer nonsense
—Dr. Cowan analyzes yet another key document posted by the CDC, in their journal, Emerging Infectious Diseases: “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States”—
by Jon Rappoport
October 19, 2020
The hits keep coming. The CDC used an arbitrary computer “tinker-toy” process to invent a description of the virus. The virus that no one has proven exists. This is the basic conclusion of Dr. Tom Cowan.
Dr. Cowan: “[The CDC journal article] was published in June 2020 [original publication, March 2020]. The purpose of the article was for a group of about 20 virologists to describe the state of the science of the isolation, purification and biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research. A thorough and careful reading of this important paper reveals some shocking findings.”
“First, in the section titled ‘Whole Genome Sequencing,’ we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, they found 37 base pairs from unpurified samples using PCR probes. This means they actually looked at 37 out of the approximately 30,000 of the base pairs that are claimed to be the genome of the intact virus. They then took these 37 segments and put them into a computer program, which filled in the rest of the base pairs.”
In other words, the sequencing of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was done by assumption and arbitrary inference. If this is science, a penguin is a spaceship.
Cowan: “To me, this computer-generation step constitutes scientific fraud. Here is an equivalency: A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.”
“The researchers claim they decided which is the real genome of SARS-CoV-2 by ‘consensus,’ sort of like a vote. Again, different computer programs will come up with different versions of the imaginary ‘unicorn,’ so they come together as a group and decide which is the real imaginary unicorn.”
As I’ve been stating , the “discovery” of the “new virus” was actually the foisting of a PRE-DETERMINED STORY ABOUT A VIRUS. Nothing real or believable about it.
But once the official pattern is laid down, others follow it dutifully.
Dr. Cowan uncovers more insanity in the CDC journal article. Using the ASSUMED new virus, in an UN-ISOLATED STATE, the researchers try to prove it is harmful by injecting it on to several different types of cells in the lab:
Cowan: “The real blockbuster finding in this study comes later, a finding so shocking that I had to read it many times before I could believe what I was reading. Let me quote the passage intact:”
“’Therefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH 7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T). In addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells [monkey cells]. … Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24h post-infection. No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero [monkey] cells, which grew to greater than 10 to the 7th power at 24 h post-infection. In contrast, HUH 7.0 and 293T showed only modest viral replication, and A549 cells [human cells] were incompatible with SARS CoV-2 infection’.”
“What does this language actually mean, and why is it the most shocking statement of all from the virology community? When virologists attempt to prove infection, they have three possible ‘hosts’ or models on which they can test…”
“The third method virologists use to prove infection and pathogenicity — the method they most rely on — is inoculation of solutions they say contain the virus onto a variety of tissue cultures. As I have pointed out many times, such inoculation has never been shown to kill (lyse) the tissue, unless the tissue is first starved and poisoned.”
“The shocking thing about the above [CDC journal] quote is that using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions containing SARS-CoV-2 — even in high amounts — were NOT, I repeat NOT, infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this ‘new coronavirus’ is not infectious to human beings. It is ONLY infective to monkey kidney cells, and only then when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix.”
“My friends, read this again and again. These virologists, published by the CDC, performed a clear proof, on their terms, showing that the SARS-CoV- 2 virus is harmless to human beings. That is the only possible conclusion, but, unfortunately, this result is not even mentioned in their conclusion. They simply say they can provide virus stocks cultured only on monkey Vero cells, thanks for coming.”
So first…use a process of genetic sequencing that involves concocting, out of an arbitrary computer program…
The existence and structure of the “new virus”…
And then, taking a soup that the researchers claim contains the virus, in an un-isolated state, inject the soup into several types of cells in the lab…
And discover the prime target—human cells—are not infected by the imaginary virus.
And after this good day’s work, walk away and pretend nothing odd or self-incriminating happened.
And oh yes, lock down the planet based on this “science.”
Naturally, we MUST take a toxic vaccine that prevents non-infection by the non-virus.
Pictorial content and emphasis added by (TLB) editors
(TLB) published this original article from the blog of Jon Rappoport with our appreciation for his contribution to raise health and freedom awareness.
Jon Rappoport is 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. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.