Written by: Corona Fakten

Corona: the comprehensible and verifiable refutation of the virus claims

After the request was repeatedly made to us, to take a closer look at the videos of Dr John Valley (pseudonym) to take a closer look now take the form of today’s article.

First of all, we would like to emphasize that we are sure that Dr John Tal acts with a clear conscience and with absolute conviction. It would be our wish if Dr John Tal would read this article, which refers to his video “Incorrect information regarding the availability of SARS CoV2 isolates cleared up”, and possibly recognize his misconception and work with us on the clarification. We’d love to have someone like him on our team! This should definitely be understood as an invitation and in no way as an attack!

Dr John Tal assumes that virus isolates do exist and that these have been properly documented according to the scientific rules of the art. In this article, however, we prove that this circumstance should by no means be assumed. At the same time, we will present a comprehensible and verifiable refutation of the virus claims. We very much hope that he will contact us or comment on another video on his YouTube channel.

Important additional information: We are looking for virologists and bio-computer scientists who are familiar with the (alignment), who support us in carrying out the necessary control experiments ourselves, as those responsible still refuse to do so to this day!

Puzzle peaces.png

In order to understand why the “science” of virology was upheld even though it had already refuted itself in 1951, we would now like to take you on a short journey into the historical process.

How did the existence of viruses come about and for what purpose did they come about?

To answer this question, let’s go back a long way in history, more than 100 years, in principle to the time of the work of Edward Jenner and Louis Pasteur, whereby we will concentrate here on the latter.

When Louis Pasteur postulated the existence of viruses, there was neither a basis for it, nor was there a suitable tool Electron Microscope (EM) for visualizing structures as tiny as one suspects for viruses.

Since Louis Pasteur could not provide an explanation for the cause of the illness of his “patients” and bacteria were out of the question, he postulated structures to which he gave the name “virus”.

All based on, from today’s point of view, very questionable experiments that have nothing to do with science.

Princeton University published a study of his laboratory records, in which they concluded that Louis Pasteur at the time, massively lied, cheated and manipulated.

In other words, all of his claims, on which the vaccination industry, among others, relies, are to be regarded as completely worthless, since Pasteur was extremely unscientific.

Until 1951/52 virologists believed that a virus was a toxic protein or enzyme that had a direct toxic effect and that it multiplied and spread in the body and could also be transmitted between humans and animals.

Medicine and science said goodbye to this idea in 1951 because neither the representation of the suspected viruses using an electron microscope nor the implementation of the necessary control experiments ever succeeded.

One had to admit that the decay of perfectly healthy animals, organs and tissues produced identical remnants that were originally given the name “virus”.

In essence, virology had thus refuted itself and pulverized its basis.

Please memorize this important historical event very well, because it exemplifies how one could actually get on the wrong track by carrying out control experiments in order to be able to steer research in more promising directions in the future.

These are exactly the same type of control experiments that are currently being disregarded again, although the responsible persons in the government and the Federal Ministry of Health, as well as dozens of virologists in responsible positions, have been explicitly advised of this.

It is now up to you to decide what level of importance you attach to conducting control experiments.

We recommend the following reading to study this historical aspect:

Prof. Karlheinz Lüdtke, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Early History of Virology, special edition 125, 89 pages, 1999. i. K. (A 2) preprint 1999.

Here it is shown that up to 1953 every virologist and the scientific community was aware and knew that all components that had been interpreted as virus particles up to that point had turned out to be residues of dead tissue and cells through control tests.

In 1953 a new dogma emerged, decisively pushed by the wife of the later Nobel Prize winner Crick, who knew how to depict a double helix. Her drawing was published in the famous science magazine “Nature” as an allegedly scientifically developed model of the suspected genetic material and this alleged alpha helix also became an icon of American global pseudo-science.

Quietly and very quietly, this was completely refuted by basic research, thereby INDIRECTLY THE ENTIRE VIROLOGY, without the public having ever been aware of it to this day.

All gene ideas were completely discredited in the year 2000, the time of publication of the contradicting data of the so-called Human Genome Project – the embarrassing claim that the whole human genome had been deciphered (although more than half had to be invented freely ) comprehensively refuted!

(See article from June 12th, 2008: genetic material in dissolution ).

It is summarized here that the “genetic material” is subject to constant changes, therefore cannot actually be a “genetic material” and the modifications in the sense of the genes causing the disease represent a misinterpretation.

In other words: What one used to present as “pathological genes” was neither sick nor healthy, but from a wide variety of factors, be it through consciousness, (environmental) factors, or other resulting changes, without any pathological value per se, caused.

This new virus idea (which, as just described, was refuted by basic research in 2000) , according to which the effective, virulent factor of a virus is not a disease poison, as previously assumed (until 1951), but a dangerous genetic material, that kills the cells, people, animals and plants, which was popularized along with the new gene hypothesis.

Instead of viruses as poisonous proteins, from 1954 viruses were presented as a genetic strand of pathological genes, which have the potential to make the body sick, but above all constantly mutate (the perfect anemy).

On the one hand, to suddenly arise from a harmless form in this way (mutation) , but on the other hand, also to render any vaccine ineffective more or less quickly. But sometimes also – such as in 2009, when 93% of the vaccinable population rejected the highly toxic swine flu vaccination with nanoparticles as so-called “potentiators”. The alleged swine flue actually, factually and practically overnight, as dictated by an invisible magic hand, also effectively disappeared from the media.

And since then they have not mutated back into their dangerous form. We witnessed a hitherto unique biological miracle: in just one night, all swine flu viruses mutated into a harmless and invisible version at the same time, because they were never seen again – despite billions in investments in their test procedures and of course in the vaccine … Job creation measures for the east of the flourishing republic 31,62 of the 34 million vaccine doses were destroyed in a waste-to-energy plant in Magdeburg …

The coercive logic of the disease poison (Latin virus) cell theory, which was raised to a dogma in 1858 (by Rudolf Virchow) :

  • first off the idea of undefined viruses,

  • then the idea of pathogenic bacteria,

  • then the bacterial toxins,

  • then the toxin viruses

  • until the abandonment of this idea in 1952.

From 1953 Virchow’s disease poison idea became the idea of gene viruses (which has already been refuted).

To understand why Dr. John Tal’s study with the claim of a virus isolate is unable to prove exactly that, we have to turn to the origin of the corona panic.

The following study is used by Dr. John Tal in his video as evidence:

“Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States”

We’ll get into these in more detail later.

You have to be aware that the exclusive basis on which this US study is built does not already contain any evidence of a novel and disease-causing virus – on the contrary. If you then read the study more closely, you will clearly find the evidence that no virus was searched for and also not found. Typical, very short snippets of so-called genetic material were only mentally added up to form a complete, very long gene strand, which, however, does not exist in reality.

Due to this fact alone, all other publications, whether from the USA, England, Germany, France, Korea, Canada and Co. do not constitute evidence of a disease-causing virus. Because all of these are also based on the assumption of the first suggested sequences of a genome, which the Chinese have given.

The publication by Fan Wu et al, in Nature, Vol 579 of 3.2.2020, in which the genome (complete genetic strand) of the SARS-CoV-2 was presented for the first time and advanced to the submission of all further alignments ( alignments) , could be seen that the entire RNA obtained from a bronchial lavage (BALF) of a patient had clearly been used without any isolation or enrichment of viral structures or nucleic acids having taken place beforehand.

In this publication, Prof. Zhang describes how, using short gene segments with a length of only 21 and 25 nucleotides (these are the default parameters in the alignment programs Megahit and Trinity), using a given sequence of a genome (harmless bat- Coronavirus) using seven different, very complex methods, including statistical methods, a genome of 29,803 nucleotides is calculated.

This RNA was then converted into cDNA and molecules with a length of just 150 nucleotides were sequenced in order to use these to construct the complete genome with a length of approx. 30,000 nucleotides purely arithmetically.

He assumes – without explicitly naming this – that the short sequences from which he adds up the proposed sequence of the genome of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are of a viral nature because they contain longer sequences that result from the overlap (= Contigs) of the short 21 and 25 pieces and which have similarity to human sequences, excludes them from being added later to the viral genome.

In simple terms this means:

Since the human sequences “known” to us have been subtracted or removed from the mixture of genetic material, the remainder of the sequences, born of confused obsessional thinking ( in 1954 John Franklin Enders was awarded the Nobel Prize). It is assumed, that this viral nature must just be.

Now comes the essential and elementary note!

Prof. Zhang and everyone else overlooked the fact that known and unknown microbes of all kinds and their RNA remnants can also be found in the bronchial lavage obtained.

95% of the observed microbes are visible, but cannot be cultivated, which is why their RNA and DNA sequences are not known. Because cell cultures (eg Vero E6 cells – monkey kidney cells) are never free from microbes and innumerable impurities of any kind, there is an absolute obligation to isolate the suspected virus and to obtain its own nucleic acid (in this case RNA) in pure form!

[Lake. Mirror science] | [Lake. Wikipedia] | [ NDR ] | [ future institute ] [ phagoflow ]

It is very likely that the genome of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was partly summed up from such short gene sequences (as just described), which is why it is possible to test people “positive” every now and then (if enough organic material is available and the sample was not taken from the – healthy – parotid gland) and why PCR experts say that everyone will test “positive” if you only increase the number of PCR cycles to over 40.

Likewise, people are automatically tested positive by the test if, when tested by the RT- PCR test,

a) too many mucous membranes are damaged,

b) bleeding occurs as a result,

c) in the nasal cavity the very sensitive olfactory bulb, a part of the brain, is mechanically injured or

d) a very large sample volume is simply taken.

Because in the body, even in every natural body of water and in all seas, an astonishingly intensive build-up and breakdown of nucleic acids of all kinds takes place continuously. Among them there are always those from which the only apparent genetic strand of the virus was conceptually constructed. The PCR virus test only detects very short nucleic acids that are claimed to be part of a virus.

We explain this astonishing fact, which completely refutes the test, by the fact that Prof. Zhang was able to calculate the entire genome from purely human material (which has not yet been achieved by anyone who has obtained the RNA sequences required for this directly from cell cultures) because one finds a much higher sequence diversity in humans and their microbes – especially in the case of illness – than in the relatively sterile cell cultures.

It also illustrates that up to now nobody has been able to repeat the result of the relevant “alignment” by Prof. Zhang, except in a purely synthetic way and in a circular way by the Swiss Institute for Virology and Immunology (IVI) under Prof Thiel, the translated Prof. Zhang’s proposed sequence into DNA synthetically and therefore – until recently only negligently – believes that he is working with the genome of a virus. As I said, a circular argument! (Our readers know why we: “Until recently, wrote negligently“).

Prof. Zhang does not describe any control experiments that are a prerequisite in science in order to be allowed to designate a statement as “scientific”. These control attempts, which also result from the laws of thought and logic that are constitutive for science – to exclude the obvious, namely from the body’s own short gene sequences and from those of the numerous known and above all unknown microbes that colonize humans – have not been carried out to this day.

The Chinese virologists have not carried out any control experiments to rule out

  • that even with human/microbial RNA from a lung lavage of a healthy person,

  • someone with another lung disease,

  • of a person who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2,

  • or from such RNA from reserve samples from the time when the SARS-CoV-2 virus was still unknown,

exactly the same addition of a virus genome from short RNA fragments is possible!

A method such as an alignment here, in order to calculate a theoretically long one from very short gene sequences that are not backed up by control tests, must not be called scientific. Scientificity is given here, but it is evident by no means, comprehensible and verifiable for everyone.

a.) In the alignment process to date, nobody has checked whether the gene sequences from which the SARS-CoV-2 virus genome was calculated did not come from gene sequences that originate from the metabolism of microbes that colonize humans and cell cultures.

b.) Only approx. 5% of the existing microbes are genetically recorded, which results in the obligation to carry out control experiments immediately because it is obvious that the genome of the virus was calculated in whole or in part from their unknown sequences in a multi-stage alignment “.

c.) It has long been known that the enzymes that produce gene sequences, not only through the known mechanism of “template switching”, constantly generate new gene sequences that cannot be recorded in any database and that the enzymes, the RNA gene sequences produce, do this even without gene templates. This means that new gene sequences are constantly being created that were not recorded with the previous methods. This alone results in the obligation to carry out control experiments immediately, because it is obvious that the genome of the SARS-CoV-2 was completely or partially computationally constructed from such unspecific sequences.

In this publication, Prof. Zhang expressly mentions that he did not comply with the rules for proving the existence of a virus, the Koch postulates. Not even the first postulate, the isolation of the virus.

Prof. Zhang explicitly mentions that there is only a correlation between the computational “detection” of this virus and actual pneumonia, but no evidence that his “discovery” is the cause of this disease.

A simple but handsome example was recently used by Naomi Seibt in her lecture in the Bundestag, which helps laypeople to understand how one can visualize this.

Please look at the following picture:

Lego virus PCR example.png

(small Lego blocks, left picture), a whole duck (right picture) from this soup of genetic material. All these small sequence sections (Lego bricks, left picture) have nothing to do with each other. Without a blueprint, an alignment, nobody could do anything with all these small, short sequence sections (except for creative children, the young at heart and especially creative people looking for evidence for an idea).

That is why the virologists at the CCDC used an alignment based on “coronaviruses” from bats. The algorithm now tries to construct a new duck from these many unrelated short sequences (Lego bricks) based on the template (analogously using another bathing duck), ie to create a model. This is a purely conceptual construct, it is not a real structure and has never been isolated as an intact and complete genome (the entire genetic material in SARS-CoV-2 almost 30,000 nucleotides long)!

Structures that are shown in EM images and published as images of viruses have never been characterized biochemically. Nucleic acid was never removed from such particles and determined. These particles are only issued as viruses and suppress the information that the same particles of this type are created every time “uninfected” cell cultures are treated in the same way as cell cultures defined as “infected”. Non-virologists refer to these particles as eg B. as phagosomes, endosomes, exosomes, transport vesicles and in cross-section as villi etc. pp.

You can find more information about this in our article:

How a single misinterpretation on January 10th, 2020 led the whole world astray

Supplementary analysis of the study from the USA, which Dr. John Tal states as evidence of the virus isolate

It concerns the study:

“Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States”

Right from the start, the study on which Dr John Tal relies:

“A novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has been identified as the source of a pneumonia outbreak in Wuhan, China, in late 2019 (1,2).”

The following source is referenced here:

A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019

In the first authoritative publication by the authors of the CCDC ( A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019 ) on the results of their research, “A new coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019”, there is no accumulation of cases with atypical pneumonia (“patient with pneumonia of unknown cause”) reported. They report that the patients found form a “cluster”, and can be combined to form a group with common characteristics. The common feature was the more or less frequent visits to a seafood wholesale market in Wuhan. How tiny the group of patients with atypical pneumonia actually was can be seen from the fact that the CCDC took swabs and fluids from the lower respiratory tract from only four patients in order to search for known and unknown pathogens.

In this study, which is considered authoritative, it says under Discussion:

Our study does not fulfil Koch’s postulates

Translated: “Our study does not meet Koch’s postulates”

This clearly proves that this study can at no time be evidence of a novel virus. The authors state explicitly that they have not isolated and identified a virus, otherwise they would have fulfilled the first of Koch’s four postulates!

What does this mean at this point in time?

The original source used by Dr John Tal citing the study used as a reference cannot provide evidence of a disease-causing virus.

As of 10.1. 01/12/2020 and the Internet tentative published collections of sequences which subsequently changed and on 01.24.2020 and on 02.03.2020 were re-released, this represented the result of the first two tests to identify the unknown virus. For this, the virologists at the CCDC had theoretically put together the sequences of short pieces of genes using computer programs to form a possible genetic strand.

The samples that were used to isolate the putative virus are pure assumptions based on a model in which the Chinese disseminated a genome suggestion that came about through alignment.

In the “Method” area “Cell Culture, Limiting Dilution, and Virus Isolation” this is documented as follows:

Contained 2 × antibiotics / antimycotics and 2 × amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 10 5 cells / ml. We added 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed them gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37 ° C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed cytopathic effects (CPEs) on a daily basis. We used standard plaque tests for SARS-CoV-2 based on the protocols of SARS-CoV and the Middle East Coronavirus of Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV) (9,10). We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37 ° C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed cytopathic effects (CPEs) on a daily basis. We used standard plaque tests for SARS-CoV-2 based on the protocols of SARS-CoV and the Middle East Coronavirus of Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV) (9,10). We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37 ° C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed cytopathic effects (CPEs) on a daily basis. We used standard plaque tests for SARS-CoV-2 based on the protocols of SARS-CoV and the Middle East Coronavirus of Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV) (9,10).

If CPE’s were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip. We used 50 μL of virus lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 µL of virus lysate to inoculate one well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate. “

  1. None of the studies carried out a really solid negative control, in which it was ensured that the “potentially infectious agent” or those short gene sequences from which the genetic strand of the genetic material is not already present in the starting material, the monkey kidney cells and the chemicals and nutrient solutions used alleged viruses is constructed. Both the introduced agents themselves, or those in interaction with the cell material, or this alone, or all together with the isolate from the diseased tissue could be responsible for the changes observed, which are interpreted as viral and for the release of short gene sequences from which later the virus genome is constructed by computer.

  2. Virologists kill tissue unnoticed in the laboratory
    Virologists do not use the word “isolation” in the actual sense of the word isolation and become suspiciously nervous when asked about it. By “isolation” they understand the creation of an effect in the laboratory, which they simultaneously interpret as
    a) infection
    b) evidence of the presence of a virus
    c) evidence of its multiplication
    d) evidence of the destructive power of the assumed virus.

    In reality, they kill tissues and cells in the laboratory unnoticed and unconsciously – through starvation and poisoning.
    This effect is known as the cytopathic effect.

  3. The alleged cultivation of the virus
    This confluence is known as giant cell formation and the “cytopathic effect”. This result of many violent and insane steps is interpreted as central evidence for the “presence, isolation, multiplication, etc.” of the suspected virus. Those involved then claim that they succeeded in cultivating the virus.

  4. In the publication 10% fetal bovine serum, 2 × penicillin/streptomycin, 2 × antibiotics/antimycotics and 2 × amphotericin B, the virologists used. This is known, among other things, from the report on the measles virus process ( see report 3 – cytopathic effect in monkey kidney cells is not specific to measles virus ). (See Figure 1 control experiment)

  5. Also in the publication by Bech, V. & von Magnus, P. (1958) Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathologica Microbiologica Scandinavica 42 (1): 75-85 describes that the cytopathic effect is not measles-specific but is caused by other factors.
    The publication on page 80 says:
    “cytopathic changes similar to those caused by measles virus may be observed also in uninoculated cultures of monkey kidney tissue (Fig. 4-5). These changes are probably Caused by virus-like agents, so
    called, foamy agents’, Which seem to be frequently present in kidney cells from apparently healthy monkeys ”

    Translated:
    “Cytopathic changes similar to those caused by measles virus can also be observed in unvaccinated cultures of monkey kidney tissue (Fig. 4-5). These changes are likely caused by virus-like pathogens called ‘foamy pathogens’ which appear to be are often present in kidney cells of apparently healthy monkeys “.

    This sentence is remarkable as it points to the unspecificity of the pathological changes that served as the starting point for the optical evidence of an infection in the first publication by Enders & Peebles.

  6. Prof. Karlheinz Lüdtke, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Early History of Virology, special edition 125, 89 pages, 1999. i. K. (A 2) preprint 1999.

    This reading is so important because it shows how important control experiments are in order to recognize that you were wrong. It shows that up to 1953 it was clear and known to every virologist and the scientific community that all components that had been interpreted as components of viruses up to that point were subject to control tests turned out to be components of dead tissues and cells. That is why it is so important to insist again and again on the lack of control experiments in the published publications. It is precisely these control experiments that are missing in the Dr John Tal-cited publication from the USA!
    For this reason alone, these and all other publications must not be presented as scientific. Since there is not a single publication with the so-called Coronavirus that fulfils the “scientific” criterion but was clearly unscientific, all Corona measures legally collapse – like a house of cards. The Infection Protection Act (IfSG), with which all corona measures are legitimized, clearly demands the scientific nature of all measures and all those involved in § 1.

    Since the scientific nature required by law is clearly not given in the case of Corona but has clearly been violated, all Corona measures are illegal and the damage caused can be sued for precisely this reason.

  7. For the simple reason that these mandatory control experiments were not carried out, this study must be classified as unscientific and is not worth the paper on which it was written. See the rules for scientific work (lege artis) that have been bindingly codified by the DFG since 1998 and signed by all the University rectors.

    Let’s summarize

    1. The genetic strand of the SARS-CoV-2 is just a model that was created on the basis of an alignment. In the publication by Fan Wu et al, in Nature, Vol 579 of 3.2.2020, in which the genome (complete genetic strand) of the SARS-CoV-2 was presented for the first time, all further alignments of all other virologists and biochemists were presented.

    2. The genome (genetic strand) of the SARS-CoV-2 was never isolated, only the entire RNA obtained from a patient’s bronchial lavage (BALF) was used.

    3. No control experiments were carried out which rule out, that the gene sequences are tissue-specific structures. Examples of this can be found in the following articles:
      How a single misinterpretation on January 10th, 2020 led the whole world astray

      RKI confirms: Neither virus existential research nor control experiments carried out
      —-
      These are the questions every virologist has to answer Nerves blank

      Court records confirm: No scientific evidence for the existence of the measles virus

      Corona_Fakten & Samuel Eckert refute corrective to the measles process

    4. Virology had already been given up in 1951 after those responsible had carried out the necessary control experiments.

    5. In 2000, the year of the publication of the contradicting data of the so-called Human Genome Project, the embarrassing claim that the entire human genome had been read, although more than half had to be invented, all gene ideas were completely and comprehensively refuted.

    6. The cytopathic effect is NOT! Virus-specific! ( see expert opinion 3- cytopathic effect in monkey kidney cells is not specific for measles virus )

    7. the rules that have been bindingly codified by the DFG since 1998 for scientific work (lege artis) and signed by all university rectors have not been and are still not observed today.

    8. Dr John Tal made the same mistake as everyone else. He had not noticed that the basis of his publications already provided no evidence and that the necessary control experiments were missing.

    9. Louis Pasteur, the one who massively propagated the virus theory, was convicted of scientific fraud.

    Source of information: (click here)