One of the most important questions, which is also related to Koch's postulates, discussed on my previous chapters, and forms the basis for establishing a causal relationship between a pathogen and a disease, is: Does the virus (or the disease agent - be as it may be) pass from person to person and is thereby a contagious agent of disease, as of course everyone thinks? How contagious is the corona virus? Do people even infect each other with the virus in the way that is commonly thought and what is the mechanism of infection, if there is one?
These questions will certainly sound provocative to the lay person, certainly someone who rely on mainstream narratives. Actually, it would sound provocative and perhaps even far-fetched also to the average doctor, scientist, nurse, etc. However, if we stay solely in the field of science and data and put aside our emotions and prejudices, we can understand that there is a place for such questions as well. In science, it is necessary to prove empirically , through controlled experiments, a theory or a certain explanation for a natural phenomenon, and one does not rely only on folklore or on experiments in an artificial environment such as petri dishes.
Therefore, what is the information and evidence that proves the infectivity of SARS-COV-2 ? Are there such studies that empirically substantiate the theory surrounding the mechanism of disease transmission? And if not, are there such studies on viral diseases from the same family?
Amazing as it may sound, if you search in the scientific literature for such studies on similar infectious diseases (such as influenza) - you will not find them. All existing studies on the infectivity of viral diseases are based on infection experiments in cell cultures (on a Petri dish) or, on artificial infections of animals that do not simulate the real world (you are of course welcome to check for yourself and not rely on what is written here).
One of the few and best recorded studies in modern scientific literature where the matter of contagion between humans was investigated is the Rosenau study which was conducted during the "Spanish Flu". In those days and in view of the dimensions of that pandemic, there were researchers who found it very important to understand the (natural) infection mechanism and not rely only on folklore. In a large study carried out in the USA in the years - 1918-1919, led by researchers from important research institutes such as John's Hopkins and with the participation of the US Army, they carried out a series of well designed experiments in which there was an attempt to infect healthy volunteers with the Spanish flu. The researchers tried in every possible and acceptable way (but - which is reasonably similar to the natural mechanism) to transmit the disease from sick people, with clear disease symptoms, to healthy “volunteers” who had not been sick before, i.e. were not naturally immune to the disease.
Some of the attempts to infect included:
Staying in physical proximity in the same room.
Breathing and coughing on the volunteer.
Transfer of fluids and secretions from a patient to a healthy person directly into the respiratory tract and more.
Allegedly and according to the mainstream opinion, the researchers should have got a relatively high infection rate, especially given that the Spanish flu was considered one of the most highly infectious diseases in history, right?
Surprisingly, with the exception of very few cases (the experiment was conducted in several rounds on many dozens of volunteers), the overwhelming majority of the volunteers did not get the disease, which means that the infection attempts were a resounding failure!
After clarifying the background and the importance to receive information regarding infectivity - let's see what the Ministry of Health gave us. Here is the question I asked in the first information request, on 1/16/21:
Translation -
Q: Was there any infectivity test being done or other calibration test on human cells with the positive test (PCR - A.S.) results?
A: Infectivity test for the virus was done at the central virology lab of the ministry of health.
Of course, this short answer is not satisfactory and is vacant from meaningful content, so, I had to ask again and in detail. This section is taken from the additional information request on 2/9/22:
Translation -
5.In our previous letter, we asked for evidence of an infection test, but we received no proof of this Except for a general statement – " A virus infection test was performed at the Central Laboratory for Viruses of Ministry of Health." We ask you to provide us with documents or refer us to the scientific literature which prove the infectivity on human cells of biological samples from people who have tested positive to covid . If there are no such documents, we ask you to specify on which cells such infectivity tests, if any, were performed, and specify the test protocol.
6.We ask you to provide scientific proof that the isolated and purified virus in its entirety (this means - free from all other body secretions and the cells taken in the sample) is able to pass between humans and cause the corona disease. If there is no such proof, we will ask to see proof in other living organisms used for research in infectiveness
Here is the reply by the MoH:
Translation -
“The laboratory performed an infectivity test for the corona virus as follows: A sample was taken from the throat of a patient who is known to be positive for corona in a PCR test, was transferred to grow in a cell culture of type VERO-6 which enables the culture of corona viruses. After the growth of the virus in the culture, a PCR test was performed on the sample from the culture to confirm the growth of the corona virus. The cell culture and the source sample were deep sequenced to characterize the variant. By this It has been proven that the virus sampled from the patient is capable of infecting cell cultures and what grows in the culture is indeed a corona virus. In the laboratory was carried out cultivation of the main variants of the coronavirus including: wild type, alpha, beta, gamma, delta, lambda, omicron, etc.”
Did you notice that we are back in the petri dish again with the monkey cell culture? In fact the MoH reply describes the exact same (circular) process (and reasoning) that we learned in our correspondence with the chief scientist at the laboratory of the MoH regarding the virus isolation process (see chapter - 4).
I asked for documents, protocols, literature references, or any other significant and serious evidence, and what did I get?! A short paragraph that again proves how naked the emperor is!
Here is my conclusion - if this is the best evidence that they have regarding the proof of infectiveness, then this is a de facto admission that there was no infectivity test ever done on a living being!
What we see again, is an in vitro experimental procedure (that is, in a petri dish) where they take a throat sample that contains a whole world of micro-organisms and organic matter and within it a huge variety of genetic material, in other words, a rich cocktail of all kinds, and this cocktail is poured over a culture of monkey kidney cells and this, is suppose to be a proof of their theory of infection or transmissibility of the disease in the real world. How far away this method is from the research undergone 114 years ago by Rosenau…
And what is the justification for this kind of approach? Because there is not enough of the virus and it needs to be allowed to multiply in the cell culture... To "make sure" that there is indeed a virus that has multiplied, a PCR test is performed to look for the sequence that they originally looked for and found on the throat sample. It’s really a big surprise that they find what they already found in the beginning of it all…”there you go…you see - here it is…”
It is important to emphasize again - this is a closed circular process in which there is no control process or isolation of the variables.
We saw earlier that at no point was the virus fully and truly isolated and purified. The throat samples contains countless biological factors. In the process of growing the cell culture, a whole cocktail of other biological ingredients is added. This method does not prove anything!
- Why don't they perform an infectivity experiment on human cells and specifically - epithelial cells from the respiratory system? ( see why - chapter 7)
- Why don't they perform an infectivity experiment on whole, living laboratory animals ( in-vivo ), and settle with only monkey cell cultures or human cancer cells in-vitro?
- Why don't they perform an infectivity experiment on humans as they did Rosenau during the Spanish flu? This would have been a real infectivity test
The answer (in my opinion) - because it doesn't succeed and it doesn't work and it would simply prove the theory wrong, thereby risking the fall of an entire industry. The "infection" only works on cell cultures in a dish in the laboratory. It's fine as a first stage of research, but it doesn't hold up as proof in the real world and in live, intact beings.