Drug Dissolution Testing

Author Archive

Click on the picture to play the video

If you prefer to read from the text, it is available here (link)

Please donate (by clicking the button below). Thanks.

COVID-19 is a recently-labeled illness presumably caused by a virus named SARS-CoV-2. The illness is considered contagious, i.e., assuming that the virus spreads from person to person directly or indirectly. It is believed that COVID-19 caused the pandemic resulting in a large number of deaths.

This article reflects an exercise in summarizing the data in seeking a potential trend from COVID-19 deaths to guide addressing the pandemic issue. (Continue here)

People should realize that reducing the Ct (cycle threshold) of the PCR test, as some suggest, may reduce the number of test-positive results. This will certainly help reduce the so-called pandemic—a trickery approach to bring the pandemic under control that never existed in the first place.

However, the fact remains that the PCR test is scientifically invalid, no matter how low Ct value one would set. To have a valid test, it requires to meet four well establish validation criteria: (i) specificity; (2) selectivity; (3) reproducibility; and (4) use of independently characterized reference standard. The first three criteria cannot be met if the reference standard (the #4) is not available. If the claim is that the PCR test monitors the presence or absence of the virus. Then reference virus must be available in its pure form. On the other hand, if virus RNA or its fragment is to be monitored, RNA or its fragment must be available as the reference standard and positively shown to be extracted from the virus (further details here).

Considering that the tests or testing are based on confirming the RNA sequencing only from an aliquot of media/culture/isolate, hence is a valid test, is pure nonsense. Such tests have no relevance to the virus, illness, and pandemic monitoring, and these PCR tests must be stopped immediately and preferably withdrawing all related results/data as false. This will be the legitimate and scientifically valid approach for getting out of the pandemic state.

It is hoped that science will prevail.

COVID-19 is an illness presumably caused by a virus named SARS-CoV-2. The illness is considered contagious, i.e., the virus spreads from person to person directly or indirectly. The virus is commonly viewed as a particle. For it to spread, the particle has to exist.

The problem is that such virus particles do not exist because no one has isolated them or positively identified them (details here).

If something does not exist, how it will transfer from one person to another. It can’t.

Therefore, wearing masks or keeping a distance becomes irrelevant. It is that simple!

As a part of a LinkedIn discussion (link), I provided the following (below) response to a query. The visitors of this blog may find my response informative and useful as well.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Steve:

Thanks for your kind words about my article and also for asking the questions.

First, to be clear that I am not a microbiologist or virologist. I am a chemist and have worked in the pharmaceuticals area for 30+ years (as a scientist with Health Canada). I gained significant experience and expertise in critically evaluating pharmaceutical products.

Regarding the claim of virus isolation, I am saying that the experiments microbiologists/virologists perform and describe, such as virus characterization, identification, belongs to the chemistry discipline. However, the chemistry work has not been conducted accurately; hence claims made are incorrect.

There are many ways to describe and explain the inaccuracies. One of which is that of isolation of a substance, in this case, a virus. If one needs to isolate a virus, one must go through multiple steps, such as extraction, purification, identification, and structure determination, resulting in a pure sample of the virus. Nothing of this sort has been done for the virus isolation, in particular, SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, it cannot be said that the virus has been isolated and identified, or even it exists.

On the other hand, microbiologists and virologists (among others) work with a modified definition and description of the term isolation, for their purpose, as taking a swab sample (i.e., separating virus from the host). That is not a good scientific practice.  Therefore, in reality, a virus never gets isolated in its true or pure form.

On the other hand, to appear scientific, the DNA/RNA sequencing is considered as a claim of “identifying” the virus in a swab sample without truly “isolating” it (we chemists call it a clean-up step). Some chemical steps using enzymes (commonly known as polymerization, again a chemistry step) are conducted, followed by taking some pictures of the soup with an electron microscope. Observing spherical bodies with spikes are considered to reflect the existence of coronavirus.

From this soup (note everything is from the soup, nothing from pure virus), DNA or RNA or its fragments are extracted to establish their sequences. There is no evidence that this DNA or RNA is from anything specific, including the virus – it is an assumption. Based on computer analysis and comparison with previously obtained “reference” sequence (usually obtained from WHO depository), which is also “isolated” in a similar manner (without isolating the virus), virus existence is established. If the sequence did not match the “reference” sequence (not a virus), it would become a new virus or new strain.

The publications, links you provided all follow the same or similar protocol as I summarized above. I have critically reviewed two such publications, one from Australia (the one you noted in your post as well), the other from the USA (CDC), where I explained: “science” behind “isolation” of the virus. Links are provided (link1, link2) please have a look.

I have been arguing for some time that nowhere I can find an isolated virus, so why people keep claiming isolated virus. My recent discussion with a microbiologist made it clear that the virus has never been isolated but misrepresented by incorrect definition of the word “isolation.”  That makes it clear why I could never find the sample and specimen of the pure virus because it does not exist. One may imagine my shock after hearing this – so I wrote the article.

I hope I answered your query adequately. Otherwise, let me know. I will explain it further. I like to make another point, without going into technical details, the sequencing (chemistry) part is pretty iffy.  It is well known to the people in the area that sequencing steps can produce highly unpredictable results. The PCR test, which in reality is based on sequencing, suffers this weakness. Hence one sees so many false positive or negative outcomes that make the lack of “virus existence” claim even stronger. (edited)