Question One: Has the SARS CoVid – 2 or now known as SARS CoVid – 19 ever been scientifically isolated and identified under the scientific method?
[3] “Hall of Shame”: An FOI request re “SARS-COV-2 isolation” submitted to Germany’s Federal Ministry of Health by Michael S. on August 9, 2020 remains completely ignored by the Ministry: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/German-Federal-Ministry-of-Health-ignored-FOI-request-redacted.pdf
Question Two: If CoVid 2 or 19 is not the cause for severe acute respiratory syndrome of SARS then what is the cause?
Answer to question two: SARS CoVid 2 or 19 is caused by pathological blood coagulation which is caused by chemical and radiation poisoning of the fluids of the body (especially the interstitial fluids of the lung) which leads to the symptoms of a fever, dry cough, loss of taste, shallow breathing, hypoxia, just to name a few and NOT the coronavirus which has never been scientifically proven to exist. Please read my published article on the cause of SARS CoVid 2 or 19: Here is the link to our article:
http://sciaeon.org/articles/What-Causes-Oxygen-Deprivation-of-the-Blood-DIC-and-Then-Lungs-SARS-CoV2and12.pdf
Citation: Young RO, Migalko G (2020) What Causes Oxygen Deprivation of the Blood (DIC) and Then Lungs(SARS – CoV 2 & 19)?. Integ Mol Bio Biotechnol 1: 001-007 See also our published peer-reviewed scientific paper; The Genesis of Severe Acute Respiratory (Syndrome) Disease or SARS (Coronavirus – COVID – 2 and COVID – 19) is Found in the Interstitial Fluids of Intestitium. https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/the-genesis-of-severe-acute-respiratory-syndrome-or-sars-corona-virus-or-covid-19
Question Three: Does wearing a mask or social distancing reduce the chances of infectivity from the SARS CoVid 2 or 19 virus?
Answer to question three: Since the existence of the SARS CoVid 2 or 19 virus does NOT exist then why wear a mask or social distance other than for the purpose of fear mongering for mind control of the population at large. Please read the following articles, “Is Wearing a Face Mask Good for YOUR Health Protection?” https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/is-wearing-a-face-mask-good-for-your-health-protection and Does a Cloth or Surgical Mask Provide Protection Against Chemical or Biological Pollutants? https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/does-a-cloth-or-surgical-mask-provide-protection-against-pollutants
The pores or opening sizes in cloth and surgical masks range from 80 to 500 microns, which is much larger than particular matter (PM) in the nano micro range such as nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen cyanide(HCN), titanium dioxide (TiO2), aluminum dioxide, carbon dioxide (CO2)l, bacteria, or even bacterphages or exosomes sometimes referred to the virus. Therefore, any of the above cloth or surgical masks are useless and provide no possible protection against PM less than 80 microns and nothing in the nano micron range.
Question Four: Is RT PCR testing accurately testing and identifying the presence of SARS CoVid 2 or 19.
Answer to question four: Absolutely NOT! According to nobel laureate Kary Mullis stated that, “the identification of a retrovirus can NOT be identified by a PCR test”. SUMMARY CATALOGUE OF ERRORS FOUND IN THE CORMAN-DROSTEN Scientific PAPER CONCERNING RT PCR TESTING FOR the identification of SARS-CoV-2 Renamed as SARS-CoV-19 Virus.
The Corman-Drosten published paper which has been relied upon worldwide contains the following specific errors: [1] There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. The described concentrations lead to increased nonspecific bindings and PCR product amplifications, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus renamed as SARS-CoV-19 virus.
[2] Six unspecified wobbly positions will introduce an enormous variability in the real world laboratory implementations of this test; the confusing nonspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus renamed as SARS-CoV-19 virus.
[3] The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus renamed as SARS-CoV-19 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection.
[4] A difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) also makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus renamed as SARS-CoV-19 virus
[5] A severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative. This Ct value is also not found in follow-up submissions making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus renamed as SARS-CoV-19 virus
[6] The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level. This fact makes the protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus renamed as SARS-CoV-19 virus
[7] The PCR test contains neither a unique positive control to evaluate its specificity for SARS-CoV-2 nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus renamed as SARS-CoV-19 virus.
[8] The test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no SOP. This highly questions the scientific validity of the test and makes it unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus renamed as SARS-CoV-19 virus.
[9] Most likely, the Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 renamed as SARS-CoV-19 virus.
Conclusion to my answer for Question Four
In light of my re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 and renamed as SARS-CoV-19 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.[7][8][9][10]
[1] Young RO, “Pathological Blood Coagulation and the Mycotoxic Oxidative Stress Test (MOST)”. Int J Vaccines Vaccin 2(6): 00048. DOI: 10.15406/ijvv.2016.02.00048
[2] Young, R.O., “The Effects of ElectroMagnetic Frequencies (EMF) on the Blood and Biological Terrain.” https://www.drrobertyoung.com/…/the-effects-electromagnet-f…
[3] Young, R.O., Young, S.R, “The pH Miracle Revised and Updated.” Hachett Publishing, 2010.
[5] Instructions For Use LightMix SarbecoV E-gene plus EAV Control, TIB-Molbiol & Roche Molecular Solutions, January 11th 2020: https://www.roche-as.es/lm_pdf/MDx_40-0776_96_Sarbeco-E- gene_V200204_09164154001 (1).pdfArchive, timestamp – January 11th 2020: https://archive.is/Vulo5 ; Archive: https://bit.ly/3fm9bXH
[6] Christian Drosten & Victor Corman, responsible for viral diagnostics at Labor Berlin: https://www.laborberlin.com/fachbereiche/virologie/Archive : https://archive.is/CDEUG
[7] Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020, External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results. https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
[8] The Genesis of Severe Acute Respiratory (Syndrome) Disease or SARS (Coronavirus – COVID – 2 and COVID – 19) is Found in the Interstitial Fluids of Intestitium. https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/the-genesis-of-severe-acute-respiratory-syndrome-or-sars-corona-virus-or-covid-19
[9] Young RO, Migalko G (2020) What Causes Oxygen Deprivation of the Blood(DIC) and Then Lungs(SARS – CoV 2 & 12)?. Integ Mol Bio Biotechnol 1: 001-007
[10] Young RO (2020), Missing in Action, December 4th, 2020. https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/missing-in-action-truth-about-viruses
Question Five: Who are the main culprits behind the coronavirus Plandemic?
Answer to question five: Bill Gates, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, Rockefeller Foundation, United Nations Children’s Fund, WHO, and the World Bank.
Please read my article on this bold condemnation of Bill Gates at:
[ 1] The Philanthropist – https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/the-philanthropist
Addtionial recent scientific articles you can read and share on SARS CoVid – 2 renamed to SARS CoVid – 19
[2] Is History Repeating Itself Again – https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/is-history-repeating-itself-again-again-again
[4] Missing in Action – https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/missing-in-action-truth-about-viruses
[5] The Blood Never Lies – People Lie! – https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/the-blood-never-lies-people-lie
[6] Do You Really Want to be in the First Group for the Coronavirus Inoculation? https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/do-you-want-to-be-in-the-first-group-for-receiving-the-coronavirus-vaccine
[7] Dismantling the Viral Theory – https://phoreveryoung.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/do-you-believe-in-the-viral-theory/
[8] Watch and listen to the Testimony of Dr. Robert O. Young in Bali, Indonesia
Question Six: Was There Evidence of Modifying Fatality Data by the CDC Without Oversight or Public Comment for SARS CoVid-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity & Federal Law?
Answer to question six: Absolutely YES!
A Historical Retrospective https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff9fe2d3ad957f.filesusr.com/ugd/adf864_c39029cd980642e48797cdb2ef965972.pdf
Key Quotes Concerning Modification of Fatality Data by the CDC without Oversight of Public Comment!
“Supportive data comparisons suggest the existing COVID-19 fatality data, which has been so influential upon public policy, maybe substantially compromised regarding accuracy and integrity, and illegal under existing federal laws. The key to initiating legal regulatory oversight of all proposed changes to data collection, publication, and an analysis is the Federal Register. This decision was made despite pre-existing rules, approved by the OMB, issued by the CDC, and in use nationwide for at least 17 years without incident.
These rules are published as, 2003 CDC’s Medical Examiners’ & Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting and the CDC’s Physicians’ Handbook on Medical Certification of Death. Considering these handbooks have been approved by the OMB and in use without incident for 17 years, there was no justifiable reason for the CDC to implement these changes, bypass the oversight of the OMB, and fail to provide 60-days for public comment, as they are legally obligated to do. By failing to act in accordance with Congress’ clear intent as to how an agency may propose changes to data collection as codified in 44 USC 3506 (c)(2)(A), there is no record of information the CDC relied upon to make its decision to change how deaths are reported.
Previous reports detailed the substantial changes on how causes of death were forcibly modified by the CDC through the NVSS, and how together, both federal agencies inflated the actual number of COVID19 fatalities by approximately 90.2% through July 12th, 2020.”
On March 24, 2020 the CDC, by way of the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS), issued COVID-19 Alert No.2 that significantly changed how death certificate reporting would be submitted for all fatalities with probable or confirmed COVID-19 involvement. This change in data reporting was exclusive for COVID-19 and in direct contrast to the previous guidelines used nationwide for the previous 17 years.
The previous guidelines can be found within the 2003 CDC Medical Examiners’ & Coroners’ Handbook on Death Registration and Fetal Death Reporting and the 2003 CDC Physicians’ Handbook on Medical Certification of Death. The major changes were as follows: • “COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.
Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc. If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II.” For the previous 17 years pre-existing/co-morbid conditions were reported in Part I, not Part II, which can impact statistical aggregation according to certified death reporting clerks interviewed.
Additionally, in the presence of pre-existing/co-morbid conditions, infectious disease that directly led to the fatality could be listed on the last line item in Part I as an initiating factor. However, that determination was always left to the discretion of the attending medical examiner, coroner, or physician who are far more familiar with the deceased patient’s medical history.
Additionally, if significant pre-existing/co-morbid conditions were present making the patient more susceptible to infections, these were more commonly entered in Part II as contributing factors rather than causative factors in Part I. The point of contention of this change is that it was made without official notification in the federal register to initiate federal oversight and mandatory public comment.
The underlying cause depends upon what and where conditions are reported on the death certificate!
However, the rules for coding and selection of the underlying cause of death are expected to result in COVID-19 being the underlying cause more often than not.” This quote tells the medical professional filling out the certificate of death what the cause of death is EXPECTED to be more often than not.
Not only is this presumptuous, but it also comes with the knowledge that the NVSS can reject any death certificate registration that they feel is in conflict with this alert or they can alter the final record without the knowledge of the signatory medical professional without oversight. This leaves the family of the deceased with the responsibility of correcting the public record should a grieving family member desire to take on more burden.
Additionally, one must objectively consider how COVID diagnoses are unethically incentivised financially for hospitals and congregate care centers where most of the reported fatalities have occurred.
Position – Laws in place, since 1946, are in place for a reason and must be followed, especially during times of crisis. Modifying certificate of death registration for only one disease greatly compromises the accuracy, clarity, and unbiased nature of the data. In doing so, it compromises the objectivity and renders the utility of the date virtually useless.
Additionally, because the APA and PRA were procedurally violated, it calls into question the integrity of the data that effectively shaped the reactionary response to public health policy development. Because fatalities associated with COVID are recorded differently than non-COVID associated fatalities, comparison between them for analysis is additionally compromised. The proverbial ability to compare apples (COVID) to apples (Flu) is impossible without correcting all certificates of death.
Nonetheless, there is hope. Each fatality with a confirmed PCR test must have a record at the conducting lab of the date of the test and the cycle threshold value that determined the positive lab result. According to the published work of Dr. Jefferson, we know that replication-competent virus is unlikely above a cycle threshold (CT) of 25 and certainly above 34.
If we were able to have the date of the death certificate, the date of the positive PCR, the Ct value that a signal was detected on the individual’s PCR, and a basic knowledge of pre-existing/co-morbid conditions, we could accomplish the following:
[1] For all reported fatalities associated with COVID, we could eliminate all presumptive fatalities
[3] Eliminate all fatalities with significant co-morbid conditions as those conditions should have been listed in Part I
[4] Eliminate all certificates of death with a cycle threshold greater than 25 (conservatively, 34)
[5] Eliminate all certificates of death where the last positive PCR was more than 28 days before the day of death. This would provide a way to effectively correct death certificate reporting and clarify the number of deaths that could confidently be considered caused by COVID-19 versus the deaths attributable to a pre-existing co-morbidities where COVID-19 was not a significant contributor. In August 2020, the CDC admitted that 94% of COVID fatalities had on average 2.6 major pre-existing co-morbidities. Our previous statistical analysis from each individual state health department publishing comorbidity data through August ranged from an aggregate 90.8 to 95.2%, which was similar to the CDC’s confirmation.
Modifying Case Data Without Oversight or Public Comment COVID-19 Data Collection, Comorbidity, & Federal Law: A Historical Retrospective https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff9fe2d3ad957f.filesusr.com/ugd/adf864_c39029cd980642e48797cdb2ef965972.pdf
Supportive data comparisons suggest the existing COVID-19 fatality data, which has been so influential upon public policy, maybe substantially compromised regarding accuracy and integrity, and illegal under existing federal laws!
This brings me to question seven!
Question Seven: Why is your government masking, social distancing, closing businesses, inoculating with unknown ingredients which have not been proven scientifically to prevent the so-called coronavirus infection?
Answer to question seven: Ask your government to be accountable in writing!
Given the nature of this so-called pandemic and the first of its kind RNA vaccine containing fragmented genetic matter from a 14 week old male aborted fetus and other toxic acidic chemical micro and nano particulates such as luciferase dye and aluminum oxide I would suggest is is important to understand why governments ar connecting us all to the cloud with are own personal barcode identification for contact tracing, biomedical tracing and record keeping and digital currency accounting.
Dear President or Senator or Congressman or Governor,
[1] Please send me the government guidelines for the requirement of regular testing of asymptomatic patients.
[2)] Please send me the scientific proof that asymptomatic patients can spread this so-called virus known as the coronavirus from human to human.
[4] Please send me all scientific evidence of the accuracy of any testing for any virus including the coronavirus.
[5] Please send me all scientific evidence that the SARS-COVID -2-19 virus has been isolated using Koch’s 4 stage postulates or Rivers 6 stage postulates which are considered the gold standard methods for isolating and identifying any virulent microorganism, including the SARS CoVID-2-19 virus.
[6] Please send me scientific evidence of a pandemic form the coronavirus using cases of people that have actually died of SARS CoVID-2-19 not with SARS CoVID-12-19.
[7] Please send me scientific evidence of the death rate due to pneumonia for the Year-end 2019 to Year-end 2020 compared with all previous years beginning from 1964 when the coronavirus was first identified.
[ 8] Please send me any protocols you intend to carry out should I refuse antibody, antigen or RT-PCR testing.
[9] Please send me a statement as to why you see these protocols for the treatment of SARS-CoVID-2-19 should be enforced while taking away my God-given free-will to control my own body and my life.
[10] Please explain what it means to isolate the SARS-CoV-2-19? Please review the method and state your scientific method for isolating the SARS CoVID – 2-19 for identification efficacy?
[11] Please share any published peer-reviewed scientific papers on the isolation/purification of the SARS CoVid-2-19 and if not, to which scientific publications do you reference validating the existence of the so-called invisible coronavirus?
[12] Please share ANY key scientific publication(s) describing that a viral structure or molecules attributed to the HIV, Ebola, HBV, Hepatitis, Zika and/or SARS-CoV-2-19, virus have been isolated in the sense of the word “isolation”? (See illustration above)
[13] Please share the “control” experiments documented that prove that the nucleic acids used to align the genome of the HIV, Ebola, Zika, SARS-CoVid-2-19 viruses are actually viral in nature and do not have other tissue characteristics?
In case the “control” experiments mentioned in question 13 have not yet been performed please answer the final question:
[14] If such a “control” experiment has been conducted (the isolation of RNA from uninfected cell cultures, sequencing and alignment to the SARS-CoVid-2-19 genome), would you send me this data from one of the major peer-reviewed scientific publications such as, Nature, The New England Journal of Medicine, or the Lancet?
Please put ALL of YOUR answers in writing, have your answers notarized and then sent by certified/registered mail to the address below.
“Please send this letter to your Governor, Congressman, Senator and finally to the President of the United States – Thank you and God Bless You, Your Leaders, Your Country and the whole of Humanity with peace and especially love” Dr. Robert O. Young – www.drrobertyoung.com