Yes. It has been isolated and shwon to be the cause of COVID-19. There are many publications to be retrieved easily from PubMed.

@Abdesselam Babouri: COVID-19 is not a virus, but a disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.

Greetings sir.

A group of researchers from my country isolated SARS-CoV2 and they declared that by using same procedure one can isolate and use the outcome to develop drug candidates.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.23.056309v1

Wish you happy and healthy days.

Dear Pieter,

Covid-19 is a new virus, it is a little difficult to do research and find good results and publish them.

Yes. It has been isolated and shwon to be the cause of COVID-19. There are many publications to be retrieved easily from PubMed.

@Abdesselam Babouri: COVID-19 is not a virus, but a disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.

Please see the following RG links.

Article Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Kor...

Article Isolation of infectious SARS-CoV-2 from urine of a COVID-19 patient

Article SARS-CoV-2 Isolation From Ocular Secretions of a Patient Wit...

If you enter the search term "COVID-19" in PubMed you will find 20,636 results (June 9, 11 am).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=covid-19

Christian G Meyer you say it was shown to be the cause? How was it shown? Were people infected with SARS-CoV2 and developed COVID? Can you link the publication, where it is demonstrated. Thanks.

May be yes

Mehmet Murat Kisla Thanks for this paper, which comes very close to what I am looking for. The problem, however, is that it is PCR identification, because they used the highly conserved N protein. Unfortunately the authors did not provide the primer sequences. So, how sure can we be that this is SARS-CoV2 and not SARS-CoV1? My own research shows COVID = SARS. Interestingly, the COVID19-RTPCR detection kit developen by the Robert Koch Institute in germany is also aspecific, as it also detects SARS-CoV1. Why are not specific primers chosen? Read also my paper which presents evidence for my point:

Article A SARS-like Coronavirus was Expected, but nothing was done t...

Pieter Borger Glad to be of help.

I see your point. However, I cannot offer an elaborate explanation about a solution since i do not have molecular biology expertise.

Thanks for enlightenment sir. I will examine your paper.

Please have a look at the link below:

Article Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient...

Please also see the following PDF attachments.

Harasit Kumar Paul Thanks for your link. I will go through.

Arvind Singh Thanks. Will go through.

Following

In 2003, Nature reported that SARS-CoV had two highly specific genetic fingerprints. First, unlike the other coronaviruses, the SARS-CoV strain of 2003 did not contain the HE protein. The HE gene is also absent from SARS-CoV2. Further, a short lysine-rich region (KTFPPTEPKKDKKKK) in the N-protein was reported to be unique to SARS-CoV. Intriguingly, the exact same sequence (KTFPPTEPKKDKKKK) is found in the N-protein of SARS-CoV2.

Both characteristics prove that the SARS of 2003 never really was eridicated but probably hid somewhere in animals (bats?). So, my thesis is that we are dealing with a weakened and slightly recombined strain of SARS of 2003.

To my astonishment, and in favor of my claim, the german Virology Institute (Robert Koch Institute, Berlin) made a aspecific RT-PCR test kit for COVID testing, but it detects SARS-CoV of 2003. So, in my humble opinion: SARS = COVID.

Article A SARS-like Coronavirus was Expected, but nothing was done t...

Hello Pieter Borger ,

As a layperson, I think I understand your insistence that Robert Koch's four postulates for determining when a microorganism is actually the cause of a disease be tested: (a) the microorganism must be found in every case of the disease; (b) the microorganism must be isolated from the host and must be grown in a pure culture; (c) the microorganism must reproduce the original disease when introduced into a susceptible host; and (d) the microorganism must be found to be present in the experimental host so infected. But let me suggest a logical - though not necessarily biological - possibility.

It has been known for some time that Koch's first postulate, (a), must be modified because it does not necessarily hold true if the person or animal is a carrier of the disease who does not exhibit any symptoms of the disease, i.e., they are asymptomatic. Perhaps the most famous carrier of a disease to which they did not themselves succumb was Typhoid Mary, a.k.a., Mary Mallon (1869-1938), a cook who infected whole households without having had any symptoms of the disease herself. Today, the estimates are that 2-4% of acute typhoid cases result in what are called “chronic carrier states” in these individuals, see,

[1] Mary Dobson; Disease, The Extraordinary Stories Behind History’s Deadliest Killers; Quercus; 2007; pp. 58-60.

[2] Wendell R. Ames, Morton Robins; Age and sex as factors in development of the typhoid carrier state, and a model for estimating carrier prevalence; American Journal of Public Health; Vol. 33; No. 3; March 1943; pp. 221-230. [Note, this citation was found in the References section of the insert accompanying the Typhoid Vaccine Live Oral Ty21a Vivotif® manufactured by PaxVax Berna GmbH, Switzerland. Caution, this insert misspelled “Robins” as “Robbins”.]

Besides typhus, cholera and dysentery can also reside within individuals without afflicting them with clinical symptoms.

[3] Sebastian G. B. Amyes; Bacteria, A Very Short Introduction; Oxford University Press; 2013; pp. 20-21.

Typhoid Mary would be referred to today as a superspreader. But what if the superspreaders of the coronavirus spread a SARS-like virus, which when replicating itself in an individual might change into SARS-COV-2 or not as the case may be, depending on some genetic trait of the infected individual? Such a mechanism would explain why Wuhan experienced an outbreak without being the origin of the disease. This mechanism would also obviated the necessity for an animal host (bats) or an animal intermediary (pigs) to faciltitate the transformation of the SARS-like virus into a SARS-COV-2 virus. It would also explain why some people have none or mild symptoms, while other people have prolonged or even chronic symptoms or death. As I said this is a logical possibility, but it may not be biologically possible.

Like Pasteur, Koch had his critics, and he also had his share of experimental demonstrations that clearly contradicted his aforementioned four conditions for microorganisms being the causative agent of a given disease. Perhaps the most famous contrary experiment was the one where Max von Pettenkofer drank a sample teeming with the cholera bacterium given to him by Koch, and, with the exception of a brief bout of diarrhea, was no worse for the wear. According to pp. 73-74 of the book by Waller, four of Pettenkofer’s students/associates also consumed solutions infested with cholera bacteria, again, without coming down with the disease.

[4] Paul de Kruif; Microbe Hunters; Pocket Books, Inc.; 1940.

[5] John Waller; Leaps in the Dark, The Making of Scientific Reputations; Oxford University Press; 2004; pp. 63-64 & 73-74.

No one knows exactly why Pettenkofer and company survived their experiment of ingesting solutions of the cholera bacterium. Waller’s hypothesis is that Pettenkofer et al. had all been exposed earlier to a weakened form of the cholera bacterium, which provided them with acquired immunity to the disease.

Another possible explanation relates to our genetic makeup, in particular to the portions of chromosome number 9, which code for, among other things, the various blood groups (A, B, AB, and O). Initially, it was thought that the different blood groups were neutral in their evolutionary advantage, but in the 1960’s it was realized that people with the AB blood type were very resistant to the unrelenting and wasting diaarhea that accompanies cholera and makes it so lethal.

[6] Matt Ridley; Genome, The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters; Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.; 1999; pp. 139-140.

For other evolutionary benefits to blood groups see,

[7] Arthur E. Mourant, FRS; Why are there blood groups?; in Ronald Duncan, Miranda Weston-Smith (editors); The Encyclopaedia of Ignorance; Wallaby/Pocket Books; 1977; pp. 311-316.

Regards,

Tom Cuff

Hello Pieter Borger ,

One last question and then I'll stop bothering you. You asked, "... I was wondering whether the virus SARS-CoV2 has been isolated, purified and demonstrated to be the cause of COVID19?" My question is how would you know that the virus sample was "purified", i.e., that it was free from contamination from other viruses, PPLO's, prions, etc.? From what I have read about vaccine production (see below), purity has always been a concern. This is one of the reasons that there are special chicken farms raising disease-free chickens to supply the fertilized eggs needed in vaccines, and the reason Hayflick cell lines are also used in some vaccine production.

[1] Paul A. Offit, MD; Vaccinated, One Man's Quest to Defeat the World's Deadliest Diseases; Smithsonian Books; 2007; pp. 52-56 (disease-free chickens) & 82-112 (Leonard Hayflick).

Thanks for an interesting and thoughtful question, and answers.

Regards,

Tom Cuff

Thomas Cuff A lot of interesting stuff, Tom. Will go through...and think about it.

Yes, gene sequencing has been seen in many labs.

many lab around the world reported isolation and full DNA sequencing of the virus

Thanks Mazen Krawi , I will go through. All very interesting.

It's done in Bangladesh too.

NOT PURIFIED

Virus Purification is very important in order to get rid of contaminations, such as exosomes, which can be full of RNA. So one better starts out with highly purified virus particles before sequencing and puzzling the pieces together.

Greetings from Canada Pieter Borger,

I am looking for the answer to your question as well for legal purposes. Thank you for posting it.

The only thing I could find thus far is this and It's highly questionable so far https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.02.972927v1.full

If I can find others, I will repost here.

The answer is: that SARS-CoV2 exist as a virus (exosome aprticle with an RNA genome) is now scientifically as good as certain. That it is able to fuse with human cells via the ACE2 protein seems very plausible. That it causes COVID has not been demonstrated, however. That would require unethical experiments. So, we have to wait and find out.

So what's the clinical definition of the disease caused by SARS-COV-2?

Corey Bender

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/surveillance/case-definition

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2312-y

PCR testing is not an adequate indicator of disease.???

I agree. It is all they have currently. The other symptoms can be anything, from pneumonia to influenza. What do you recommend/suggest?

I believe Arvind Sing is Wrong. Visualization of something resembling a virus inside a cell is no proof till genetic material can be extracted and matched to genetic material aspirated form a diseased tissue.

moreover in this imitativeness article, the authors of the 4 studies purported to identify the virus have admitted to not having isolated it. https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/

In this CDC document, on page 39 - : Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available..."

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

Still waiting for the isolation and purification study with subsequent match or prove of infectiousness.

Pieter Borger: Could you elaborate on your 5th August-comment? Quote: "The answer is: that SARS-CoV2 exist as a virus (exosome aprticle with an RNA genome) is now scientifically as good as certain." I am looking for more regarding the exosome-theory.

And so, it has bene isolated or not? I am looking for a clear answer, please...

Giuseppina Crescimanno There are now several papers demonstrating a sort of isolation and with the isolates they are able to induce a sort of Covid19 like symptoms. (see links above). For instance this one:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2312-y

Hi Pieter, it seems that there are some comments from persons who are of the view that viruses are a misidentification of microscopic cellular materials (Dr Stefan Lanka et al) and are seemingly seeking your support for the so called exosome explanation for the presence of apparent viruses in patients. Yet I get the impression that you are not supporting this theory?

Just for clarification.

I am not supporting the idea that we are merely looking at exosomen or microscopic debris. What I do hypothesize, however, is that exosomes might be the precursors of viruses. In a similar way that Transposbale Elements are the precursors of retroviruses, and microbes are the precursors of megaviruses. I wrote a book on origin questions including two chapters on viruses. Book can be found here:

https://www.amazon.de/Darwin-Revisited-understand-biology-century/dp/6202315113

That is an interesting theory. It is suggested by virologists that virons are a product of dying bacterial cells and that their function is to absorb decaying bacterial matter, as one element of their function. Virons, being viruses and I am sure you know. But not originating from some external source.

Hi Pieter,

The paper that you cited relies on a source of Sars-Cov2 from a W Tan (Under the sub heading Viruses and Cells it states "The SARS-CoV-2 strain HB-01 was provided by W. Tan."). My knowledge of this specialism is limited indeed, but as HB-1 relates to a types of gram negative Bacillus (see below)(https://academic.oup.com/ajcp/article-abstract/59/4/560/1764825?redirectedFrom=fulltext), then this might be significant? I cannot verify from the paper that you cite what they mean by HB-01 but does this suggest that a form of bacteria was utilised in the make up of the sourced Sars-Cov2 in which case is what is being found in the experiments maybe only the bacterium utilised (as we know viruses require a cell in order to replicate) and no attempt to test for the presence of viral material at all. The acceptance that there is viral material present must be taken on trust. It would be a useful exercise to communicate with the lab concerned to ascertain precisely how the virus was actually isolated.

Just raising the question. I have a long way to go to understanding these details as I have a broad medical sciences background so I apologise if I am erring in my rationale here.

Thank you Marco.

Yet viruses do require to be cultured in bacteria, so what I am saying might still be valid.

That TEM micrograph in Nature puts the size of this 'corona virus' at approximately 300nm. This seems rather large?

Andrew Syred 300 nm is rather large indeed. Coraviruses are around 80-100 nm.

The comment is from a vocal Darwinian from the Netherlands, but he has no biological merits at all. Het is a cosmologist, and a troll, indeed. He made the comment even before my book was released. My book describes why Darwinian theory is wrong and presents the scientfic data that falsify common descent and natural selection. Further it describes a novel TE-based evolutionary change theory, which does not rely on natural selection. On the side, this theory explains the origin of a subset of RNA viruses.

The genome is prepared to induce variation from within, to facilitate adaptation and speciation. That's my book in a nutshell, and yes, it is heavily anti-Darwin, the most tested and failed theory ever.

This week the german government will decide about a reduction of the freedom of their citizens. As an excuse for their measures and intrusions they put forward the "virus".

You find a petition here:

https://go.citizengo.org/LP2-Share-de.html?m=6&nid=183319&utm_campaign=

Best,

PB

Hi Marko,

Yes I am aware of the oft used Monkey Kidney cells to culture viruses. I posted a paper where bacteria have been used also. No problem just trying to understand this process.

Hi Pieter,

I find your answers to peoples questions insightful and in line with my thoughts. After reading a number of the replies posted I would like to hear your thoughts on the lack of specifically answering the question of sample purity and the testing of spike proteins using Sanger sequencing. How can we test something like this if it has never been purified (Koch)...more on this below. The outcome of this kind of testing is the basis for everything that is Covid related.

If the foundation of a premise is faulty, then so is the theorized outcome.

Maybe I am missing something, when PCR testing is mentioned to test for SARS-Cov2 , which in my mind is an inappropriate use of the test based on statements made in the past by Kary Mullis, are labs actually testing for the virus and or its components specifically? I don't think so. When I read studies that claim to have purified this virus I don't see any mention of a reference standard, and the testing methods are buried in the back of the study. So, how do they know what they have? Initially samples out of China were contaminated, again...faulty foundation. Is this what labs are using as a reference standard?

Also, when I read any scientific data regarding this viral (?) infection, there is no mention of how to strengthen host immunity. Mutation will always be a factor, as it has been since the beginning of time, whether it be facilitated by man or nature. We have the technology, wouldn't the best approach be to let the body do what it does better than any vaccine, and that is adapt? With assistance.

If I may, the myopic approach that I see being used in the prevention and treatment of this disease using a medical reductionistic approach seems doomed from the start. I would go into detail regarding statements made by ex Pfizer executive Dr. Michael Yeadon, but I won't. Should we not be spending our time looking at this from a more holistic inclusive approach? Or is the vaccine approach to big to fail, is the narrative set in stone? There are hundreds of published studies to validate host supported approaches, and yet very few researchers or medical professionals want to even discuss them.

There is so much more to cover, and I have asked more than one question... Thanks for your insights.

James