Proof that Sars-cov-2 has been isolated and purified

Mrs Sear made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Public Health England

Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.

Roedd y cais yn llwyddiannus.

Dear Public Health England,

There are many people who are of the belief that Sars-cov-2 has not been isolated and purified and so cannot be tested for, and that the tests used pick up any coronavirus and mark is as a positive test for COVID-19 when its influenza or a cold instead.

Please provide proof that the virus has been isolated and purified enabling the tests used to identify the virus Sars-cov-2 and not just pick up any coronavirus.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs Sear

FOI, Public Health England

Dear Mrs. Sear,

We acknowledge receipt of your email and request for information, which will be treated as a request for information under statutory access legislation.

Please note that requests under the Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs) will receive a response within 20 working days from the day following the date of receipt of your request.

If the request is for your personal data, your request has been handled as a data subject access request (SAR) under Article 15 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), then we will respond within one month of the receipt of the request.

Public Health England (PHE) is responsible for providing guidance and advice to government and front-line services for all aspects of public health. It is a designated Category 1 responder organisation under the Civil Contingency Act and this specifically includes the COVID-19 response, providing clinical expertise and wider public health advice and guidance across national and local government, the NHS and third sector. As such, you may experience delays when making statutory information access requests during the pandemic.

We will aim to address all requests promptly and within the required response timeframes. However when we are unable to meet the response timeframe we will keep requesters updated on a revised expected timescale for a response to their request. The Information Commissioner recognises this position in its recent guidance, see link: https://ico.org.uk/global/data-protectio...

Public Accountability Unit
Public Health England
[Public Health England request email]
Tel: 020 8327 6920
www.gov.uk/phe Follow us on Twitter @PHE uk

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI, Public Health England

1 Atodiad

Dear Mrs Sear,

Please find attached Public Health England's response to your request.

Kind regards,

FOI Team
Public Accountability Unit
Public Health England
[Public Health England request email]
www.gov.uk/phe Follow us on Twitter @PHE uk

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Bartholomeus Lakeman (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

The attached Public Health England's article “Duration of infectiousness and correlation with RT-PCR cycle threshold values in cases of COVID-19, January to May 2020” is not a response to this FOI.
This article is proof of that PHE did -or can- neither cultivate nor isolate the Covid19 virus.
In this PHE’s article, their conclusions are based on a polysyllogism of postulations which are left unverified; which include:
1) A positive PCR test represent a Covid19 case, and an asymptomatic person is not healthy. However, most of those who tested positive are not ill and have no symptoms; and therefor they are not a case, and a healthy person does not spread a flu infection.
2) Samples from the Upper respiratory tract (URT) is representative of the whole body; as it being also infected. However, most viruses in the URT do not entre the body, e.g. the lungs; and apart from a cough or a sneeze; a URT virus will not cause a person to be ill.
3) As representative of the whole population are 75% of their samples from those older than 41 yrs. . Be it that the median age of UK’s population is 40 years: only 48 % is over 40 yrs. of age. Further, less than half of their samples were suitable for their research; which puts further doubts of their samples being representative.
4) The Rt PCR test does discern the RNA of SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) from that of the 6 other corona viruses (the flu and common cold) and dead viruses and other RNA sources e.g. antibodies against said corona viruses, and the RNA from bacteria. However, PHE knows very well that said test is not a diagnostic and that it cannot made said discernment.
5) Of their samples, in the 1st week of symptoms the PCR test’s median Ct was 28, and PHE claims that a Ct of 28 proofs that the virus is virulent, contagious and the cause of Covid19. Yet ten days after symptom onset, the probability of culturing virus declined to 6.0%; as being non-transmittable. In the 2nd week the PCR test Mean Ct is 30.05. And after 2 weeks the Ct remains 31. There is no difference in Ct values between those with asymptomatic (median Ct = 31.2) mild-to-moderate (median Ct = 31) or severe (median Ct = 32.5) illness: the estimated probability of recovery of virus from samples with Ct > 35 is 8.3%. PHE concludes that low titres of infectious virus for human-to-human transmission remains uncertain. Herewith indicating that a Ct of 31 or more means that the virus is non virulent or non-contagious. Independent virologist claim that also a Ct of 27 means that the virus is non-virulent and non-contagious. Moreover, as of their samples the PCR test’s median Ct was 28; there is no proof that anyone was a covid19 case. Further, PHE found a higher proportion of asymptomatic cases in the age group 81–100 years; which was the group with about 80 % of the alleged Covid19 deaths. For which PHE had no explanation. Which suggest that they died from another cause.
6) Vero-E6 cells (isolated from an animal organ) inoculated with the respiratory fluid of an ‘Covid19 infected person’ and for its preparation also with other toxic substances; produces a Cultivable SARS-CoV-2 that can be detected by an enzyme immunoassay: herewith confirming the presence of SARS-CoV-2. However, this postulation skips too many uncertainties. There is no proof of that said fluid contains SARS-CoV-2, and it is likely that the inoculation of pathogenic and toxic substances in isolated cells: is on itself the cause of producing a pathogenic virus. Bearing in mind that many virologists claim that a SARS-CoV-2 like viruses are lab-made. And PHE concludes that cultivable SARS-CoV-2 from URT samples is only a proxy valuable for infectiousness: as a Cultivable virus is a hypothetical virus and is not the same as a cultivated virus. And it being propagatable is not the same as contagious: this depend on the immune status of the host. If PHE claims that the virus is Cultivable, then why didn’t they isolate it?
7) At the end of the article PHE admits “Correlation with observational epidemiological data analysing known infector–infectee pairs, and the dynamics of infectiousness and viral transmissibility are unknown. And yet PHE still holds-on that asymptomatic people are contagious: Which signals the motive of their article: promoting the Lockdown and its vaccine.

Gadawodd Amanda Johnstone anodiad ()

The link PHE provided Mrs Sear's does not work!

https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content...
7917.ES.2020.25.32.2001483

Gadawodd J Flynn anodiad ()