Dear Public Health England,
On 29 Oct. You claimed (FOI ref: 05/10/rp/1476) to hold the proof that the Covid19 virus has been isolated and purified, and that its tests identify the virus Sars-Cov-2 and not any other coronavirus. This claim is made via PHE research article; https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content...
However, said article “Duration of infectiousness and correlation with RT-PCR cycle threshold values in cases of COVID-19” conclusions are based on a polysyllogism of postulations which are left unverified. Consequently, PHE is requested to provide the evidence of the followings:
A. Regarding (having) a positive RT PCR test:
1) It discerns the RNA of SARS-CoV-2 from that of the 6 other coronaviruses (flu and common cold), dead viruses, and from other RNA sources e.g. antibodies against said corona viruses, and bacteria;
2) It is validated against a gold standard for confirming the presence of viable, infectious virus;
3) The person is a real (scientifically based) Covid19 case: being ill and having symptoms of Covid19;
4) A healthy person is an asymptomatic case and does spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus;
5) A sample from the upper respiratory tract (URT) is representative for the infection state of whole body (e.g. lungs) and so a URT virus causes an illness more severe than coughs, sneezes & rhinitis.
6) PHE used samples are representative for the whole population: Despite that less than half of these were suitable for research, and 75% of the samples were taken from those older than 41 yrs. whilst 48% of the UK populations is older than 40 yrs.;
7) Covid19 is for about 75% the cause of death in the age group 81–100 yrs. Despite that PHE found that this group has (compared to other age groups) a higher proportion of asymptomatic cases:

B. Regarding the amount of Ct (cycles to run threshold) to get a positive RT PCR test:
1) A Ct of 28 proofs that the virus is virulent and contagious and will transmit Covid19;
2) Virus is still transmittable when Ct = 30 and the probability of culturing virus has declined to 6.0%;
3) There being no difference in Ct values between those with asymptomatic (Ct=31.2) mild-to-moderate (Ct=31) or severe (Ct=32.5) illness: Proofs that these Ct values represent a real Covid19 case;
4) Untrue is the claim from independent virologists, immunologist and biologist who claim that a Ct of 25 or more indicate a (PCR test) false positive rate of 95% or more and that the virus is non-virulent;
5) Of PHE samples, the PCR test’s median Ct was 28: proofs that their samples were from Covid19 cases;

C. Regarding viruses from URT samples being a cultivable and an isolated SARS-CoV-2:
1) The cultivable virus is produced and is detectable by an enzyme immunoassay: Despite that: (a) There is no proof of that said sample contains SARS-CoV-2; (b) It being inoculated -and, for its preparation also with other toxic substances- in Vero-E6 cells (isolated from an animal organ) can produce on itself a pathogenic virus: as many virologists proved that Covid19 like viruses are lab-made; (c) No antibodies tests (against SARS-CoV-2) with a low false positive rate have been found nor its specific enzyme immunoassay; and (d) Unknown is the “Correlation with observational epidemiological data analysing known infector–infectee pairs, and the dynamics of infectiousness and viral transmissibility” (PHE);
2) The presence of SARS-CoV-2 is confirmed: despite that PHE did not cultivate nor isolate the virus, and they concluded that cultivable SARS-CoV-2 from URT samples is only a proxy valuable for infectiousness;
3) The claim that SARS-CoV-2 has been cultivate and isolated; is not a breach of the Fraud Act 2006;

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear Public Health England,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Public Health England's handling of my FOI request 'Proof of that PHE research did cultivate and isolate the Covid19 virus.'.

As a reply to this FOI, PHE uses https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content.... It refers to PHE' own research article “Duration of infectiousness and correlation with RT-PCR cycle threshold values in cases of COVID-19” by which PHE claims (in FOI ref: 05/10/rp/1476) to have isolated the SARS-CoV-2 virus: proving the existence of said virus.
Said claims are derived from several techniques used in their research: URT samples; PCR test and several Ct values to discern covid19 cases; inoculations with preparation substances and Vero-E6 cells; an enzyme immunoassay to detect the virus (PHE research on enzyme immunoassays show that this technique has too many limitations for its results to be translated outside a laboratory situation). In said article PHE failed to validate each technique with a gold standard, and failed to provide a cultivable and isolated SARS-CoV-2.

Said website / article is mentioned in this FOI as the source from which are derived its questions: as to verify what PHE claims in their article. PHE replying with said website/article does oblige PHE to answer these FOI questions.

PHE' failure to answer these questions is PHE' self-confession to what it found by its techniques are artefacts of its tools false-positive rate and of its statistics multicollinearity for the relationship between the variabilities of said techniques: its redundant information causing a sophomoric error.

Said failure justifies a internal review as a remedy for PHE to provide the evidence of what it claims in their article. Otherwise PHE has confessed that what it claims by said article is false, misleading and a fraud.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

Yours faithfully,
Bartholomeus Lakeman

Dear FOI,
On 24 Dec. PHE, by its internal reviews, it has responded to 2 different FOIs: “putative flu vaccine / Covid-19 relationship (Case ref: 950)” of 4 August and “Proof that PHE research did cultivate and isolate the Covid19 virus (case ref: 1932)” of 14 Nov.

Whereas Covid-19 is classified as an influenza like infections (ILI) and the PHE claims that the flu-vaccine is protective against ILI. The FOI (04/09/ds/1175) “putative flu vaccine / Covid-19 relationship” by evidences of a correlation and a series of questions; it asks the PHE to disproof the correlation between the rate of flu vaccination uptake and the rate of Covid-19 mortality in various vulnerable subgroups.

On 29 Oct. PHE, in its response to FOI ref: 05/10/rp/1476, it claimed to have isolated the SARS-CoV-2 virus and have proven the existence of said virus’. Said claim was based on PHE’ research at Porton Down which it had published in ‘eurosurveillance’ as “Duration of infectiousness and correlation with RT-PCR cycle threshold values in cases of COVID-19”. Out of which I derived a series of verification questions placed in FOI (02/12/ds/2054) of 14 Nov. for to verify PHE’s claim of 29 Oct.

On 2 Dec, PHE, as to answer said verification questions; it replied with said ‘eurosurveillance’ article. Which provoked the request for an internal review: which reads “PHE' failure to answer these questions is PHE' self-confession to what it found by its techniques are artefacts of its tools false-positive rate and of its statistics multicollinearity for the relationship between the variabilities of said techniques: its redundant information causing a sophomoric error.”

On 24 Dec. in PHE’ review of case ref- 950 and 1932, it states “PHE, correctly, confirmed it does not hold the information you have specified in both your requests.” Which concludes that:
1) PHE’s research (as in “Duration of infectiousness and correlation with RT-PCR cycle threshold values in cases of COVID-19”) did neither cultivate, nor isolate, nor prove the existence of SARS-CoV-2 virus.
2) PHE’s claims and conclusions made in their research article are untrue. The PCR 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 diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection. 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. One cannot claim the presence of a Covid19 virus by using a PCR test average Ct value of 28: instead, it should be below 25. And their used antibody tests do not discern SARS-CoV from SARS-CoV-2 (with the latter not being available in the form of an isolate or clinical sample. And based on experimental validation, it turns out that their base pairs are a mismatch).
3) PHE has confirmed what was confessed on 24 August to FOI-1243364 “DHSC does not hold information on the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus”
4) PHE cannot disproof the correlation between the rate of the flu vaccination uptake and the rate of Covid-19 mortality in vulnerable subgroups e.g., those over 65 yrs. of age: their risk of dying from a novelty virus has been increased by the flu vaccine.
5) The cause of the deaths peak between week 8 and 14 was the Lockdown restrictions; which hit the vulnerable subgroups most hard. This period was too stressful: as the immune system is most impaired by stress, shock and isolation. Outside this peak period: the total all-cause death and the daily total death toll was in 2020 roughly the same as in 2017/19. So, one cannot claim its cause being from a Coivd-19 virus: Its existence as being the causality for Covid19 has not been proven.

PHE is asked either to challenge or to accept the abovementioned conclusions.

Yours sincerely,
Bartholomeus Lakeman