The Missing Covid Virus—Answering Critics’ Objections
For months, I’ve been providing evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not been proven to exist.
Several recent objections to my analysis have been brought forward.
I’m not interested in mentioning names or getting into disputes with people who might otherwise be doing important work.
One objection that’s been raised: a key CDC document  I quoted , which openly admitted that the virus was “not available,” was not really published in July of this year. It was reprinted or updated in July; it was originally published in February, when presumably, the CDC might have had a problem obtaining isolated virus.
Really? The “pandemic” was already underway in February. The CDC, one of the two most powerful public health agencies in the world, couldn’t get isolated virus then—couldn’t get it anywhere. In other words, there was a declared pandemic without a proven virus.
That is a damning fact. I don’t care whether it was February or July. If the CDC couldn’t get the virus, no one had it.
No one had it, because no one had isolated it. Researchers simply assumed it existed.
Not only that, the CDC document   in which the agency admitted the virus was “not available” was a long article describing how to perform the PCR test for the virus. What virus? The one that wasn’t there?
You put together a test procedure that will change the fate of humanity, but you don’t have the item the procedure is supposed to detect. This is permissible? This is excusable? Not unless science is fairy tales.
A few superficial critics of my work should also realize this CDC document is far from my only evidence showing the virus hasn’t been isolated. They should read all my articles on the subject.
Another objection to my analysis: labs do, in fact, have isolated virus in the form of “viral stocks.”
But what does that phrase mean? It means SOUP. In dishes, in labs, researchers assume they have virus mixed with cells, mixed with chemicals and drugs and who knows what else. If this is “isolation,” a rabbit is a spaceship.
Further, it is claimed, because some of those cells—monkey cells—die in the dish in the lab, this means the virus is there and is doing the killing.
Nonsense. First of all, the cells are being starved of nutrients. Second, they’re open to being poisoned by the drugs and chemicals in the soup. The presumption of the virus doing the killing is unwarranted and absurd.   
The third objection to my analysis: researchers can assemble the PCR test without actually having the virus. They can substitute “synthetic RNA” which is a close match to the virus.
I see. And they know the synthetic RNA is a close match to the missing virus exactly how? Answer: they don’t know. They assume. They pretend.      
This would be like saying: “Ahem. There is an unknown planet in our solar system. We haven’t seen it, we don’t know where it is, we don’t know what it looks like, but we do know the moon is a very close version of the unknown planet. Therefore, we can use everything we know about the moon to infer a precise description of the unknown planet.”
This kind of tap-dancing might win you a prize at a junior high school variety show, but it has nothing to do with science.
For those who want to further explore the core issue of the existence of the virus—e.g., medical professionals, who have large gaps and blind sports in their understanding—I STRONGLY suggest accessing the work of Dr. Andrew Kaufman  and Dr. Tom Cowan .
I understand that some people who are very much opposed to the lockdowns and the economic destruction want to keep the argument along the channels of: the deceptive PCR test; the false case and death numbers; the dangerous vaccine; the ripping away of Constitutional and natural freedoms.
Anyone who has been reading my more than 20
Article from LewRockwell