Question One: Has the SARS CoVid – 2 or now known as SARS CoVid – 19 ever been scientifically isolated and identified under the scientific method?
Answer to question One: NO! Please see the links below from government health departments and research institutes announcing that ‘SARS-COV-2 or 19’ has never been isolated, purified, identified and shown to exist or to be contagious according to the accepted scientific methods of Koch Postulates or Rivers Postulates!
 British Columbia’s Provincial Health Services Authority (Canada) admits (to an FOI submitter who prefers not to be named) to having no record describing isolation of “SARS-COV-2” by anyone, anywhere, ever:
 An updated “no records” FOI reply from the Public Health Agency of Canada where someone is clearly unhinged from reality, admitting that the request “has resulted in a “No Records Exist“” while insinuating that the problem is mine for not accepting an oxymoron (“isolation in culture”) + useless PCR tests + wild assumptions based on a wildly uncontrolled experiment as a substitute for actual “SARS-COV-2” isolation: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/PHAC-follow-up-A2020000110-20210202-redacted.pdf
 “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
 Expose published Jan 31, 2021 by Nobel Prize nominee Dr. Stefano Scoglio and investigative journalists Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter: Phantom Virus: In search of Sars-CoV-2
 Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation – CSIRO (“Australia’s national science research agency”) admits to having no record describing the isolation of ANY virus on Australia’s national “immunization” schedule, by anyone, anywhere, ever: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/CSIRO-Immunisation-Schedule-Response-Redacted.pdf
 New Zealand’s crown research institute, the Institute of Environmental Science and Research once again equates “isolation” with culturing and this time admits to having no record re isolation of “SARS-COV-1” or (once again) any “virus” on NZ’s “Immunisation” Schedule. And, they simply ignored a query re isolation of any “common cold coronavirus”: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ESR-FOI-reply-schedule-SARS-common-cold.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:
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:
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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
 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
 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
 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.
 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.
 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.
 We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on July 29 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version); TIB-Molbiol is the company which was “the first” to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted; further, Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there  and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.
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.
 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
 Young, R.O., “The Effects of ElectroMagnetic Frequencies (EMF) on the Blood and Biological Terrain.” https://www.drrobertyoung.com/…/the-effects-electromagnet-f…
 Young, R.O., Young, S.R, “The pH Miracle Revised and Updated.” Hachett Publishing, 2010.
 Young, R.O., Migalko, G., “Interstitial Fluid Lung Disease (IFLD) of the Interstitium Organ the Cause and Self-Care to a Self-Cure for Lung Disease”. International Journal of Cancer Research & Therapy, https://bit.ly/2xD8VBP, January 20, 2020
 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
 Christian Drosten & Victor Corman, responsible for viral diagnostics at Labor Berlin: https://www.laborberlin.com/fachbereiche/virologie/Archive: https://archive.is/CDEUG
 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/
 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
 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
 Young RO (2020), Missing in Action, December 4th, 2020. https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/missing-in-action-truth-about-viruses