The same in English ... —————————————————- A FOIA was sent to | Dissensomedico - Fabio Franchi

The same in English ... —————————————————- A FOIA was sent to the Spallanzani Institute (National Institute for Infectious Diseases - INMI), regarding the alleged isolation of SARS-CoV-2. Prof. Maria Rosaria Capobianchi, Director of the Clinical and Diagnostic Epidemiology Department of INMI, kindly replied to it, attaching 14 research articles to support her thesis.
She wrote to the applicant that the only means of achieving isolation in virology is to show: 1) a visible cytopathic effect on cell cultures, 2) presence of viral particles from cell cultures, 3) measure of the amount of viral genomes released by cells.
In this reply we object that all the above phenomena are non-specific and the only way to be sure is to physically isolate the virus. This is not only possible, but it is an accepted and standardized procedure in virology, also used for HIV isolation.
It consists in separating the presumed viral particles with ultra centrifugation in a density gradient of sucrose. The content of the corresponding band can be visualized with an electron microscope. If successful, the material in that band (pure virus) can be studied in its components, i.e. proteins, genetic code. Control tests are essential.
Despite more than 170,000 documents published on SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 in a year and a half, the above procedure has not been completed by anyone.
Among these documents, none showed a causal relationship between a positive PCR result and disease (interstitial pneumonia). The PCR test itself has never been validated or standardized, meaning no one knows what it identifies.
The publications in the list provided by prof Capobianchi fully confirm the absence of the required proof. Even more: they offer further proof that what have been recognized as SARS-CoV-2 particles cannot be coronavirus. They can't even be a single virus. In fact they are different in shape and size, often incompatible with the definition of coronavirus.
Furthermore, some of her papers show that the antigen test used, accepting all the parameters offered by the authors, gave rise to a huge number of false positive results (in a calculation, out of 36 positive results, 35 are false). Antibody tests are also very unreliable.
Lockdown and quarantine are founded on capriciousness of these tests. ————————————————————— Here you find the translation of prof Maria R. Capobianchi's answer to FOIA: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EfbetgAX_FrKx3xAKtBu513yr7kbJlSv/view?usp=sharing ——————————————————————- In the following attached pdf you find the reply to prof Capobianchi's