➡ The summary is that an RNA sequence was identified in a single pneumonia patient in China, in late 2019, via metatranscriptomics technology. Critics question the identification method and argue that various causes of pneumonia may have been overlooked. They also challenge the characterization of the identified sequence as a novel virus, suggesting the assembly was largely computer-driven and not isolated from a unique identical particle. Claims of the simultaneous identification of similar genetic sequences were seen as circular reasoning. Despite numerous subsequent claims of having identified SARS-CoV-2, no actual virus has been isolated. The science is seen as potentially as inaccurate as chance.
➡ The text describes the process of examining and sequencing genetic material, noting the inherent limitations and biases of current methods, including repeat sequences and short-read technology. It further critiques the use of these methods in identifying viruses and pathogens, using the example of a team that supposedly identified a novel coronavirus, suggesting the approach may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The text concludes by criticizing the rapid adoption of these methods and resulting declarations of health emergencies, implying potential manipulation or misinterpretation of data.
➡ The text criticizes the validity of PCR tests for COVID-19, expressing doubt over its ability to correctly diagnose infection, especially in the absence of a ‘gold standard’ for cross-reference. It also brings into question the World Health Organization’s updated definition of a pandemic, which no longer requires a large number of sickness or deaths, and its alleged misuse and misinterpretation of the term ‘infection’. The methods of RNA extraction using kits such as Roche’s are criticized as well, alleging them to be capable of producing misleading results by not accurately isolating viral RNA from other types of RNA.
➡ The text argues that the identification and characterization of Covid-19 and other viruses rely on flawed scientific methods. The author asserts that the genomic sequences purportedly belonging to these viruses are assembled using fragments of various origins from patient samples, questioning the validity of such approaches. The text also disputes the labeling of certain sequences as “viral,” criticizes the lack of physical isolation and purification in virology, and challenges the perceived lack of independent verification in these processes.
➡ The text refutes the legitimacy of computer-generated virus genomes, notably in the case of SARS-CoV-2, arguing that virologists misuse bioinformatics and lack sufficient experimental controls to properly affirm the existence and characteristics of disease-causing particles. It further contests conclusions drawn from experimental results influenced by subjective procedures and misinterpreted microscopic imagery, claiming that arbitrary identification of protein sequences and particles without valid proof of pathogenicity enables ongoing deception in virology.
➡ The preprint paper by pathologist virologist Dr. Sin Hang Lee claimed to provide irrefutable evidence of the existence and mutation of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, based on Sanger sequencing evidence from five nasopharyngeal swab specimens. However, Dr. Mark Bailey critiqued this methodology, highlighting the inadequacies in sequencing large genomes and questioning the origin and clinical relevance of detected sequences. Moreover, he criticized the lack of evidence proving these sequences come from identifiable virus particles capable of causing illness, suggesting detected RNAs may not necessarily conclude their provenance or origin.
➡ The text asserts that the identification of viruses in medical research, such as SARS-CoV, is often flawed, based on indirect evidence of certain sequences rather than direct isolation of viral particles. These research methods often result in high detection rates of hypothetical virus templates and induce fear of potential outbreaks. However, this approach is doubted as it could be merely detecting normal cellular sequences, not actual viruses. The text critically discusses these protocols and suggests they may be motivated by financial and publicity gains.
➡ This summary describes the skepticism around the validation of the presence of viruses, specifically the SARS-CoV-2 virus, in clinical studies. It critiques the methodology of virus identification, pointing out the lack of rigorous controls, purification, and confirmation through electron micrographs. This skepticism extends to the creation of mRNA and nanolipid biotechnology vaccines, questioning their necessity, safety, and efficacy. It also accuses agencies like the CDC of perpetuating this uncertainty and not providing clear responses to inquiries about their research methodologies and findings.
➡ The text discusses concerns over the scientific validity of various experiments regarding viral isolations, particularly around SARS-CoV-2. Issues such as lack of control in experiments, altering second antibiotic variables, and inconsistencies in cytopathic effects are highlighted, suggesting these laboratories are either failing to apply the scientific method or deliberately misleading their results. It also criticizes the use of in silico genomes and computer simulations as evidence of virus existence.
➡ The text discusses the questionable methods behind the claim of a new virus strand by scientist Fan Wu, which upon independent analysis, showed significant discrepancies in the data. It notes potential manipulation of genetic sequences that included human RNA. The premise of using PCR tests as a diagnostic tool for Covid-19 is questioned due to high error rate, lack of clinical correlation, and issues concerning arbitrary cycle threshold values. Stephen Bustin, an expert in molecular genetics failed to point out these inaccuracies and PCR misuse in the Covid-19 testing process.
➡ The text discusses in detailed criticism regarding the use of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test for diagnosing SARS CoV two virus, stating that while a PCR test accurately detects sequences, it cannot conclude the origin or significance of those sequences. It further sheds doubt on the validation for clinical application, highlighting the test’s incapability to establish diagnosis for a disease like Covid-19. The text also brings to light a historical incident where PCR testing led to a 100% false positive rate for a pertussis outbreak, underscoring potential misuse of the PCR as a clinical diagnostic tool.

Part two, the fraud used to propagate the Covid-19 plandem. Quick. It’s done in a single individual, a single human being. All right? There were 44 cases of pneumonia in December, I guess it was, of 2019. And the World Health Organization office there in China cataloged these 44 people of pneumonia that they had no explanation for. And this is in a country that has about a million pneumonias every year.

All right? What is so important about 44 cases? They don’t know what’s causing it. Lots of things can cause pneumonia. Chemicals can malnutrition, can, drugs can. Being old, can. Being a hospital can chronic diseases. I mean, there’s all kinds of things that cause the money. And with this one guy, okay, so now they have this one guy in a country of over a billion people. So then they did this massive, what I call a dragnet for all of the rna they bound and determined to find a virus as a cause for this guy.

So they did this dragnet for all of this rna, millions of little strands of rna in this person using technology that is called metatranscriptomics. And one of these gene things is technology driven stuff. All this technology is technology driven, not science driven. So I got this person’s lung sample of his lung. They do all this stuff, have all this fancy equipment. They zero down to get all these segments.

Then they have a computer that stitches all these little segments, these little fragments of rna, together, out of millions and millions and billions of these things, all right? And they came up with a sequence, and then they decided that they had discovered this virus, even though they never touched the virus at all. And they said that was the cause of disguised pneumonia in the Covid-19 fraud and war on humanity.

Dr. Mark Bailey and Dr. John Bevin Smith documented the invention of SARS CoV two by Fan Wu’s team, who assembled an in silico genome from genetic fragments of unknown provenance found in the crude lung washings of a single case and documented in a new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease. In China, insilico simply means in or on a computer, done or produced by using computer software or simulation, not what’s actually in that patient’s lung fluid.

In reality, it just means taking the tens of millions of genetic sequences in that one patient’s sputum sample and having the computer rearrange whatever small fragments it needs from the entire bulk sputum sample. As we covered in part one on metagenomics into a much, much smaller 30,000 genome sequence, they want to accredit to either matching an old in silico computer created virus genome like SARS CoV one, or even to creating a new computer in silico novel virus template like SARS CoV two by using software such as the trimomatic program Megahit Trinity Blast n diamond blast x r SEM bow tie two or in Fan Wu’s case, all of the above together.

Italian plumber in silico italian plumber the claim that anyone can declare they identified a new rna virus strain from the family coronavirity, which is designated here wh human one coronavirus from a single human subject diagnosed with pneumonia is farcical in itself. The authors tried to justify this by stating, although the isolation of the virus from only a single patient is not sufficient to conclude that it caused these respiratory symptoms, our findings have been independently corroborated in further patients in a separate study.

Firstly, there was no isolation of any alleged virus due to using metagenomic rna sequencing, as taking an entire bulk sputum sample from metagenomic sequencing is not isolation of only 1 minute portion of unique identical particles out of that entire bulk sample alone, and apart from the rest of the sample as covered ad nauseam in part one. Secondly, their claim of being independently corroborated is a reference to the February 2020 paper of Peng Zhao et al, a pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable but not proven bat origin, which cannot corroborate anything, and we’ll dissect the fallacy of that paper later in this film.

All that can be said about Fan Wu’s paper is that if circular reasoning is employed, then finding similar genetic sequences on more than one occasion is seen as confirmation of a virus. See, it’s not different, it’s the same, just changed. Look, I work for the phone company. I’ve had a lot of experience with semantics, so don’t try to lure me into some maze of circular logic. The geyse database is the treasure chest of this virological nonsense, and by August 29, 2022 had over 12.

8 million claims of having found SARS CoV two, and as of August 30, 2023, nearly 16 million claims of H CoV 19 variants. Better go get your 16,000,000th booster just to be safe. However, none of them can point to an actual virus. They are simply calling bingo by assembling similar sequences which they have aligned with Fanwu et al and other previous assemblies. No actual virus required. Febril is a fancy word for characterized by or accompanied by a fever.

It should be noted that while the Fan Wu paper does not make any pronouncement as to the cause of any case of pneumonia or acute febrile respiratory syndromes, stating, here we report on a series of cases caused by an unidentified pneumonia disease outbreak in Wuhan. Even the general medical community acknowledges that no quote unquote pathogen is identified in around half of these cases. Like the Liu Gao Shan paper viral and bacterial etiology of acute febrile or fever accompanying respiratory syndrome among patients in Qingai, China, where 445 nasal swab specimens were taken from patients with the exact same acute febrile respiratory syndrome symptoms as Fan Wu’s single patient used real time PCR, and yet only 225 out of 445 returned positive specimens, despite all having the same alleged viral or bacterial causing symptoms.

So knowing that this science is as inaccurate as a coin toss or a spin on a roulette wheel, what reason did Fan Wu et al have to suspect that their patient was harboring a brand new virus? Apparently because epidemiological investigations by the Wuhan center for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that the patient worked at a local indoor seafood market. It would seem a very weak reason given the fact that these wet markets are extremely common in China and that despite the bat origin theories, Fan Wu et al reported no bats were available for sale.

So if they admitted no bats were sold at the market, why did they say their study was independently corroborated by another study claiming a new coronavirus of probable bat origin? And why did the media push this ridiculous story down our throats? In any case, Fan Wu’s team collected a crude specimen of bronchial alveolar lavage fluid from their single patient. They do this by sticking a bronchoscope that pumps saline solution into your lungs and then sucks the fluid back out along with some of the patient’s crude lung fluid.

They reported that total rna was extracted from 200 microliters of bronchial alveolar lung fluid, or 200 millionths of a liter. Their methods section detailed that this was achieved using the RNE easy plus universal mini kit kyogen I e through spin column centrifugation, which basically entails contaminating and destroying your accrued lung sample by adding detergent buffers, proteinases, or other enzymes and heating it to high temperatures to destroy the cell membrane through lysis to release the rna, then contaminating it more with an acidic buffer solution along with ethanol or isopropanol and spinning it through a silica membrane to make the rna stick to the silica and then washing that with a new acid buffer.

More ethanol, isopropanol, and finally alcohol. And then adding more salt and heat, ensuring the sample is nothing like it was when it left your lungs. They claim that ribosomal rna depletion was performed during library construction. Later, we’ll get into why this is a dubious claim, as there remained a high, nearly 99% match with homo sapiens rna. But it is possible Fan Wu’s team went through the american public school system and don’t know the difference between a human being and an alleged virus particle.

We have to find a way to live with the homo sapiens in a way where they don’t affect us, we won’t affect them. Kind of like in a separation type of way. Have you ever seen a homo sapien? You don’t want to know. Yeah, I saw one once at the zoo. Describe it. Furry. Yep. Big gorilla looking homo sapiens. Let them die. Save the humans. I don’t know what a homo sapien is.

If they’re going extinct, that’s very sad. But at the end of the day, I don’t care. And neither does Fan Wu’s team. Fan Wu’s team then took that brew full of random fragments of genetic material and began shotgun sequencing that brew, shredding it up more into even shorter sequence lengths averaging only 150 nucleotides long. Shotgun sequencing is the method that was used by the private genome project. Shotgun sequencing requires multiple copies of the genome, which are effectively blown up into millions of small fragments.

Each fragment is then sequenced. The small fragments are assembled using an immense amount of computer power to match overlapping sections. The drawback of this method comes when dealing with repeat sequences. Often there is no way of knowing how long the repeat sequence is or in which of the many different possible positions the fragments overlap. Even the incredibly powerful software used to shotgun sequence the human genome couldn’t cope with this.

Couldn’t cope with this. So celera, the private company which relied on this approach, had to use the public data to fill in the gaps left by the repeats. To fill in the gaps left by the repeats, meaning to put sequences in there that aren’t really there. This is done because expedient technology like Sanger or PCR can only read short dna strands of 100 to 1000 base pairs long, not 30,000 long, like an alleged virus particle.

So any sequence in the brew larger than 1000 base pairs long needs to be chopped up into small pieces and then read and assembled by a computer, by finding ends of fragments with the same small sequences at the ends of other fragments and putting them together like a puzzle whether those fragments came from the same one original genetic source or not. Remember, from part one. There are dozens of different genetic sources, not only in tissue cultures, but also in a sputum sample.

Once you blend them all up into tiny fragments, the computer can reassemble any of them it likes together to create something that was never really there in the first place. Like an alleged virus. No different than Frankenstein, as both are fiction. Fanwu’s team also converted the rna to dna using a reverse transcriptase enzyme using alumina minisec technology. In total, they generated more than 56 and a half million of these short sequence reads from that one lung sample, and then fed those sequences into both megahit and Trinity software for de novo algorithm based assembly into longer segments.

Like trying to put a puzzle together without the picture on the box, contigs are just hypothetical overlapping long sequences created in a computer by assembling gel readings of thousands of tiny sequences whose ends have identical overlapping nucleotide sequences with the ends of other tiny sequences. It doesn’t matter if those tiny sequences all came from multiple different genetic sources in the lung fluid sample. Once all broken down into 56 million pieces and mixed together, they can be pieced together into tens and tens of thousands of new contig genomes that weren’t even there in the original lung fluid sample.

It is fitting that the word contig starts with con, because this procedure is one giant con job. Through megahit software, Fanwu’s team generated just over 384,000 different contig sequences, and the longest one generated was 30,474 nucleotides long, roughly in the ballpark for the alleged 30,000 long genome sequence of alleged SARS type coronavirus particles. They don’t say how many tens or hundreds of thousands weren’t even remotely close. That sequence was said to have a nucleotide identity match of 89.

1% to bat SL CovZC 45, another fictional construct. Bat in silico bat. Ironically, they already admitted in the same paper there were no bats sold or eaten at the wet market. They suspected. But facts don’t matter to virologists. Remarkably, 89. 1% is pretty close to the alleged 87% genomic match humans are supposed to share with a mouse, or maybe even a flying one. Hell, 89. 1% is even closer to the alleged 90% genetic similarity between a human and a cat.

Would you find a stray cat in your yard and say, honey, I found a lost child in the woods? Well, that’s what Fan Wu’s team did. Even more comical, the other software program, Trinity, generated over 1. 3 million different contigs out of the 56 and a half million small random sequences. But the longest genome it could fictionally assemble was only 11,760 nucleotides long, only one third of any alleged virus particle genome.

In other words, they would never have even found the genome in the first place if they had just used the Trinity software platform alone. In true pseudoscience fashion, they just went with the mega hit program that was at least closer to partially seeming to confirm their theory rather than investigating why the other Trinity program they rely on debunked it completely. That’s like blaming this guy for stealing your car.

The word virus suddenly appeared out of nowhere when they stated the genome sequence of this virus, as well as its termini, meaning boundary or border, were determined and confirmed by reverse transcription PCR. This is just more sleight of hand. PCR has no capacity or technical ability to either confirm or detect a full, previously unknown genome. That is why using a PCR test to detect if you have an alleged virus is as comical as looking at one tiny fragment of one single white hair under a microscope to determine if you have been trampled by a white horse, a zebra, a unicorn, a pack of sled dog huskies, or even your old grandma for that matter, if you take 56 million fragments of common genetic material found in everyone’s lungs at one time or another from various normal common genetic sources found in that lung fluid, and then computer assemble them into a fictional contig 30,000 nucleotide long virus genome and then use PCR to look only for a few short sequences out of that hypothetical 30,000 nucleotide model, of course you’re going to find it in seemingly alarming numbers.

Out of all of the billions of suckers who ignorantly take these tests and the ignorant medical practitioners who use them, APCR test is just amplifying and trying to detect minute hundred or so OD long base paired nucleotide fragments of unknown origin in your fluids or sputum and match them to the exact same sized minute nucleotide fragments of unknown origin that they originally took from someone with lung fluids just like yours.

To computer contig assemble a much larger fictional genome in the first place. Sometimes they match, sometimes they don’t. Which is why you can PCR test positive without actually being sick. Asymptomatic does not mean an infection that magically makes everybody else sick, but not you somehow. It simply means PCR found the tiny, normal common genetic material in your lungs it was looking for, but it obviously has nothing to do with actual illness symptoms.

The Nobel Prize winning biochemist Dr. Kerry Mollis, the inventor of PCR, said it himself. And with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody. It starts making you believe in the sort of buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else, right? I mean, because if you can amplify one single molecule up to something, which you can really measure, which BCR can do, then there’s just very few molecules that you don’t have at least one single one of them in your body.

Okay? It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick, and it doesn’t tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick, and it doesn’t tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that. Back to Fan Wu’s team using reverse transcription PCR to determine and confirm the genome sequence of an alleged brand new novel coronavirus.

As PCR expert Professor Stephen Buston, editor of the PCR Revolution, has explained, PCR requires you to know what the sequence of your target is. So once you know that there’s something in your sample, then you would try to isolate it? Yes. And then once you’ve isolated it, then you sequence it again or pcr it up. In other words, PCR itself cannot identify the origins of the sequences, and the methodology of Fanwu’s team did not establish the origin of their described sequences.

Yet in the very next sentence, they announced to the world that this virus strain was designated as wh human one coronavirus. Later, 2019 n CoV and its whole genome sequence of 29 903 nucleotides was put into the GenBank database by Fan Wu’s team as a novel, brand new virus. What new virus? We need to pause at this point, as it is where the fraudulent virus, soon to be renamed SARS CoV two, was invented out of thin air, a virus that the World Health Organization claims with no evidential support whatsoever, is the causative agent of Covid-19 itself, just a farcical rebranding of the same exact generic flu detox symptoms that have been around since the dawn of mankind.

For it is this genome that was submitted to GenBank on the 5 January 2020 that was seized on by Christian Drostenetel. Never forget that name and face to help produce their phony PCR protocol assay sequences in detection of 2019 novel coronavirus 2019 ncov by real time PCR. Drawston’s team just took Fanwu’s 29 903 nucleotide long sequence genome, assembled out of 56 million, blended up normal genetic material found in patient Zero’s lung fluid, selected a few small segments out of that 30,000 long Frankenstein sequence, and created the probes and primers for the PCR test, which in turn were published with indecent haste by the World Health Organization for all the world to use, thereby turning wh human one into the world’s reference genome for a claimed pathogen.

It is this invention that is responsible for the whole bag of destructive tricks imposed upon the world following the announcement of the pandemic by the WHO on the 11 March 2020 WHO has been assessing this outbreak around the clock. And we’re deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity and by the alarming levels of inaction. We have therefore made the assessment that Covid-19 can be characterized as a pandemic.

Pandemic is not a word to use lightly or carelessly. It’s a word that, if misuse, can cause unreasonable fear, leading to unnecessary suffering and death. However, anyone paying attention can see that there is no evidence whatsoever of a virus. In the Fanwu paper, a virus is claimed to be a tiny, replication competent, obligate intracellular parasite consisting of a genome surrounded by a proteinaceous coat. That’s what the British Society for Immunology tries to assure us, and it is alleged to be an infectious particle that causes disease in a host.

All Fan Wu’s team really had was one single 41 year old man with severe respiratory syndrome, fever, dizziness, and a cough, what we call pneumonia, and a softwareassembled model genome made from sequences of unestablished origin found in a single sample of the man’s lung washings. That’s it. To make it appear legitimate, they stated, the viral genome organization of WHCV was determined by sequence alignment to two representative members of the genus Beta coronavirus, a coronavirus associated with humans, SARS CoV Tor two gen bank number a Y 274119, and a coronavirus associated with bats, bat SL CoVZC 45, Genbank number MG 77293.

But when that was the only genome in the GenBank database that kind of matched their computer built fictional virus genome, they employed the pseudoscience known as confirmation bias, ignore what the facts say, and instead go with what confirms your virus origins belief. As Dr. Mark Bailey points out, both of these alleged SARS CoV Tor two and bat SL CoVZ 45 genomes are also simply in silico, hypothetical computer constructs that have never been proven to exist in their entirety in nature, let alone been shown to come from inside an alleged virus.

They’re both as fictional as Batman. For example, Bat SL CoVZ 45 was invented in 2018 in a paper entitled genomic characterization and infectivity of a novel SARS like but not SARS coronavirus. Coronavirus in chinese bats, by the process of 19 degenerated PCR primer pairs designed by multiple alignments of available SARS CoV and bat SL CoV sequences deposited in GenBank, the virus genomes have become what is possibly the greatest illusion in virology, an illusion which propagates a false belief that viruses are indeed being shown to exist.

The virologists themselves don’t seem to appreciate the fatal flaw in their own methodologies, even when they state it themselves in papers like a complete protocol for whole genome sequencing of virus from clinical samples from 2019, three main methods, based on hts or high throughput sequencing, are currently used for viral whole genome sequencing, metagenomic sequencing, target enrichment sequencing and PCR amplicon sequencing, each showing benefits and drawbacks. In metagenomic sequencing, total dna and or rna from a sample including host, but also bacteria, viruses and fungi is extracted and sequenced.

It is a simple and cost effective approach, and it is the only approach not requiring reference sequences. So here they’re admitting they’re using dna or rna from you, the host plus bacteria and fungi in your lung sample, to help make their virus genome again from part one, that is, not isolation and purification of a virus, that is Dr. Frankenstein instead. The other two high throughput sequencing approaches, target enrichment and amplicon sequencing, both depend on reference information to design baits or primers.

The limitation of metagenomic sequencing is that it requires a very high sequencing depth to obtain enough viral genome material. But as Dr. Mark Bailey and his rapidly growing list of colleagues keep pointing out to the seemingly deaf ears in the medical establishment, the more important limitation with all three methods of so called viral sequencing is that the process itself does not determine the provenance, meaning origins, of the genetic fragments out of all of the various garbage in a sick person’s lungs.

So how can any of them be used to establish the sequence of a previously unknown genome? Like Fan Wu’s alleged new coronavirus, they’ll take fluids from a sick host, from a sick patient, and they sometimes centrifuge it a little bit to break up some of the bigger particles. But they never separate everything. So there’s always going to be some sort of bacteria, other microorganisms, host material. There could even be potentially what they call micro vesicular bodies, like exosomes.

They’re guaranteed to be in that sample. And then my understanding is they take the kind of runoff of that culture and they put it through a metagenomic transcription program like blast, and they assemble a theoretical. An in silico virus, a theoretical computer generated virus. It’s not a virus, it’s a computer code. And then that’s what they test for. Yeah, exactly. They test for these fragments that are said to belong to this theoretical genome, which is said to represent an actual genome.

But no one has that model. No one has an actual genome to measure against, to compare it to. Exactly. Because every single one of these genomes, when you trace the references back, they all come from an unpurified source. It’s always going to come from some sort of tissue or cell culture. Ideally, what you would do if you were going to try and find a virus in someone, right? You would take their fluids, like if I was sick, you take my lung fluid, let’s say, and you would try to separate out the particles within that fluid that you believe is a virus.

So then you have just the virus particles, nothing else. No bacteria, no host materials, no exosomes, no microvascular bodies, whatever, can’t pronounce it. You would have just those particles. And with those, then you can test. Well, you can biomechemically characterize them. You can test. You can see if you can infect animals. They don’t ever do that. So they claim to have a photo of a virus, but they can’t pick that thing up with tweezers and actually sequence that, slice it up and sequence it.

So instead, they do the exact opposite. Thing is, they take this mishmash of countless ingredients from an impure patient sample that’s never, ever been separated, and then they crush that all together. And then their computer program builds up a concept. Mingo, to be perfectly clear here, we are not talking about situations where the provenance or origins of the sequence can be independently verified. For example, physically isolated bacterial cells, which is an easily manageable task even for undergraduate medical students.

Additionally, it is nonsensical to arbitrarily declare that sequences are somehow viral by a process of elimination. That is based on the fact that they do not have a previously conflicting assignation on the genetic data banks. Why not assume they’re unicorn sequences? They’re not in the data banks either. As Mike Stone just pointed out, none of the virologists are demonstrating that the sequences are viral in nature when they assemble the very first template and declare they have discovered a pathogenic virus that includes the two fictional human and bat virus genomes Fan Wu’s team found in the databases made the exact same way as his fictional virus genome.

And some future virology team will do the same thing with the lung fluid of someone with pneumonia. Computer, assemble the 56 million meaningless fragments into a 30,000 long genome, find an 88% match to Fan Wu’s fictional virus in the database, and call it sars three. And on and on. It’ll go like a broken record. At no stage are any virologists isolating and purifying these alleged viral particles and chemically and genetically characterizing them to at least try and either prove or disprove their relationship with the computerassembled genomic sequences they are allegedly made of.

If I told you your body was made out of Legos and not biological tissue, wouldn’t you demand that I prove that to you by comparing Legos to your tissue sample to see if they are made of the same thing? And yet, the first invented Lego assembled de novo, or new virus genome, becomes the touchstone with which other virus hunters will align their own in silico computer genomes or design confirmatory pcr protocols, metaphorically looking for small chains of fictional Lego blocks, not real life virus genome sequences.

We would like to see proof that virologists even have any laboratory techniques that even can confirm the existence of a 30,000 long rna strand in any of their samples with dna pulse field gradient gel electrophoresis can easily confirm a nucleic acid sequence strand of that length, but it still can’t tell you what that sequence is composed of, viral or other, just how long it is. It can, however, check that your sample really was that long and not made to that length inappropriately with Frankenstein in silico techniques.

However, with rna, this technique is not thought possible for such long strands. So how could it even accurately or reliably check if a 30,000 long piece of rna was even present in the sample? So when they say they’ve found the 29,000 plus long rna viral genome sequence for SARS CoV two on their in silico computer simulation, they only have a hypothetical model and can’t actually independently verify that the entire sequence even exists in nature.

In any case, these computer genome simulations remain a distraction because even if they did exist in nature, which they don’t, as we also covered ad nauseam in part one, the virologists would still have to demonstrate that this genome sequence belongs to a disease causing replication competent particle that can make a person ill and not just claim that it does through fictional Hollywood movies. And yet, even though not thought technically possible, Dr.

Mark Bailey had a long email exchange with evolutionary biologist Zachary Ardern from the welcome Sanger Institute, who suggested that long read rna sequences, as opposed to only shotgun sequencing, provided the necessary proof of the existence of SARS CoV two. Ardern referred to this April 2022 publication in frontiers. Long read rna sequencing identifies polyadenylation, elongation, and differential transcript usage of host transcripts during SARS CoV two in vitro or in a test tube, not in vivo in a living organism.

Infection involving implementing rna sequencing using Oxford nanopore technologies ont long reads claiming that it confirmed the validity of the virus genomes that had been previously artificially constructed through short read shotgun sequencing. The preferred study describes an experiment comparing responses between various SARS CoV two infected and mock infected cell lines, but infected by what the experimental cells were alleged to be infected with. SARS CoV two Australia virus Australia Vico one 2020, claimed by its authors, Leon Callie et al.

To be a virus isolate when isolation of a virus was never demonstrated in Kelly’s original paper of that alleged Australia virus, Kelly’s team claimed they isolated SARS CoV two from a 58 year old man from Wuhan, China, who arrived in Melbourne on 19 January 2020 with a fever, cough, and difficulty breathing. So they had to be looking for an alleged coronavirus named after its unique appearance from other alleged virus particles because of the spikes sticking off its surface like the sun’s corona.

But they admit they didn’t find anything like that in their cultures. Instead, they found spherical looking particles of at least nearly the same size as an alleged coronavirus, about 90 to 110? Diameter, but then admitted following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins. It was found that adding trypsin to the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology, meaning appearance, meaning the particles didn’t even look anything like alleged coronavirus particles until after the added enzyme trypsin digested the outer proteins to make them look more like an alleged coronavirus.

As usual, there was no valid control experiment performed with another human specimen to see if the trypsin and culture procedure gave the same resulting particles. You may ask, well, if there were no coronavirus particles in this 58 year old man’s sample, how did Kaylee’s team sequence his genetic material and get a greater than 99. 99% sequence identity match with other publicly available genomes in the database, like Fan Woo’s, from totally different people.

Isn’t that a slam dunk proof they must have the same virus? No, because when we look at the details in the Medical Journal of Australia of what Kaylee’s team actually did, we see that they prepared an Illumina library with a Nextera XT kit to break all of his genetic material down into tiny 75 base pair n fragments, and were then able to get 30 million fragment reads using CISPA sequence independent single primer amplification, which, unlike PCR, requires target sequence modification to tell it what tiny sequence to build out of that entire genetic muck.

You have to tell it what sequences you want it to make, and it does it. Then Kaylee’s team took those 30 million purposely. CISPA tailor made tiny sequences chopped into millions of tiny Lego pieces out of all of the larger crap in this guy’s lungs, that should fit perfectly like legos into the larger genome they were trying to build, and used both de novo assembly, not telling the computer what long contig sequences to assemble them into, but seeing what it comes up with randomly, on its own.

And more importantly, also alignment to reference sequencing, telling the predictive algorithm software to make an assembly that matches already existing genomes, like Fan Woo’s, from the database. Then they mixed the best results from both of those techniques together to get a 99. 99% match to what they wanted to find. That is why, even though Fan Wu’s team had 56. 6 million sequences to play with, rather than Kaylee’s 30 million, Fan Wu only used random de novo sequencing with no assigned target genomes, and then afterwards checked if any of those 1.

6 million total contig assemblies matched any already existing genomes and only got one with an 88% match to two already existing database genomes. It makes you wonder if Fan Wu had used 75 nucleotide long segments and the Kaylee dual method approach, if they could have got a 99% match to some other alleged genomes. It’s like telling the computer to assemble these random Lego blocks into this castle, which is what Kaylee’s team did.

Or telling the computer to take these blocks and assemble hundreds of thousands of random castles out of them and then check the castle database to see if any of them were at least kind of close in structure to this castle, which is what Fan Wu’s team did. And because 99. 99% is not 100% missed it by that much, you now have Kaylee’s beta CoV Australia Vic one 2020 genome to add to the other 16 million variants of H CoV 19, aka SARS CoV two created the exact same bogus way.

They are all doing the same scientifically flawed process on an infinite loop of circular reasoning. There is no independent validation of their result and they have no valid controls in place. All they can say is that if you go on a fishing trip for genetic sequences in mixed biological soups, then you can produce such results. Hence, the evolutionary biologist Zachary Ardern’s argument relied on the fraudulent product of a fraudulent long rna sequence read experiment as just described, being compared with a mock infection, where the former is invalidated by the misleading declaration of virus isolation and the latter mock infection invalidates itself as covered in part one as the virologists have changed its definition to allow too many other variables to be altered to be a scientifically valid control.

Since phosphate buffered saline solution contains zero of the dozens of various rotting material sources and toxic chemical additives found in a sputum soup sample prepared for any such dodgy invalid control experiment, obtaining meaningless longer reads does not change these foundational issues. Ardern was asserting that variations in monitored sequences and proteins over time represented evidence of an evolving virus, just like this butterfly must be evidence of a caterpillar virus, because there are apparently no other possible reasons protein sequences might evolve into other protein sequences over time or extreme changes in environmental conditions, let alone virologists chemically chopping up one thing into millions of pieces and purposely rearranging it all into something that wasn’t even there in the first place.

As virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka explains, these particles here are shown to us as viruses, but what are they really? They take broken down tissue, isolate this tissue from everything around the core that can still survive, and chunks of the tissue develop little fingers, spikes or crowns very quickly, like an amoeba that wants to rebuild the tissue again. That’s why everyone who works with these cell cultures and test tubes has to constantly separate them.

Again and again. These little chunks of tissue are misinterpreted as cells, and these little fingers with which it drags itself along to try and rebuild the tissue. These are called the villi, of which a cross section in the electron microscope underneath is presented to us as viruses. It’s that simple. It’s hocus pocus zimzalabim. We see that the virologists later we will learn why are completely antiscientific because they never, on any level of their work, do or document control experiments.

For example, they could have cut through chunks at the edge or in the middle? In the middle the diameter appears large. At the edge it is smaller like this and if I am outside the chunks of tissue then nothing would appear. And those on the edge are the only photos they are constantly presenting to us. You don’t even find areas where you just have some spherical particles. If you look, the rest of the tissue is still there.

You have an anti scientific error. This pseudoscience is the basis of their actions. I can only call something scientific if it hasn’t been refuted or falsified and you didn’t do that at any level of your research. In the end, Zachary Ardern is just another victim of virology’s deception through their specious attachment of the word viral to both these visual particles of unknown origin and these computerassembled protein sequences.

Despite the fact that when all such tens of millions of sequences and proteins were originally detected in sputum samples and tissue culture experiments, they were not shown to belong to pathogenic viruses. The claim by virologists that they are viral still continues to this day. Virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka summed up virology perfectly in 5 seconds what they have in reality in their test tubes, right? They have nothing along the same lines.

And a few months after that awkward exchange with Ardern, who couldn’t give any real scientific evidence, so he simply ran out of unpaid personal time to discuss the most important issue of our time. The pathologist virologist Dr. Sin Hang Lee published his preprint paper implementation of the ECDC who recommendation for molecular diagnosis of SARS CoV two omicron subvariants and its challenges I’ll say it is challenging to detect a subvariant mutation of something that never existed in the first place, but that never stops virologists Lee claimed that his paper provided irrefutable Sanger sequencing evidence that the virus SARS CoV two exists and keeps mutating with an open invitation to critique and challenge his data and interpretation online in the open, where other scientists can join in for the debate.

So Dr. Mark Bailey responded. To expose the problems of virology it is crucial to examine the methodology section of any publication, and in sin Lee’s case it is no different. In his material and method section, Lee stated that five selected nasopharyngeal swab specimens collected from non hospitalized patients with respiratory infection were confirmed to be true positive for SARS CoV two omicron variant by Sanger sequencing. The first problem is, aside from wondering why not one of these five people were hospitalized if they had a deadly virus variant.

Here again, we are straight into the deep end of virology’s circular reasoning. The virus has been confirmed to exist on the basis of detected sequences from some nasal pharyngeal swabs. There is nowhere in his paper that any evidence is provided for the existence of an actual virus that is, a tiny particle that acts as an obligate intracellular replication competent parasite that is capable of causing disease in a host.

The second problem is that a common challenge of dna or rna sequencing with the Sanger method is the deteriorating quality of sequencing traces after 700 to 900 bases. So current methods can directly sequence only relatively short 300 to 1000 nucleotide long fragments in a single reaction, certainly not 30,000 nucleotide long alleged virus genomes or alleged mutated virus variant genomes. So the obstacle to sequencing fragments above this size limit is the insufficient power of separation for resolving large fragments that differ in length by even only one nucleotide.

So in Lee’s irrefutable Sanger sequencing evidence wisdom, he chose anyway to just pick three small genomic targets for these five nasal swabs and found matches to three different smaller target variant sequence matches, three of them matching omacron ba two, one matching omicron ba four or ba five. Close enough either way, despite just one nucleotide difference being a problem with this method, and one matching omacron ba one out of the nearly 16 million target choices to choose from in the computer database.

What a miracle. Lee’s claim that the five selective nasopharyngeal specimens were confirmed to be true positives for SARS Cov two omicron variant simply means some small sequences in these five people’s nasal booger samples match some other small sequences that were previously computer concocted out of someone else’s lung snot sample and deposited on genetic databases and fraudulently declared to be viral, whether actually viral or not, and were simply being detected again by another method other than PCR or another.

Is that why none of them were sick in hospital despite having four deadly variants of this virus? It doesn’t make any difference which sequencing technique is used to detect a genomic sequence because the crucial issue is none of them can determine either the origin or the clinical relevance of any of the sequences they can detect. They literally have no idea if those detected sequences came from a virus or just from normal genetic material in your sputum sample.

And they have no idea or proof that if that genetic sequence was found in your sputum sample, it would somehow cause you physical illness or not. So Dr. Mark Bailey rightly pointed out to hang Li. Those of us that dispute the virus narrative point out that no rna or dna sequences have ever been shown to come from inside any specific identifiable particle that fulfills the definition of a virus, a tiny particle that acts as an obligate intracellular, replication competent parasite that is capable of causing disease in a host.

Thus, all rnas can only be said to be expressed by a known organism, introduced artificially, E. G. Synthetic mrna injections, or be of unknown provenance or origin. The mutations or variants only exist within in silico computer models that have not been shown to be independent entities in nature. There are other reasons why rna sequences can and do vary in dynamic biological systems, and Dr. Bailey can’t imagine that any virologist would disagree with this fact.

Simply detecting rnas is not enough to draw conclusions about their provenance or origin. Other experiments are required to make this determination, not just finding three small specific rna genomic targets through Sanger sequencing, with no proof of where they come from, or if they are disease causing. No amount of genomic or proteomic technology can escape the fact that with regard to such data being supposed evidence of viruses, it’s simply a bad case of turtles all the way down.

It’s hard to imagine how an intelligent, seasoned pathologist virologist like Sinhang Li can’t see this simple fallacy. But as Upton Sinclair said, it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it. Scientists tend to agree 100% with the people who are funding them. You might be saying we don’t want to jump the gun here just because we caught Fan Wu’s team building a fake in silico virus genome.

How do we know the other viruses in the database that his fake genome closely matched aren’t real themselves, like bat SL Covz C 45? Isn’t that a real thing? Over 60 viruses have been identified in bats, right? That’s what the Internet says. Bat SL Covz C 45 comes from a September 2018 paper by Dan who et L called genomic characterization and infectivity of a novel SARS like but not SARS coronavirus in chinese bats.

It was purported to come from the intestinal tissue of a bat that was captured in Jigong province, China. Not to beat a dead bat yet again, but again from part one. SArS is alleged to be a respiratory lung virus connected to the respiratory system and the lungs, which are not connected to the digestive system and intestines. So finding an alleged SARS like lung virus in a bat’s intestines should be your first clue that something is wrong.

Clue number two, all bats appeared healthy and had no obvious clinical signs of viral illness at capture. Wouldn’t you want bats that seem sick with a virus? Clue number three despite all 334 bats being completely healthy at capture after being given a bogus screening for CovRNA using a pan coronavirus reverse transcription PCR test as covered in part one, it turned out that only 26. 6% of them, or 89 out of 334 bats, actually were extremely sick with a deadly bat coronavirus.

After all, despite all 334 being completely healthy. Who knew? Clue number four, despite the failed isolation of the, quote, infectious virus, meaning they weren’t infectious or harmful particles after all, or they wouldn’t have failed to destroy the culture tissue from PCR positive samples of ground up bat intestines put into viro e six monkey kidney tissue cells. Remember, from part one, the only reason they even use viro e six green monkey kidney tissue in cell cultures in the first place is because almost anything can easily break it apart and cause cytopathic effect due to its anuploid abnormal number of unstable chromosomes.

But not this alleged dangerous infectious bat virus, though, whose alleged 89% identical cousin SARS Cov two, we locked the whole world down over, even though it could only destroy viro e six monkey tissue and not five other tissue types, whereas this one couldn’t even do that. So obviously they must be nearly identical to each other, right? But since the alleged bat virus failed to break down unstable green monkey kidney tissue in a cell culture like alleged virus particles are supposed to, and alleged to do, they instead attempted to isolate the nonexistent bat virus from suckling newborn baby rats by infecting them with the ground up bat intestine tissue samples, that PCR tested positive for the coronavirus scientifically, three day old suckling rats were intracerebrally inoculated with 20 microliters of volume grinding supernatant of ZC 45 intestinal tissue.

In plain English, they killed and cut open some bats, grounded up 20 microliters of dead bat intestinal tissue, and injected that directly into the brains of only three day old baby suckling rats. By weight, it would be the equivalent of injecting several hundred milliliters of ground up intestines from fresh human corpses directly into a human brain. The nonsense of injecting such biological tissue directly into the brains of inbred, compromised neonatal animals shouldn’t need any further explanation.

As is typical in virology experiments, there was no control group where similar biological material said not to contain the virus was injected directly into the brains of other baby rats. Okay, last time. This is drugs. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions? Actually, yes. Is it just possible that taking ground up bat intestines and adding the highly toxic, poisonous drugs amicasin, vancomycin and nystatin, injecting those drugs into the brains of newborn suckling rats, then killing them, grinding up their brains and adding more toxic formalin or formaldehyde alcohol, paraffin, aka kerosene wax from petroleum, toxic color dye, irritant, hematoxalin and eosin, a fluorescent acid used in paints.

Then adding more toxic dialdehyde, highly poisonous osmium, tetroxide dye, ethanol, epoxy resin, chemically toxic and radioactive urinal acetate from uranium. And finally, poisonous lead citrate might be the actual reason their brain tissue ends up looking like this under an electron microscope and not because of an alleged virus particle. They reported that suspected viral particles were seen in some of the rat brains, but at no point did they demonstrate the composition or biological function of such observed suspected viral particles in any of their slides.

Electron microscopy is no different than a psychiatrist’s Rorschach blot test. Just because you choose to see a bat here isn’t proof there’s really a bat here. Additionally, infection was declared on the basis of positive RTPCR tests that detected the same rna sequences in the baby rats at the time of their sacrifice as had been injected into them recently. Obviously not something that requires the existence of a virus.

Imagine mushing up three twinkies, injecting them directly into a newborn baby’s brain, killing that baby, and then testing its brain tissue for glucose molecules. Would you be shocked to find them there? How would you know if that glucose was from the baby’s own brain? Glucose, or the glucose in the three twinkies you just injected? At least if you tested for yellow dye number five and found it, you’d know it was from the Twinkies.

But would you say that is proof that baby caught a Twinkie virus? Of course not. So without physically isolating any alleged virus particles, they proceeded to homogenize, centrifuge and filter the bat intestinal samples before declaring. The viral rna was extracted with the viral rna minikit Kyogen, according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. A reverse transcription step then took place before PCR amplification of their brew. They claimed to sequence the full genome of SL CoV Zc 45 through 19 degenerated PCR primer pairs designed by multiple alignment of available SARS CoV and Bat SL CoV sequences deposited in Genbank, targeting almost the full length genome.

We couldn’t find a Ferrari, so we built almost a full one out of old spare parts. Well, kind of. In other words, just like all of the others, their declaration of discovering a viral genome was based not on direct evidence of a virus, but on detection of sequences of unestablished provenance aligned to yet more hypothetical virus templates. It was not disclosed how much PCR amplification took place at this step, but the RTPCR screening step involved a first round of 40 cycles, followed by a second round of 30 cycles.

But also the PCR process makes de novo sequences. They make sequences which weren’t there. The reason you know that is because if you do ten cycles, you can only get 10% of the genome. If you do 40 cycles, you get 98% of the genome, which means that approximately 80% were made by the process. This is crazy, and we all believe it. So it should be no surprise that a combination of 40 cycles and then another 30 cycles returned an 81% match to another fictional virus genome in the gen bank database.

Of note, the bat virus story has been in place since the 2003 SARS outbreak, and apparently, after thousands of years, the human race is now under constant threat from viruses percolating in chinese bat caves. In 2005, the EcoHealth alliance president, Dr. Peter Dashick, coauthored a paper that appeared in Science titled bats are natural reservoirs of SARS like coronaviruses. In this study, Dashik and Co. Couldn’t find any coronaviruses in their selection of bats through the usual fraudulent technique of observing in vitrocytopathic effects, stating that no virus has been isolated from fecal swabs of PCR positive samples using viro e six cells again, even though PCR falsely convinced them that tiny genetic fragments in those bat poop samples must belong to viruses and not just normal bat poop, the alleged virus particles in that bat poop couldn’t even break down the chromosome unstable aneuploid viro e six green monkey kidney tissue like alleged virus particles, are supposed to do in order to make you sick or even bother worrying about them.

So instead, the complete genome sequence was determined directly from PCR products from just one of the fecal samples that contained relatively high levels of genetic material, or literally a bunch of other to assemble a fictional virus genome out of which is batched. Crazy, pun intended, of course. They were happily able to declare they had evidence of such viruses because once again they used nonsensically high PCR cycle products, sometimes using 35 cycles and even a ludicrous 45 cycles for one of them.

These were claimed to be viral sequences because within virology’s circular reasoning, they found the very viral sequences that their PCR protocol was designed to detect. They duly warned the world that genetic diversity exists among zoonotic viruses and bats, increasing the possibility of variants crossing the species barrier and causing outbreaks of disease in human populations. Unfortunately, this zoonotic folklore has spread from the virology literature into the imagination of the public.

Dashek is a keen promoter and financial benefactor of the bat virus story and in 2015 advised his colleagues that in order to keep the revenue coming in, they would need to increase public understanding of the need for mcms or medical countermeasures, such as a paninfluenza or pan coronavirus vaccine, or spying on you to make sure you take them. What a great guy. In any case, a branch of one of the imaginary coronavirus template trails leads back to one of the original claims made regarding the SARS CoV genome alleged to be the cause of the first SARS outbreak.

In April 2003, Yijun Ruan et al. Submitted to genbank their SARS coronavirus sin 2500 complete genome, which became a session number AY 28379 4. 1. However, as usual, if you bother to actually read Ruan’s paper in the Lancet, you find that this genome was invented not by directly sequencing alleged virus particles, of course, but by sequencing the RNA in a virocell culture experiment through both shotgun and specific priming approaches, with alignment to the mouse hepatitis virus genome sequence NC 1846 as a backbone.

Because that NC one eight four 6. 1 genome was invented in turn in 1997 and was claimed to be derived from a virus that was obtained originally from Dr. Lawrence Sturman. The assertion that they even started their procedures with a virus in the first place appears to be based solely on Dr. Sturman’s assurance that the sample he provided contained any such thing. It should be clear at this point that each alleged coronavirus genome has simply been templated against other previous so called genomes in the database, without any of the virologists demonstrating that any of these sequences come from a virus particle and not just normal material found in biological samples.

You could argue, as they might, that surely the very first coronavirus particle in the database was properly purified, isolated, and then chemically and genetically characterized. And that’s the reason they can now assumptively take all of these time and money saving sequencing and assembly shortcuts, it is thus instructive to go back to the purported first ever complete coronavirus genome to be published, which was the avian infectious bronchitis virus IbV by Bursnell et al.

In 1987 and subsequently used by others as one of the original templates. As usual, they too did not sequence any postulated viral particles directly, but used 17 cdna clones covering the three prime most 27 569 bases of the genome, noting that the clones have been derived from rna isolated from gradient purified virus of the bodette strain bodette and Hudson 1937, then citing Brown and Burstnell three years earlier in 1984.

Oh dear, here we go again. The cited brown and Burstnell paper sequencing of coronavirus IBV genomic rna a 195 base open reading frame encoded by mrna B states the preparation of cdna clones has been previously described in Brown and Burstnell 1984, then cites another one of their own publications from that year entitled avian infectious bronchitis virus. Genomic rna contain sequence homologies at the intergenic boundaries. I know George, but probably just a coincidence.

In this paper they claim that the IBF or infectious bronchitis virus strain bodette was grown in eleven day old embryonated eggs. Virions, or virus particles were isolated from allentoic fluid, meaning the outer fluid in part of an egg yolk and purified by isopychnic centrifugation on sucrose gradients. Isopicnic just means marked by equal or constant density or produced by a technique such as centrifugation, in which components of a mixture are separated on the basis of difference in density.

But as was pointed out in part one, this technique is proclaimed to be meaningless by modern virologists because they now claim it is an almost impossible mission to separate extracellular vesicle particles from alleged virus particles using differential ultracentrifugation because they have the same size, dimension, and density, meaning they can’t tell the virus particle from the milk particles in the same density layer. And nobody in their right mind would think that this is proof that a cherry tomato is made out of dish soap because they have the same density.

Yet at the exact same time. They cite this paper and methodology as proof of finding infectious bronchitis virus particles in egg yolk fluid not even connected to the chicken fetus’s lungs, but to collect liquid waste from its blood and digestive system. They can’t have their cake and eat it too. No evidence was provided in any of these papers that they a had purified anything, let alone virions in the form of confirmatory electron micrographs or b performed any valid control experiments, all we can see is that because they are taught to either only cite previous papers and endless footnotes and blindly carry out and repeat taught procedures, and not to actually bother to read these cited papers methodology sections, or don’t really scientifically question those procedures.

If they do read them, they just assume viruses were present in their culture mixture, and after centrifugation they claim the detected rna sequences were from these imagined viruses. And fittingly, when you click on the Hudson Bodette paper that these papers all lead back to as their origin. Nailed it. Only kidding. That was their bogus 1958 paper. As always, their bogus 1937 paper was based on a bogus 1935 paper by J.

R. Beech and O. W. Shaum called a filterable virus, distinct from that of laryngotracheitis or what singers call losing your voice for several weeks from overexertion and muscular exhaustion, the cause of respiratory disease of baby chicks who never stop chirping loudly despite their untrained vocal cords 24/7 for days on end. Apparently, in the case of IBV or infectious bronchitis virus, both strains of the disease could be regularly transmitted to healthy baby chicks by injecting into their noses or throat trachea exudate, meaning a substance that has oozed forth, or what we’d call the phlegm or boogers, from the respiratory passages of diseased chickens after being passed through a Burkefeld filter screen or strainer to get out larger particles like bacteria, but not the rest of the booger muck.

And lo and behold, injecting sick chicken boogers directly up baby chick’s noses or in their throat trachea gave some, but not all of them, dyspnea or shortness of breath, gasping and coughing. Proving it was a virus and not just waterboarding newborn baby chicks with sick chicken boogers, injecting mucus into a baby chick and making it react with shortness of breath, gasping or coughing does not prove an infectious particle in that mucus made it react that way, and not all of the other toxic debris from our bodies that is found abundantly in and removed naturally via our mucus, or the unnatural introduction method of that mucus via injection, for that matter.

Ironically, the real danger to humanity is not the imaginary particles that virology claims to be protecting us from, but that the fictional coronavirus genomes that have been templated out of the virologist’s false speculations are now used as templates to create and inject real products into hapless recipients who are conned and gold into believing that virology’s latest invention was real. That is, virology’s fictional genomic inventions have been relied upon to create wholly unnecessary medical and political interventions.

The dangerous and highly experimental mrna and nanolipid biotechnology has killed more people the last three years than all other vaccines combined over the last 30 years, and we have only just begun counting. Sadly, the average virologist really believes they are helping humanity, clueless that there is nothing to protect us from except their own products. Agencies like the US center for Disease Control are also propagating this madness, and the CDC took eight months to respond to a Freedom of information request surrounding their claim of isolating SARS CoV two and their June 2020 emerging infectious diseases Publication severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus two from patient with coronavirus disease, United States.

By Jennifer Harcourt et L. The questions that were put to the CDC were simple and included the following did the scientists for this paper use control groups? If so, did the control groups use the same formulations of cell culture mixtures as the experimental groups sands the sample containing the alleged viruses? In summary, if control groups were used, please list the details of the control groups. The reason she’s asking is that we know for a fact, through virologist Stefan Lanka’s control experiments, that these toxic antibiotics they use in their cell cultures cause the same cytopathic effect breakdown as the alleged viruses they claim are doing it.

And the cell culture itself has genetic material from the virocells and fetal bovine calf serum that get used to assemble the insilicovirus genome, even though they aren’t alleged viruses. So you can easily cheat a control experiment by using one times or less of those toxic antibiotics in the control sample than the real one, or by leaving some or all of them out altogether and using a saline buffer solution instead, or by reducing or withholding the fetal bovine calf blood serum, which you can see keeps the cells alive and healthy longer, as opposed to reducing it to 1% and seeing cytopathic effects from just reducing that alone, or by not letting the control sample break down for the same amount of days as the original sample, leave some meat out for one or two days compared to five days without any alleged virus or doing anything to it, and see what happens.

That’s cytopathic effect breakdown. Strangely, instead of asking Jennifer Harcourt, a microbiologist who actually works for the CDC, or one of her team who actually wrote the paper, to answer this simple request instead on March 29, 2022. The CDC responded that they had located 37 pages of responsive records and one excel spreadsheet allegedly pursuant to the material requested. In summary, the CDC’s responsive records included the following internal CDC emails sharing images such as this purporting to show scope picks of potential 2019 n CoV from the first us case, like this pic of a potential unicorn isolate in some guy’s yard.

CDC research microbiologist Azaibi Tamin hoped some of these seven lysates, or cellular destruction, showed the cytopathic effects are caused by the 2019 n coV. Sounds conclusive to me. Rashi Gautam had tested four extracts, but all four extracts had tested negative, with all eight master mixes. Virus confirmed, while Stephen Lindstrom commented they were very nice unhappy cells, the respiratory virus immunology team lead Natalie Thornberg then asked if they could send the original JPEG or TIFF picture files for their cytopathic effect images.

I want to start working on a publication quality figure in their entire 37 page FOIA response. The details of the mock experiments were not provided by the CDC, despite being specifically requested. All that was sent was more than half covered up pictures of the mock experiment slides behind the other slides that are supposedly evidence of the cytopathic effects and thus implied existence of SARS CoV two. A bit like saying the damage to the ground in this photo proves the existence of unicorns.

They then claimed it was legit by including GenBank accession numbers MTO 2088 and MTO 20881, which were listed in the Harcourt et al. CDC publication and already publicly available without need of a FOIA request. Even though you could use these same bogus techniques on a horse’s bottom, submit it to GenBank as a novel unicorn genome, and future genealogists could claim Clydesdale horses are unicorns because they can make an 81% genetic match out of their ground up bottoms to your Genbank unicorn genome.

Then, strangely, rather than answering details on what Jennifer Harcourt’s team did in their study as requested, the CDC instead attached a summary copy of the Nazu New England Journal of Medicine paper, a novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China 2019, which, according to CDC electron microscopist Cynthia Goldsmith has two very nice electron microscopy images in figure three, one from human airway epithelial. Referring to this, the usual black arrows pointing to particles of unknown provenance or genetic makeup, and claiming they are 2019 n cov virus particles without giving any proof.

In fact, when virus mania coauthor Torsten Ingelbrecht asked multiple study authors do your electron micrograph show the purified virus? Dr. Wenji Tan from the Nazu team responded, we show an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones. Well, how do you know that’s a restaurant and not one of the thousands of other kinds of businesses in the shop fronts in that area? Is that a picture of sedimented restaurants? Because there must be some restaurants in that area somewhere.

Had the CDC bothered to read the method section of Nazu’s paper, they would have seen it is full of the same bogus, nonsensical procedures this film has covered ad nauseam up to this point, as there is no part of the paper that demonstrated the composition or biological function of these imaged vesicles. If you want to prove or claim that’s a restaurant and not a dry cleaners, you have to go in there and show there’s a commercial kitchen inside and not just steam presses and hangers.

They also included this completely blank worksheet. I mean, what more proof do you need? They did at least supply a page starting with for administrative convenience and to fully respond to your request, program staff have provided the following information below with corresponding web links which unfortunately provided absolutely no information related to how the CDC’s viral isolation experiments were suitably controlled. On December 23, 2021, Christine Massey also submitted a request to the CDC seeking full details of the Harcourt et al mock infected experiment, including the quantity of material from uninfected nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab specimens that was added to the cell culture control group.

The CDC eventually responded to Massey’s request four and a half months later, on May 10, 2022, with 36 pages of similarly unhelpful information and the excuse that in regards to certain portions of your request, a search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. These portions relate to your request for specific cell culture, experimental group details and cell culture mock infected control group details, and whole genome sequencing purity and control details.

Your request was sent to the National center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases for Search. They responded that certain details in your request were not available as records controlled or maintained by the CDC. In other words, the CDC appear completely ignorant to the fact that they are not following the scientific method, or they have realized that the game is up and are engaging in disingenuous responses like purposely withholding revealing information under exemption six because it might also contain personal information such as a cell phone number.

Well, that didn’t seem so hard. Either way, the CDC cannot be taken seriously as a source of reliable scientific information if they are also promoting uncontrolled experiments as proof of viruses. Now that you understand more about virology than the $116,000 a year public tax paid microbiologists like Jennifer Harcourt at the US center for Disease Control, let’s circle back to the February 2020 Pengzhou paper in Nature, a pneumonia outbreak associated with a new coronavirus of probable bat origin, claiming the identification and characterization of a new coronavirus 2019 n cov in their alleged isolation experiment, the authors produced images showing apparent cytopathic effects after 24 hours in the alleged 2019 n cov infected viro e six monkey kidney tissue cells, but no cytopathic effects in the mock infected cells, the latter purported to be a control.

There you see it, the mock infected cells look normal. The alleged 2019 ncov infected cells are clearly showing cytopathic effects. Case closed, right? Wrong. Because aside from at least admitting the experiments were not randomized and the investigators were not blinded to allocation during experiments, nowhere in the methodology section did they provide details on how they did these alleged mock infection control experiments. Until when? Questioned later in August 2021, when coauthor Zing Lao Yang revealed some startling admissions.

Firstly, aside from the fact that there were no positive control experiments, meaning with comparable human samples from healthy people minus the alleged virus treated the exact same way as samples from sick people assumed to have it, Yang stated they doubled the dose of penicillin and streptomycin in the experimental group, giving the control groups only 1% of both antibiotics, and then giving the alleged viral comparison groups 2% of both antibiotics, and then an additional 1% again on top.

But we know for a fact that these two antibiotics cause the exact same cytopathic effect breakdowns themselves, with no alleged virus needed. So is it really any wonder these are the visual results they got from not actually controlling their own control experiments? You may as well hit your control group’s finger once with a hammer, and then hit your other group’s finger twice, or even a third time for good measure and claim that’s proof.

Smashing your finger in a door is guaranteed to break it. Yet when asked why this variable was altered, the response was the intention of antiantie the tubebiotics is to prevent contamination from bacteria or fungi during virus isolation, so one or 2% concentration did not affect the cell growth. 2% in the first generation was just to prevent contamination from the samples. So you lost your businesses, your personal liberties, and your beloved grandparents because trusted experts like Yang do not understand the meaning of a control experiment where all variable factors must be kept constant due to his purposely taught indoctrination.

But he can’t be blamed. He’s only a pawn in that game. It was then suggested to Yang that they should run the control experiment again with the same higher 2% dose antibiotics, exactly as they did for the other wells. To scientifically ensure that this was not in fact one of the factors inducing cytopathic effects in the kidney cell line, Yang subsequently provided the evasive response. If you could make sure that you could prevent contamination from bacteria or fungi, you do not need to use the anti anti, seemingly ignoring the crucial point that it could be the additional antibiotics themselves that were toxic to the cells, particularly as streptomycin is known to be nephrotoxic, causing formidable nephrotoxicity, according to the Mayo Clinic, and called a potentially nephrotoxic agent by the chemists and biologists on the NIH database, causing excess cellular excretion, or what Yang calls viral cytopathic effect, producing cellular debris particles virologists call viruses.

Yang says it doesn’t matter. Anti anti has no effect for cell growth, while ignoring the fact that it causes the cell destruction they are looking for. Either way, altering these second antibiotics variables on top of the varied source materials makes these control experiments unscientific, meaningless, and thus invalid. Another staggering or rather shocking revelation from Yang was that in their experimental groups, each group had 24 different tissue culture wells.

Yet only one out of 24 wells containing viro E, six green monkey kidney cell cultures showed any evidence of cytopathic effects. And only one out of 24 wells containing, huh. Seven cells taken from a human liver tumor in 1982 showed any evidence of cytopathic effects. To put this absurdity visually, 48 out of 48 uncontrolled control experiments on two different cell culture tissue types with only 1% antibiotics and no alleged viral material added looked like this.

And 46 out of 48 of the cultures with 2% antibiotics that allegedly had viruses added to them that break down tissue with cytopathic effect also looked exactly like the ones that didn’t. Sorry to be your yin, Dr. Yang, but you don’t need a biology background to understand blatant charlatanism when you see it again. From part one if you only had a two in 48 chance of your parachute opening, would you trust the science enough to jump? Clearly virologists do, because what should be considered an experimental margin of error is the basis of one of the declarations of a claimed deadly new pathogen described in an article that, as of November 2023 has been accessed 1.

45 million times and cited in other papers and publications nearly 13,000 times. Do the other authors who are citing this paper realize the flimsy gossamer of evidence that this house of cards called Covid-19 is built upon? Perhaps they would not even be bothered by such a revelation as actual biological experiments are being increasingly abandoned. While man and his computer created in silico genomes are absurdly claimed to provide adequate evidence for the existence of viruses, in the case of Peng Zhao et al.

Their computer simulation was proudly proclaimed to be 96% identical at the whole genome level to a bat coronavirus. They decided to template their new viral invention against this Bat sequence based on the nonsense that previous studies have shown that some Bat SARS R covs have the potential to infect humans, their computer software assembled what became Genbank accession numbers MN 996527 and Mn 996532. From this form of faux evidence, which also lacks valid controls.

Yet every virologist in the world can now computer assemble your boogers into either of these fictional genomes and claim, oh my God, you must have the Batman virus. In early 2022, a mathematician working with virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka released an analysis of the associated sequence data produced by Fan Wu et al. Startlingly, it was concluded that a repeat of the de novo assembly, or putting together the exact published short genetic contig sequences by Fan Wu’s team taken from lung sputum and trying to get the computer to assemble them into an already existing virus genome from the database using megahit version one two nine, showed that the published results could not be reproduced.

We may have detected ribosomal ribonucleic acids of human origin out of human lung sputum. You don’t say. Contrary to what was reported by Fan Wu et al. Evidence is lacking that only viral nucleic acids were used to construct the claimed viral genome for SARS CoV two, and not actually the total combined multisource genetic abundance soup you find in a lung sputum sample. Further, with respect to the construction of the claimed viral genome strand, no result of possible control experiments have been published by Fan Wu.

Surprise, surprise, this is equally true for all other reference sequences considered in the present work. In the case of SARS Cov two, an obvious control would be that the claimed viral genome cannot be assembled from unsuspected rna sources of human or even other origin. Meaning at least try the exact same procedures on samples from a healthy human, or even a banana for that matter, and make sure you can’t assemble the exact same alleged viral genome sequence out of those two, it doesn’t matter how many thousands of monkey c monkey do’s can cite a bogus experiment like Fan woo’s in their own reference sections without even bothering to double check its methods.

Or how many scientific advisors cite those thousands of monkey sea monkey do’s citing that bogus experiment as proof if the actual scientists trying to repeat the experiment aren’t able to get the same results and confirm it as valid as the scientific method demands. Indeed, this independent analysis only obtained 28 459 contakes significantly less than the 384,096 described by Fan Wu et al. Meaning there were 356 309 missing assembled genetic sequences, or nearly 93% short of what was claimed to be there.

If you want to get nitpicky about it. So where did you get those Fan Wu? Additionally, the longest computer constructed contig independently obtained was only 29 802 nucleotides long, which was 672 nucleotides shorter than Fan Wu’s longest of 30,474 nucleotides. Like subway claiming this is a foot long sandwich, meaning the published sequence data from Fanwu etl cannot be the original reads used for assembly, which means Fanwu’s team is either grossly incompetent at their jobs or purposely publishing lies.

The independent analysis also concluded that alignment with the nucleotide database on 512 2021 showed a high match 98. 85% with human homo sapien rna. Have you ever seen a homo sapien? You don’t want to know. Yeah, I saw one once at the zoo. This 98. 5% homo sapien rna match was two preribosomal n four rna 45 sn four ribosomal rna found in Genbank on four seven 2020, which also just happens to be found on human chromosomes 1314, 1521 and 22.

But if genomic nucleotide sequences allegedly determine the unique makeup of different organisms like a human from a bacteriophage, and this alleged virus allegedly came from a bat first and later jumped to humans, then how is its genetic sequence made out of common human sequences if a virus isn’t human and didn’t even come from humans? Obviously, because Fan Wu’s team assembled the fake virus genome out of chopped up bits, including the human lung sputum sample, it’s a smoking gun.

This observation contradicts Fan Wu’s claim that ribosomal RNA depletion was performed and the human sequence reads were filtered out using the human reference genome human release 32 GRCh 38 point p 13. If you filtered out the human reads, then why are they still in your virus genome. Of particular note here is the fact that the human ribosomal RNA sequence NR 14611 7. 1, dated April 7, 2020, was not even published until two months after Fan Wu’s publication of the SRR 109 71381 sequence on February 3, 2020.

So how did they filter out a human reference genome read that didn’t even exist in the database yet? And again, given the high error rate, it raised the question of whether some of the sequences were simply those generated by the PCR amplification conditions themselves. So in their independent study, virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka and his mathematician took the original published genomic sequence data for the original work on coronavirus SARS CoV two from Fanwu’s team.

Remember, based on the lung sputum fluid from a single patient in Wuhan said to have only an 89. 1% match to a group of SARS like beta coronaviruses alleged to have been previously found in bats in China, and started running this one patient sequences in Genbank against other available reference sequences for not only things like bat SARS CoV, but also other alleged virus genomes that have nothing to do with SARS like HIV, hepatitis delta virus, measles virus, Zika virus, Ebola virus, and Marburg virus.

And lo and behold, they were able to get anywhere from 82% to predominantly, 96% to 100% matches to all of these other viruses from this same one patient sample sequences much more than Fanwu’s 89% match to an alleged bat coronavirus. This must be one unlucky patient to have caught SARS CoV. Two bat SARS CoV, HIV, hepatitis, delta virus, measles, Zika, Ebola, and Marburg, all at the exact same time.

Of course, the truth is, if the virologists want to find a virus, it all just depends on how they design their protocols and what they ask the computer to look for. And it will find it. And how would these fortune tellers know what to even look for? To sustain the illusion of the Covid-19 pandemic, cases were required. Look at that scary number on the Johns Hopkins dashboard. Over 676 and a half million cases of Covid-19 in just under three and a half years.

That’s just over 0. 8% of the population, or just less than one out of 100 people tested positive or were diagnosed with Covid-19. And look, just under one out of every 10,000 people allegedly died from it. But did they really? These alleged cases were provided by the world’s largest ever human testing program involving billions of PCR kits from dozens of manufacturers distributed around the world. It remains unclear as to why the doctor in molecular genetics, Professor Stephen Buston, who is a world renowned expert on quantitative PCR, whose research focuses on translating molecular techniques into practical, robust and reliable tools for clinical and diagnostic use, failed to decisively point out the inappropriate use of the PCR process.

And he should know better, as Stephen Bustin was the lead author for the 2009 publication the MIQE guidelines, minimum information for publication of quantitative, real time, or RTPCR, experiments, in which the key conceptual considerations for RTPCR experiments were outlined by him and his team as follows. Analytical specificity refers to the qPCR assay or test detecting the appropriate target sequence, rather than all of the other non specific targets also present in the sample.

Diagnostic specificity is the percentage of individuals without a given condition, meaning not sick with any symptoms, whom the assay also identifies as negative for that condition. APCR molecular detection test only designed to detect normal peanut fragments in a mixed snack bag if you dig deep enough to find them, can’t tell you if you’re going to have a deadly allergic reaction to those peanuts or not. It just tells you if there are peanut traces in that bag or not.

If Bustin had remained true to the science, then he should have called a halt to the PCR pandemic that turned into the Covid-19 fiasco before it even got started back in January 2020, when the Cormann Drosten PCR protocols were published that enabled the whole nightmare. The word specificity appears only once in the Cormann Drawston paper, and it had nothing to do with diagnosing a clinical condition, let alone a viral infection.

There was no detection of 2019 ncov, as the paper claimed. All that was established was the analytical specificity of their assay to detect selected target sequences of the published 2019 ncov in silico genome. It was an in vitro molecular reaction experiment that they generated themselves with synthetic nucleic acid technology that does not require the existence of a virus. In fact, they admit there was no virus in the present case of 2019 ncov.

Virus isolates or samples from infected patients have so far not become available to the international health community, so their test was designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens by creating synthetic sequences that looked close to published sequences from the 2003 SARS CoV sequences. You can’t design a valid PCR test to detect something you don’t even have possession of or know what to really look for in the first place, and unfortunately, all of these people bought this con job hook, line and sinker.

Furthermore, there was no establishment of how the PCR positive result related to a clinical condition or symptoms, I. E. The Covid-19 PCR kits were never shown to diagnose anything in a human subject. This PCR test created an invented new disease based on a fictional virus. What was not well publicized was that the world expert on PCR, Stephen Buston, admitted to David Crow already back in April 2020, that.

So what I’ve seen with the coronavirus testing is that they choose a cycle number. I’ve seen 36 and 37. I haven’t seen it published very much. And if you obtain sufficient dna by that cycle, it’s considered positive, and if you don’t, it’s considered negative. That seems kind of arbitrary. It’s absolute nonsense. Yes, it’s absolute nonsense. It makes no sense whatsoever. However, the PCR fraud was even more apparent when journalist Eric Capolino interviewed Stephen Bustin on Planet Waves FM in February 2021.

Copolino’s intention at the time was to find out more details about the problematic reverse transcription RT step of the RTPCR process, of which there are many problems. But he was stunned after the interview to realize that what he thought was a sometimes inaccurate test was completely fraudulent. But that’s not being done. Every time someone gets a PCR positive. The New York Times and everybody else is calling that a confirmed case of SARS.

Cov two of COVID Yeah, and then they’re saying there’s like a quarter million of these a day. I don’t know a single person who’s sick. You don’t? I don’t. Well, we have. Our icus are overrun at the moment. So bustin nervously evaded the PCR issue by claiming icus are overrun at the moment, rather than admitting the diagnostic specificity of the PCR kits had never been established. It was the last straw for his frustrated surgeon, Dr.

Craig Yurisovich, who last night lashed out on social media, sharing photos, he says, paint a damning picture. A twelve bed ICU ward sitting idle, six operating theaters empty, some used as storage rooms. One’s even become the backdrop for a film crew instead of firing up for surgery. Boston then further defended the PCR protocols in use with the assertion that I’m not quite sure what the problem is, because what was obvious was that this pneumonia was being caused by this virus, and this virus started cropping up in all the places where more and more people were coming down with the same symptoms, and these primers were detecting that virus.

Well, the problem is Stephen. These people were getting the exact same symptoms everyone has always gotten during flu detox season, since time immemorial. And nothing on this symptom list is new or special. And these primers can’t detect a virus because the sequences they are looking for weren’t taken from a virus. They were computer assembled from normal genetic material into a virus. The idea of true purification, you separate it into centrifuge and you know you’ve got of only that.

And then that is the thing that is sequenced and then used to prime the PCR. It does not appear that’s what’s happening. Well, the way the sequence was established was by taking the sample from the original patients, growing up something, and then sequencing it and then just assembling the sequence. And what came out of that was a SARS virus. And here we have the crux of the problem.

As David Crowe said following his own interview with Stephen Buston, scientists like Bustin have a tendency to assume that everything outside of their domain of interest is true, and they can rely on it. Had Bustin read Fan Wu’s full paper and examined the methodology, he would have known his own PCR test may as well be looking for dog turd sequences rather than Fan Wu’s published sequences, because neither of the primer sequences provided prove the existence of the alleged SARS CoV two virus.

No matter how well your PCR test can detect small sequences from either accused target, the crucial issue is that it doesn’t matter how well designed any primers are. If the provenance or origin or the significance of the genetic sequences being amplified through the PCR are unknown, then nothing more can be concluded. By their mere presence, Bustin can reassure the world all he wants about the potentially very high analytical performance of a PCR protocol.

But the establishment of its diagnostic performance is where the rubber meets the road. Even if SARS CoV two had been shown to physically exist and the PCR was accepted as a valid diagnostic tool, Bustin would have to admit that none of the PCR assays have been developed, as his Miqe guidelines specify, and none qualify as being clinically validated. Your PCR test could be 70% to 100% accurate at finding partial chocolate cake fragments in my mouth.

But it can’t tell me eating that cake made me sick. It was a surprise that earlier, during the same interview, Bustin denied any prior knowledge of the false pertussis outbreak in Dartmouth Hitchcock, New Hampshire, in 2006, when the PCR kit that was rolled out resulted in 100% false positive rate Bustin claimed to have learned about it for the first time just days before that interview, some 15 years after the incident, when he read about it on Copolino’s website from an article provided for the purpose of the interview.

Yet the incident was very well known and received coverage in the New York Times, with comments from many public health and diagnostic test professionals. By 2006, Buston was a professor of molecular biology at two different universities. So it’s a small wonder that the PCR specialist had not had any inquiries from medical colleagues back in 2006 when the incident happened. Bustin would have been one of the very few PCR experts even in existence at the time to contact, and it was an early indication of how the PCR could be catastrophically misused as a clinical diagnostic tool where a Dr.

Kretzinger admitted, we have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of PCR positive results, the disease was not pertussis. If that wasn’t bad enough, it related to an incident where the purportedly causal microbe, the bacterium bordella pertussis, is something real that can be physically isolated, genetically and chemically characterized and sequenced, and its genetic sequences confirmed for the PCR to be calibrated against, and it still failed miserably, whereas, in contrast, the SARS CoV two PCR protocols are simply calibrated to genetic fragments of unknown origin from human lung sputum.

By the time Boston was interviewed by Capolino, he had already coauthored and submitted a paper titled Covid-19 and diagnostic testing for SARS CoV two by RtqPCR facts and fallacies that was published later in February 2021. In this paper, Bustin and Co. Stated that the Cormann drawston assay worked and was specific and demonstrated astounding sagacity, meaning sound and reason and selflessness by the scientists involved, as well as the remarkable speed with which PCR based tests can be developed and put into practice.

Specific for what and sound and reason how we already saw the Cormann drawston paper made fake synthetic sequences based on a blind guess from SARS 116 years earlier because they had no virus isolates or patient samples to even design a test for SARS CoV two, the obvious question remains specific for what were Bustin and co, implying that the PCR tests are specific for short targeted RNA sequences, a coronavirus known as SARS CoV two, or the WHo invented disease known as Covid-19 the Corman Droston paper only established the analytical specificity for amplifying some selected RNA sequences.

It had nothing to do with the establishment of a virus or diagnosing a disease because it admitted it had no virus isolates of SARS CoV two, nor samples from a patient specimen to determine any clinical Covid-19 disease. So Bustin, the developer of the MIQE guidelines, surely knows that of the three, only the first was scientifically established and nothing was or has been validated for clinical application. And yet his paper goes on to make the ridiculous, illogical claim that PCR testing is highly suitable for large scale testing, as demonstrated daily by the millions of tests carried out to date.

And Monsanto’s roundup is safe to consume, demonstrated daily by the millions of crops it is sprayed on. Has world renowned PCR expert Boston forgotten that the tests are simply a molecular amplification tool and not for diagnostic use? I don’t think you can misuse PCR. The results, the interpretation of it, it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick, and it doesn’t tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that.

That’s because the PCR simply amplifies invisible genetic sequences through molecular reactions until there are millions and millions of copies to be able to detect that small sequence. Even if the PCR protocol is performed correctly and has a known 100% analytical sensitivity and specificity, not too many cycles to create false sequences that aren’t in the sample, et cetera, the molecular reaction itself has no capacity to determine the origin of that genetic sequence or the relevance of it being there.

A positive result does nothing more than confirm the presence of a molecule sequence it was looking for, not what that sequence is or what it does. However, if claims are being made that the PCR is a diagnostic tool like the Mayo Clinic website, it should be obvious that clinical validation studies would need to be performed before the test was introduced into clinical practice, meaning clinical evidence there is some new, unique disease this test claims to be detecting.

The Cormann Droston paper skipped this clinical validation step, and the World Health Organization accepted the fraud by placing versions of the PCR protocol on their website on the 13th and then 17 January 2020, before the paper had even been published. After that, the PCR was simply used, via circular reasoning, to make claims about diagnosing infections in hundreds of millions of people, even if they had zero clinical symptoms.

The next phase in the early stages of the alleged pandemic involved experts such as australian infectious disease specialist associate Professor Sanjaya Senayake promulgating unfounded claims about the accuracy of the test to the public. That’s a hard one to know, Jeremy, because there’s no gold standard to really compare this to. So if we had a new test for picking up golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures.

That’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for Covid-19 we don’t have a gold standard test. So the current tests we are using the PCR tests where we put a swab in the throat and in the back of the nose. They’re our gold standard, but trying to work around that, we think that it’s probably picking up about 70% of cases.

A gold standard means an already known and reliable test to check a new test against to make sure it’s also just as reliable, like an ultrasound with a visible fetus in it or a giant kicking lump in a woman’s belly would both be good. Gold standards to check the accuracy and validity of a new pregnancy test against if this new test came out negative for these two mothers, you’d know it’s a useless pregnancy test.

Senenayaki implied that if you don’t have a gold standard to check a PCR test validity against, you can just assume that a new PCR test can validate itself. If a PCR test told 30 out of every hundred women like this that they probably weren’t pregnant, would you trust the science enough to make that a gold standard? That we think that it’s probably picking up about 70% of cases? At least he was telling the truth when he said there’s no gold standard to really compare this to, because the real gold standard is something that doesn’t exist, that being the physical isolation and proof of a viral particle.

The World Health Organization were clearly not concerned by the lack of a gold standard or any evidence of a virus, and cemented the PCR fraud by stating that a Covid-19 case, not a suspected case, not a probable case, but a confirmed case, was conveniently hidden and mentioned. Last at the bottom, a person with laboratory confirmation of Covid-19 infection, which in 2020 was typically PCR irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms.

In this one sentence, they proclaim that the clinically unvalidated PCR tests have 100% diagnostic specificity and nonsensically twist the meaning of the word infection to include individuals who have no signs or symptoms. The etymology of the word infection provides a derivation from the latin infacare, meaning to spoil or to stain. Mosby’s Medical Dictionary 2009 states the definition of infection to be one, the invasion of the body by pathogenic microorganisms that reproduce and multiply, causing disease by local cellular injury, secretion of a toxin or antigen antibody reaction in the host and two, a disease caused by the invasion of the body by pathogenic microorganisms.

The established meaning of infection relates to a disease state of local cellular injury caused by the alleged virus or microorganism. A diseaseless state of disease is an oxymoron. Otherwise, a term such as commensalism should be used instead, meaning a relationship between two kinds of organisms in which one, like microorganisms, obtains food or other benefits from the other human or animal organism without damaging or benefiting that human or animal.

The WHO invented an absurd new definition of pandemic, excluding references to the words with enormous numbers of deaths and illnesses. Apparently you don’t need to be sick or die anymore to be in a dangerous pandemic. So now even the seasonal flu could be classified as a pandemic, and they are now subverting the definition of infection, one that disconnects it from the concept of disease through the sole use of PCR results.

In a sense, PCR is separate from that. It’s just a process that’s used to make a whole lot of something out of something. Unfortunately, on more than one occasion in the Covid-19 era, influential figures such as Bustin and Senenake have supported the virologist’s use of a molecular manufacturing tool to make all sorts of unfounded claims, including both the unratified ability to diagnose a novell infection and the detection of an alleged virus.

Of note, a biased misinterpretation of the PCR appears to begin before the amplification process has even started. For example, the Roche high pure viral rna kit used to prepare samples for the PCR states that it rapidly isolates viral rna from amalian plasma, serum, body fluids, and cell culture supernatants. Yet it’s unclear from the supplied product information how the kit would possibly separate alleged viral rna from all of the other rna present in the sample.

The process itself includes a polyacarrier rna binding additive step. The problem is, polyadenylated sequences are nonspecific and interact with cleavage factors for most tissues. Despite all of the binding, buffering, and centrifugation steps they describe to isolate the alleged viral rna, this would still not be able to differentiate the origin or source of the rna they isolated. Despite this, the protocols section proclaims that the end product is purified viral RNA.

Anyone believing this unfounded claim then thinks their subsequent positive RTPCR result is evidence of a virus and not just regular rna from God knows what found in many people’s lungs, throats, and noses. The same can be said for Roche’s high pure viral nucleic acid kit, used by teams such as nazu and Pengzhou in their claims to have discovered SARS CoV two in patient specimens and cell culture experiments.

Once again, Roche makes the dubious statement that the steps outlined in the protocols section would result in purified viral nucleic acids. Incidentally, Bustin was asked via email specifically about Roche’s claims when the following was put to him. I assume the kit must be able to distinguish viral nucleic acids from all the other nucleic acids in the sample. Do viral nucleic acids have a chemically unique property from the others? Bustin responded.

The extraction process is not specific for any particular nucleic acid, but it can be specific for types of nucleic acid. Some kits can differentials extract DNA or RNA, but this means any DNA and RNA will be present in the extracted sample. A small amount of the extracted material is then subjected to the PCR reaction. This is what provides the specificity. In plain English, Buston did not attempt to provide an explanation for Roche’s fraudulent claims that their kids can isolate viral nucleic acids for PCR or RTPCR, but purposely tried to confuse or obfuscate the issue by substituting the specificity of providence or the origins of the nucleic acids with the specificity of the sequences being selected for the PCR, no matter what source they came from.

Again, not to beat a dead pseudoscience to death, but while PCR can look for any specific sequences you tell it to, PCR cannot tell you those sequences came from any such thing as a virus in the sample. This amounts to a linguistic sleight of hand that helped allow a virus to appear out of thin air. In part three gaslighting the lab leak, distraction, virology and the closed society and metagenomic sequencing.

Virology’s final gasp. .