I think this is coming from the theory that "Coronavirus is a hoax and does not exist", which is also used by the Germ theory conspiracy people who subscribe to the idea of "Germs do not cause diseases", but take it to the wrong extent of saying "Bacteria and Viruses do not exist".
In reality, Coronavirus exists. It does not mean that it necessarily causes disease. Covid is a hoax - but not in the sense that the virus does not exist, but that the numbers are highly inflated to make it look like a pandemic.
That brings us to the Germ theory conspiracy. In a nutshell, no one has ever isolated a germ from a diseased person, injected a healthy person with it, and shown that the healthy person is now exhibiting the same symptoms as a diseased person. This ties in with details about Louis Pasteur and his discovery of "germs" and his famous deathbed proclamation "Germs are nothing. Germs dont cause the diseases" or something to that effect. But even this theory says that bacteria exist and they are in the body to clear up toxins. In the same way viruses exist, but they are just inert matter that do not cause diseases.
So what must have happened? I think a lot of scientists do not knowingly perpetuate hoaxes, but rather are unwitting pawns. They compromise strict scientific integrity for whatever reason (like skipping over the process of infecting a healthy organism with a virus to ensure it causes diseases), but they rationalise it as some necessary evil, but sincerely believe that their science is correct.
This can hold good even for those scientists who are planning to do something nefarious, and yet use the wrong sientific methods.
If this is the case, its quite possible that a whole research team created SARS-Cov-2 virus, assumed it causes diseases (by skipping the crucial scientific step), but then people like Fauci run with the lie and use the pretext of this virus (which can indeed be isolated and the genome mapped) to create a hoax of a pandemic.
Good summation. I listened to an expert Doctor speak this morning, he said that even though other Dr's he has spoken too agree with him they are still using the needle, almost like they are under a spell were his exact words..
When they talk about isolate, it is not an isolate according to the art of the trade.
They are using a different process through cell death and high toxicity, and then stringing DNA parts together, calling it an isolate.
Achieving the same feat through a controlled mechanism called Koch Postulates is something entirely different, and does not yield the same effect.
Meaning: anyone trying to isolate THAT particular virus from sick people fails.
That is why I have been asking for a peer reviewed and replicable study demonstrating adherence to the Koch Postulates yielding the virus isolate called sarscov-2 AND demonstrating it causes disease.
The next thing I want to see is transmission.
On both counts, the pharma-medical science community fails. As a matter of fact, Stephan Lanka has completed his test, and demonstrates clearly how today virologist obtain their "isolates", proving you can build any virus from cell death in a toxic environment.
the virus you speak of are protein chains expelled by the dying cell. I still believe the only way to get something like a virus inside you foreign to your body is by injection.
I commend you for this view, one which I normally would subscribe to.
Gain of function relates to two things: logistics and lethality.
So, virus, or exosome A would normally not be a problem. It is a function of your own body.
However, man made shit is different because of gain of function. Again, think carefully what this implies.
Compare it to a round bullet from a musket, and think in terms of gain of function.
A: you think of logistics: how to deliver a bullet over a longer distance. So you tinker around and come up with rifle and different composition of driving force: powder. But also the shape.
B. In terms of lethality, you may consider the shape of the material the bullet is made of. Expansion after impact, probability of puncture, etc.
in terms of viruses, this translates into probability and gateway of transmission and the problems it poses for the body to cope with the consequences of a viral infection.
And indeed, the best way to do that is
Scare
prohibit working medications
suppression
vaxx as the only solution.
Transfection, or infection by injection is the best way, because people will more or less voluntarily accept the virus and the spread can be controlled.
But, you know this too. This is not the end game, as the next phase is already imminent.
I think they will try to do with fake covid what they did with AIDS. I believe AIDS is not transmitted through sexual contact, but they created it and injected (experimented) into people suffering from hepatitis and the gay community fit the bill nicely with many sex partners, drug use and what ever else.
I also believe HIV is Fauchi's signature.
I also believe that all of these auto-immune diseases we are facing is a result ENTIRELY on vax damage causing our bodies to make something or mark something as foreign to our bodies. So I'm guessing the cure must be pretty simple.
I don't have any experience or training to understand genomes.
But I am certain that Fauci's NIH, CDC and the WHO are all full of shit and if they publish content on the web, it will be truth only if it suits them to put the truth out there.
I know there are many that say Coronavirus doesn't exist. It's the flu. That is not true and makes us look dumb when that idea gets spread.
Covid-19 has a different mortality profile than the flu.
Covid-19 does not kill the young, whereas the flu does. The HIC columns stand for High Income Countries like the USA. The >0 column denotes comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes.
My female friend who is 60 years old has a 0.04% chance of dying if she gets infected.
Is it worth it for her to take on take on the additional risk of the vaccine? I don't think so but we have no hard data, just estimates. I don't think it is worth her risk at all. Did she get the vaccine. Yes. Loves the vaccine. (sigh)
An 80 year old male with diabetes, has a 20% chance of dying (lower right corner).
These statistics are based off of faulty data to begin with...PCR cases counted in the U.S. used a cycle rate of 40+, which results in a 97% false positive result.
And within 1 hour of Biden being sworn in the WHO issued a statement telling Dr's etc to lower the CT rate to 28. The inventor of the test himself said anything over 35 CT's and you will most likely get back all or nearly all false positives. The UK CT rate was around 45, of course they were doing it as a scare tactic to up the numbers. The same with death certificates, one guy was killed in a motorcycle accident but his death certificate said CV killed him!
The BMJ is a weekly peer-reviewed medical trade journal, published by the trade union the British Medical Association (BMA). The BMJ has editorial freedom from the BMA.[1] It is one of the world's oldest general medical journals. Originally called the British Medical Journal, the title was officially shortened to BMJ in 1988, and then changed to The BMJ in 2014.[2] The journal is published by BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, a subsidiary of the British Medical Association (BMA). The editor-in-chief of The BMJ is Fiona Godlee, who was appointed in February 2005.[3]
You already lost your credibility. I don't care what you think.
Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine published the fake paper without peer review.
Obviously they are under the thumb of the enemy and are no longer serving the interests of the people. The 'medical community' must be struggling right now. So many doctors must be questioning the NIH, CDC, and the WHO. These are not stupid people. Pressure is going to rise I think.
Well that's great, honestly I don't care what you think either.
They published without peer review because they were told too. And just like what will happen when the story breaks on how much Hydroxychloriquine can help in the early stages, some will be proven to be dishonest yet again regardless of how intelligent they are!
Gaslighting. There is no value to peer review if what they are reviewing is hypothetical. Seems to me you're attempting to legitimise this dodgy research.
Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA
Dr David Martin describe it in one of his videos, ill see if I can find it. If you haven't seen the one below, watch it all. You will know more about the plandemic than 99% of people.
Yes. I remember watching a video that explained this and they had a technical term for it being computer-generated. My mind cannot find the term though.
FWIW, part of my comp sci PhD research was spent in bioinformatics -- using computer algorithms and heuristics along with database mining techniques to compose gene sequences. A composed sequence may be probable or improbable depending on the queries used to extract segments from various gene databases, which themselves have varying degrees of quality.
Is the sequence so constructed that of a real organism? No it is not. Until it can be compared against an actual isolated sequence it only has a estimated likelihood of existence.
The very first "sequence" of SARS-CoV-2 was composed from RNA remnants that were assumed to be part of the virus (vs. exosome material, or inhaled particles) and used in database queries that assumed an 80% likeness to SARS-CoV-1. How much of the SARS-1 sequence was a composition itself, I don't know, but it likely was also to some degree, since composition is very common in the field.
This serial stacking of assumptions and estimates on top of suppositions and best guesses, along with no verification lends a fantasy/wish fulfillment aspect to the whole mess. It's what leads me not to trust most of what comes out of modern microbiology where it directly references genetic sequences.
To the degree that the virus has never been properly isolated, but only "observed" in toxic soups of monkey kidney cells, etc, then an actual sequence cannot exist. PCR tests based on the composed sequences are worthless -- when not spewing false positives, they may actually detect something, but it is not THE virus, because they can't detect something that has never been properly defined.
So, though the virus may indeed be real, the ability to detect it reliably is not.
Originally, the genome was unknown. I believe the genome was only isolated several months after the CCP virus was a known thing. So some people may not be aware of the more recent news of that discovery, and are still thinking it has never been isolated.
I think this is coming from the theory that "Coronavirus is a hoax and does not exist", which is also used by the Germ theory conspiracy people who subscribe to the idea of "Germs do not cause diseases", but take it to the wrong extent of saying "Bacteria and Viruses do not exist".
In reality, Coronavirus exists. It does not mean that it necessarily causes disease. Covid is a hoax - but not in the sense that the virus does not exist, but that the numbers are highly inflated to make it look like a pandemic.
That brings us to the Germ theory conspiracy. In a nutshell, no one has ever isolated a germ from a diseased person, injected a healthy person with it, and shown that the healthy person is now exhibiting the same symptoms as a diseased person. This ties in with details about Louis Pasteur and his discovery of "germs" and his famous deathbed proclamation "Germs are nothing. Germs dont cause the diseases" or something to that effect. But even this theory says that bacteria exist and they are in the body to clear up toxins. In the same way viruses exist, but they are just inert matter that do not cause diseases.
So what must have happened? I think a lot of scientists do not knowingly perpetuate hoaxes, but rather are unwitting pawns. They compromise strict scientific integrity for whatever reason (like skipping over the process of infecting a healthy organism with a virus to ensure it causes diseases), but they rationalise it as some necessary evil, but sincerely believe that their science is correct. This can hold good even for those scientists who are planning to do something nefarious, and yet use the wrong sientific methods.
If this is the case, its quite possible that a whole research team created SARS-Cov-2 virus, assumed it causes diseases (by skipping the crucial scientific step), but then people like Fauci run with the lie and use the pretext of this virus (which can indeed be isolated and the genome mapped) to create a hoax of a pandemic.
Good summation. I listened to an expert Doctor speak this morning, he said that even though other Dr's he has spoken too agree with him they are still using the needle, almost like they are under a spell were his exact words..
When they talk about isolate, it is not an isolate according to the art of the trade.
They are using a different process through cell death and high toxicity, and then stringing DNA parts together, calling it an isolate.
Achieving the same feat through a controlled mechanism called Koch Postulates is something entirely different, and does not yield the same effect.
Meaning: anyone trying to isolate THAT particular virus from sick people fails.
That is why I have been asking for a peer reviewed and replicable study demonstrating adherence to the Koch Postulates yielding the virus isolate called sarscov-2 AND demonstrating it causes disease.
The next thing I want to see is transmission.
On both counts, the pharma-medical science community fails. As a matter of fact, Stephan Lanka has completed his test, and demonstrates clearly how today virologist obtain their "isolates", proving you can build any virus from cell death in a toxic environment.
the virus you speak of are protein chains expelled by the dying cell. I still believe the only way to get something like a virus inside you foreign to your body is by injection.
I commend you for this view, one which I normally would subscribe to.
Gain of function relates to two things: logistics and lethality.
So, virus, or exosome A would normally not be a problem. It is a function of your own body.
However, man made shit is different because of gain of function. Again, think carefully what this implies.
Compare it to a round bullet from a musket, and think in terms of gain of function.
A: you think of logistics: how to deliver a bullet over a longer distance. So you tinker around and come up with rifle and different composition of driving force: powder. But also the shape.
B. In terms of lethality, you may consider the shape of the material the bullet is made of. Expansion after impact, probability of puncture, etc.
in terms of viruses, this translates into probability and gateway of transmission and the problems it poses for the body to cope with the consequences of a viral infection.
And indeed, the best way to do that is
Transfection, or infection by injection is the best way, because people will more or less voluntarily accept the virus and the spread can be controlled.
But, you know this too. This is not the end game, as the next phase is already imminent.
I think they will try to do with fake covid what they did with AIDS. I believe AIDS is not transmitted through sexual contact, but they created it and injected (experimented) into people suffering from hepatitis and the gay community fit the bill nicely with many sex partners, drug use and what ever else.
I also believe HIV is Fauchi's signature.
I also believe that all of these auto-immune diseases we are facing is a result ENTIRELY on vax damage causing our bodies to make something or mark something as foreign to our bodies. So I'm guessing the cure must be pretty simple.
Agree totally!
Coronavirus is real.
I don't have any experience or training to understand genomes.
But I am certain that Fauci's NIH, CDC and the WHO are all full of shit and if they publish content on the web, it will be truth only if it suits them to put the truth out there.
I know there are many that say Coronavirus doesn't exist. It's the flu. That is not true and makes us look dumb when that idea gets spread.
Covid-19 has a different mortality profile than the flu.
https://files.catbox.moe/4rlb52.png
Covid-19 does not kill the young, whereas the flu does. The HIC columns stand for High Income Countries like the USA. The >0 column denotes comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes.
My female friend who is 60 years old has a 0.04% chance of dying if she gets infected.
Is it worth it for her to take on take on the additional risk of the vaccine? I don't think so but we have no hard data, just estimates. I don't think it is worth her risk at all. Did she get the vaccine. Yes. Loves the vaccine. (sigh)
An 80 year old male with diabetes, has a 20% chance of dying (lower right corner).
Source:
https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/predicted-covid-19-fatality-rates-based-age-sex-comorbidities-and-health-system-capacity.pdf
These statistics are based off of faulty data to begin with...PCR cases counted in the U.S. used a cycle rate of 40+, which results in a 97% false positive result.
And within 1 hour of Biden being sworn in the WHO issued a statement telling Dr's etc to lower the CT rate to 28. The inventor of the test himself said anything over 35 CT's and you will most likely get back all or nearly all false positives. The UK CT rate was around 45, of course they were doing it as a scare tactic to up the numbers. The same with death certificates, one guy was killed in a motorcycle accident but his death certificate said CV killed him!
Are you claiming that the research paper is not accurate? Because of PCR tests?
Umm, the study is peer reviewed and deals with MORTALITY. People dying, not 'cases'.
The research paper is not based on data but on statistical modelling. Also not peer-reviewed.
Peer review of statistical modelling is irrelevant.
Here's a suggestion. How about you check your facts before you comment?
https://gh.bmj.com/content/5/9/e003094
The BMJ is a weekly peer-reviewed medical trade journal, published by the trade union the British Medical Association (BMA). The BMJ has editorial freedom from the BMA.[1] It is one of the world's oldest general medical journals. Originally called the British Medical Journal, the title was officially shortened to BMJ in 1988, and then changed to The BMJ in 2014.[2] The journal is published by BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, a subsidiary of the British Medical Association (BMA). The editor-in-chief of The BMJ is Fiona Godlee, who was appointed in February 2005.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_BMJ
And the Lancet published a knowingly false report! The point being if you cannot rely on what were once impeccable journals then we are just guessing.
You already lost your credibility. I don't care what you think.
Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine published the fake paper without peer review.
Obviously they are under the thumb of the enemy and are no longer serving the interests of the people. The 'medical community' must be struggling right now. So many doctors must be questioning the NIH, CDC, and the WHO. These are not stupid people. Pressure is going to rise I think.
Well that's great, honestly I don't care what you think either.
They published without peer review because they were told too. And just like what will happen when the story breaks on how much Hydroxychloriquine can help in the early stages, some will be proven to be dishonest yet again regardless of how intelligent they are!
Gaslighting. There is no value to peer review if what they are reviewing is hypothetical. Seems to me you're attempting to legitimise this dodgy research.
Worthless comment not going to spend any time on replying other than this.
It's hard to work with that girl en how many deaths we know are wrongfully attributed to China flu.
But how do you get mortality stats without comparing cases vs. deaths?
Just ask the CDC
Page 42, second paragraph. https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
https://peopleforjusticecanada.com/2021/01/05/canadian-public-health-officials-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification-performed-anywhere-ever/
That genome is from China, and was pieced together off of a computer simulation, using the missing code and copy/pasting from SARS-COV-1.
Can you elaborate on this? I have not heard about this before.
Dr David Martin describe it in one of his videos, ill see if I can find it. If you haven't seen the one below, watch it all. You will know more about the plandemic than 99% of people.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/38qaHZC75L1w/
Just read the studies on sarscov-2 origins and compare the first sequence publicized by the Chinese.
You have to be cognizant of the fact that coronavirus is a different animal from sarscov-2.
So, your question may hinge on a premise not pertaining to the facts on the ground, but on confusion in daily speech.
Yes. I remember watching a video that explained this and they had a technical term for it being computer-generated. My mind cannot find the term though.
Theoretically. Statistics, models and hypotheses. No data.
FWIW, part of my comp sci PhD research was spent in bioinformatics -- using computer algorithms and heuristics along with database mining techniques to compose gene sequences. A composed sequence may be probable or improbable depending on the queries used to extract segments from various gene databases, which themselves have varying degrees of quality.
Is the sequence so constructed that of a real organism? No it is not. Until it can be compared against an actual isolated sequence it only has a estimated likelihood of existence.
The very first "sequence" of SARS-CoV-2 was composed from RNA remnants that were assumed to be part of the virus (vs. exosome material, or inhaled particles) and used in database queries that assumed an 80% likeness to SARS-CoV-1. How much of the SARS-1 sequence was a composition itself, I don't know, but it likely was also to some degree, since composition is very common in the field.
This serial stacking of assumptions and estimates on top of suppositions and best guesses, along with no verification lends a fantasy/wish fulfillment aspect to the whole mess. It's what leads me not to trust most of what comes out of modern microbiology where it directly references genetic sequences.
To the degree that the virus has never been properly isolated, but only "observed" in toxic soups of monkey kidney cells, etc, then an actual sequence cannot exist. PCR tests based on the composed sequences are worthless -- when not spewing false positives, they may actually detect something, but it is not THE virus, because they can't detect something that has never been properly defined.
So, though the virus may indeed be real, the ability to detect it reliably is not.
Originally, the genome was unknown. I believe the genome was only isolated several months after the CCP virus was a known thing. So some people may not be aware of the more recent news of that discovery, and are still thinking it has never been isolated.
Hypothetical genome isolation. No hard data, no isolates, no trials. Where's your genome? What can be described?
I package my genome in my sperms, and I don't want to describe it.