This has been reported so many times over the past 18 months, and so far the only people it caught traction with are those of us who've been paying attention. Maybe one of these days...
My conjecture is based on the idea that if the covid tests were based on a fake [simulated] virus, then the development of "vaccines" were also designed to target that same fake virus. Therefore, the drug corps built a drug for virus that doesn't really exist, and sold it to the public as a "vaccine" against a different virus that was actually infecting people.
I get how you could go from A to B like that, but as someone who does antiviral drug discovery for a living (crazy coincidence right?) I have to push back. By that lose definition, all drugs are built for viruses and diseases that "don't exist" because reduction is a critical part of the development process. There's no way you can efficiently design treatments by researching the actual thing - it would cost a thousand times more, assuming you could find a thousand times as many qualified people to work your thousand time larger lab. You're not going to work from live virus cultures, but you develop representative assays that replicate the part of the process you're focused on. That's all science, not just medicine, and it works... with caveats, but the problems that come with reductionism are the preferable ones.
See, reductionism is also why so many discoveries don't scale up. You read a hyped article claiming the end of cancer, and reductionism is why it doesn't pan out. What works on an isolated protein doesn't necessarily work in cells, what works in one cell line won't work in another, what works in cells may not work in animals, and what works in animals won't necessarily work in humans.
But reductionism scales at the research level. And so long as you validate your assays along the way you can get from the bench to the clinic without being misled - we do it all the time. And that's my only concern here, they seem to have not sweated the validation - which would be essential if you wanted an accurate test, but superfluous if you only wanted justification to recommend a false positive prone number of cycles.
But to be specific to your concerns, it isn't really a 'fake' virus. For developing this terst the envelope doesn't matter, spike proteins don't matter, the capsid and it's conformation are irrelevant. It's PCR. All you need are primers that are selective and reliable for the genome you're looking to detect. If you've successfully sequenced the viral genome (they had) and have successfully produced it in quantity, then you really just need to add the technical goopy bits that typically get in the way to test the only thing you really care about - Do the primers work? If not, design some new ones, lather rinse repeat.
When PCR is applied they are going to lyse the virus violently and indiscriminately to get at the genome anyway, so intact starting virus isn't relevant. stand in goopy bits along with legit genome is fine. And doing this with infectious cultured virus is not only unnecessary, it takes longer, and requires more people to accomplish the same scale experiment, in more stringent lab conditions (BSL-3 / 4 lab space and those who are qualified to work them are a finite resource). If you can do it in BSL-2 for 1/10th the cost in 1/10th the time, you do it.
The same can be said for the vaccine. Pickinng a protein, producing it de novo, and trialing it in an antibody titer assay is a perfectly legitimate approach to vaccine design. But once they did it, did they validate it? No. With the PCR test they just decided policy on data from serially diluted material - they never established the cycle threshold with actually infected individuals. And once they designed the vaccine, did they validate it on actual virus in humans? Well, they are, but the EUA extempted them from the sort of validation that really matters.
So while plenty of experiemnts won't have been conducted on actual infectious virus, the alternative isn't that they ran those experiments on a 'fake' or 'different' virus. And the issue isn't the reductionism, but the blatant seemingly purposeful decision to skip normal validation.
Sorry, was this too stream of consciousness? Did I touch on anything helpful?
Covid was isolated and sequenced. It's not made up. False positives aside, true positives do find covid. It's a real virus that really leaked out of a shoddy lab in China.
Yes. Thank you for that thorough reply. But I do worry about the "winging it" or "close enough" method (in regards to identifying the target virus with representative assays) being applied to such a novel virus as SARS-COV2. Sure, that method may be fine for normal germ research, but it sure seems like a high risk gamble to apply that to an actual novel virus.
Nah, not risky at all. Covid-19 isn't something magical. It's a corona virus. It's an engineered virus, but it's still just a corona virus. And even if it was somethign completely new, it's still a virus. We know what these are and how they work.
The news present it as a mystery because 1) they don't know the fucking field and it's a mystery to them and 2) the politician-"scientists" they interview are idiots that love to make the themselves sound mysterious and cool bby proxy.
But it's a fucking virus. You sequence it's genome, design primers, done. Not winging it, no risk, it's literal par for the course... for PCR.
I mean I want to make this very clear. "novel" corona virus is as novel as the 2021 Ford F-150. Is it the same as last years model? No. Is the new engine a gamechanger? Maybe IDK I'm not a truck guy but let's pretend it is. But can you change the oil same as ever? Sure can.
If it was 'just the flu' then flu tests would come back positive in every covid case and it would be a 100% comorbidity, which it isn't. There could be overlap (this test is shit for plenty of other reasons), but not because they used fluv to develop the comercial primers for the test.
No. There is no such thing as covid. It was the flu and they ran the our at 40 cycles giving a 85 percent false positive. Those were for the non symptomatic. The symptomatic simybhad the flue or cold made worse by the treatment and the rest of the shit we were doing.
There very clearly is. The symptoms are not consistant with influenza, nor is the (actual) treatment, nor are the negative fluv tests given to covid positive (false or otherwise) patients. That Fluv numbers got rolled into the covid numbers does not mean covid doesn't exist. Not over thinking it may be how you avoid confusion, but someof us aren't burdened by double digit IQs.
So there is what 1.5-2 months before the new test rolls out...they are trying to bury their spoor so the NPCs don't have anything to compare to... Anyone else remember the principle of scientific journal notes? Cross it out if it is in error but ensure that it remains legible....
That's your fact about our situation. Those statements are common parse sytax grammar quantum truth. Mathematically a true state.ent revealing the truth about our situation.
Ther was no isolated covid molecule to test.
All fake.
The test (and the primers) are developed against the genomic material. You don't NEED whole virus to do that. They absolutely need to have validated their results against real virus however, and not doing that is another red flag on the validity of this standard...
...but a lot of you are going way too conspiratorial on this.
This has been reported so many times over the past 18 months, and so far the only people it caught traction with are those of us who've been paying attention. Maybe one of these days...
"If at first you don't succeed..." Wile E. Coyote...
Stop buying ACME products?
Howls..ACME is the "go to" supplier for all things dangerous....
^^this. and look at the Ct's in that table...over 25 is junk science. even god himself, Fauxi, said so
So they made a "vaccine" for the wrong germ, and sold it to the public anyways. Sounds like fraud to me.
That's not what this says at all
My conjecture is based on the idea that if the covid tests were based on a fake [simulated] virus, then the development of "vaccines" were also designed to target that same fake virus. Therefore, the drug corps built a drug for virus that doesn't really exist, and sold it to the public as a "vaccine" against a different virus that was actually infecting people.
I get how you could go from A to B like that, but as someone who does antiviral drug discovery for a living (crazy coincidence right?) I have to push back. By that lose definition, all drugs are built for viruses and diseases that "don't exist" because reduction is a critical part of the development process. There's no way you can efficiently design treatments by researching the actual thing - it would cost a thousand times more, assuming you could find a thousand times as many qualified people to work your thousand time larger lab. You're not going to work from live virus cultures, but you develop representative assays that replicate the part of the process you're focused on. That's all science, not just medicine, and it works... with caveats, but the problems that come with reductionism are the preferable ones.
See, reductionism is also why so many discoveries don't scale up. You read a hyped article claiming the end of cancer, and reductionism is why it doesn't pan out. What works on an isolated protein doesn't necessarily work in cells, what works in one cell line won't work in another, what works in cells may not work in animals, and what works in animals won't necessarily work in humans.
But reductionism scales at the research level. And so long as you validate your assays along the way you can get from the bench to the clinic without being misled - we do it all the time. And that's my only concern here, they seem to have not sweated the validation - which would be essential if you wanted an accurate test, but superfluous if you only wanted justification to recommend a false positive prone number of cycles.
But to be specific to your concerns, it isn't really a 'fake' virus. For developing this terst the envelope doesn't matter, spike proteins don't matter, the capsid and it's conformation are irrelevant. It's PCR. All you need are primers that are selective and reliable for the genome you're looking to detect. If you've successfully sequenced the viral genome (they had) and have successfully produced it in quantity, then you really just need to add the technical goopy bits that typically get in the way to test the only thing you really care about - Do the primers work? If not, design some new ones, lather rinse repeat.
When PCR is applied they are going to lyse the virus violently and indiscriminately to get at the genome anyway, so intact starting virus isn't relevant. stand in goopy bits along with legit genome is fine. And doing this with infectious cultured virus is not only unnecessary, it takes longer, and requires more people to accomplish the same scale experiment, in more stringent lab conditions (BSL-3 / 4 lab space and those who are qualified to work them are a finite resource). If you can do it in BSL-2 for 1/10th the cost in 1/10th the time, you do it.
The same can be said for the vaccine. Pickinng a protein, producing it de novo, and trialing it in an antibody titer assay is a perfectly legitimate approach to vaccine design. But once they did it, did they validate it? No. With the PCR test they just decided policy on data from serially diluted material - they never established the cycle threshold with actually infected individuals. And once they designed the vaccine, did they validate it on actual virus in humans? Well, they are, but the EUA extempted them from the sort of validation that really matters.
So while plenty of experiemnts won't have been conducted on actual infectious virus, the alternative isn't that they ran those experiments on a 'fake' or 'different' virus. And the issue isn't the reductionism, but the blatant seemingly purposeful decision to skip normal validation.
Sorry, was this too stream of consciousness? Did I touch on anything helpful?
Simplify, no test finds covid. Therefore no covid was ever found.
All made up. Paid for by us and carried out by greedy traitors.
Except you're wrong.
Covid was isolated and sequenced. It's not made up. False positives aside, true positives do find covid. It's a real virus that really leaked out of a shoddy lab in China.
Yes. Thank you for that thorough reply. But I do worry about the "winging it" or "close enough" method (in regards to identifying the target virus with representative assays) being applied to such a novel virus as SARS-COV2. Sure, that method may be fine for normal germ research, but it sure seems like a high risk gamble to apply that to an actual novel virus.
Nah, not risky at all. Covid-19 isn't something magical. It's a corona virus. It's an engineered virus, but it's still just a corona virus. And even if it was somethign completely new, it's still a virus. We know what these are and how they work.
The news present it as a mystery because 1) they don't know the fucking field and it's a mystery to them and 2) the politician-"scientists" they interview are idiots that love to make the themselves sound mysterious and cool bby proxy.
But it's a fucking virus. You sequence it's genome, design primers, done. Not winging it, no risk, it's literal par for the course... for PCR.
I mean I want to make this very clear. "novel" corona virus is as novel as the 2021 Ford F-150. Is it the same as last years model? No. Is the new engine a gamechanger? Maybe IDK I'm not a truck guy but let's pretend it is. But can you change the oil same as ever? Sure can.
Yat, you fucking nailed it. Now preach it. Common sense leads to truth.
I guarantee you the "similar disease" they used en lieu of a covid isolate was the fucking flu.
Ues, the normal flu that goes around exacerbated by mask and stress Nd lies.
No, it was sequenced covid.
If it was 'just the flu' then flu tests would come back positive in every covid case and it would be a 100% comorbidity, which it isn't. There could be overlap (this test is shit for plenty of other reasons), but not because they used fluv to develop the comercial primers for the test.
No. There is no such thing as covid. It was the flu and they ran the our at 40 cycles giving a 85 percent false positive. Those were for the non symptomatic. The symptomatic simybhad the flue or cold made worse by the treatment and the rest of the shit we were doing.
Don't over think it you will stay confused.
There very clearly is. The symptoms are not consistant with influenza, nor is the (actual) treatment, nor are the negative fluv tests given to covid positive (false or otherwise) patients. That Fluv numbers got rolled into the covid numbers does not mean covid doesn't exist. Not over thinking it may be how you avoid confusion, but someof us aren't burdened by double digit IQs.
Your brain is operating on a high level....
Just In:
Ugly toenail fungus is caused by ... sorry simulated data is misinterpreted...
...Covid-19. Yeah that's the ticket.
It's all caused by covid-19 and you should get vaccinated as a result. Or lose your job. Or die. Or worse. ???
Howls...it is the "or worse" that scares the snap out of me....
First just a trickle - now the flood begins.
Absolutely....
So there is what 1.5-2 months before the new test rolls out...they are trying to bury their spoor so the NPCs don't have anything to compare to... Anyone else remember the principle of scientific journal notes? Cross it out if it is in error but ensure that it remains legible....
No live virus samples or antibodies to test.
No test no covid, no covid no test.
That's your fact about our situation. Those statements are common parse sytax grammar quantum truth. Mathematically a true state.ent revealing the truth about our situation.
Ther was no isolated covid molecule to test.
All fake.
The test (and the primers) are developed against the genomic material. You don't NEED whole virus to do that. They absolutely need to have validated their results against real virus however, and not doing that is another red flag on the validity of this standard...
...but a lot of you are going way too conspiratorial on this.
Nope. It's not how it works. My wife has used the pcr for years in the lab.
It's has zero ability to find covid and the guy that made it is the source.
The only disease is fear, stupidity and the Vax which was the point of the covid lie.
Stop doing the deep states job.
Bring you wife over to the keyboard, I'd love to talk to her.
Zero ability to find covid is quite the statement.