Let's break down this ridiculous excuse for a "scientific study."
You guys need to learn to READ these things and at least try to understand what they are REALLY saying. If you don't, you can be fed any bullshit and believe it.
The paper is here:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.01.03.574008v2.full
First thing to note is the authors: All Chinese. Right off the bat, you should be suspicious, since the Chinese do NOT do SCIENTIFIC research.
They write papers that will please their bosses.
In other words: SUM TING WONG !
From Abstract:
SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR) ... can cause mortality in a ... mouse model, making it an invaluable surrogate model for evaluating the efficacy of drugs and vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.
Huh? Why is a "mouse model" a standard to use for CLAIMING the efficacy (i.e. effectiveness) of drugs for HUMANS?
These are MODIFIED mice. They DO NOT EXIST IN NATURE.
From Introduction:
Two SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin coronaviruses, GD/2019 and GX/2017, were identified prior to the COVID-19 outbreak (1, 2).
That is a false statement.
The "(1,2)" are references to two footnotes at the bottom that are SUPPOSED to provide the PROOF of the statement made, so that they don't have to put it all in the paper.
BUT ... when you LOOK at those references, here is what you get:
Footnote #1 & #2:
More "Chinese research," that shows a summary, but when I click on the links, they cannot be found.
Note the first article summary, which says:
Pangolins are endangered animals in urgent need of protection. Identifying and cataloguing the viruses carried by pangolins is a logical approach to evaluate the range of potential pathogens and help with conservation.
WTF is a "pangolin?"
From Wiki (look it up):
Pangolins, sometimes known as scaly anteaters, are mammals of the order Pholidota .
An ardvark! LOL!
It looks like this:
So ...
WTF does a so-called "pangolin coronavirus" have to do with the price of tea in China?
WTF does that have to do with a "virus" that harms humans (supposedly)?
These Chinese "researchers" are taking what they CLAIM is a virus from an anteater, doing some hocus pocus with genetically-modified mice, and then CLAIMING that this is some sort of PROOF of EFFECTIVENESS of a vaccine DRUG that is to be injected into HUMANS.
Seriously ???
THIS is what passes for "science" around the GAW?
HO LEE FUK !!!
Frens, ya'll gotta do better than this!
This garbage would not even be accepted by a THIRD GRADER if you broke it down to what it is ACTUALLY SAYING.
But let's continue ...
They make this statement:
The infectivity and pathogenicity of these isolates have been studied (4-6).
Again, this is false. The infectivity has NEVER been shown. The footnotes they cite (#4-#6) are, once again, (a) all "papers" written by Chinese "researchers," and (b) ONLY about the "pangolin coronavirus" -- whatever TF that is.
The next thing to note is there is no "Methods" section of this "paper." That is not standard.
Looks like they buried it in the "Results" section, which is really bassackward.
We first analyzed the adaptive mutations ... in cell cultures
So, they are looking at what happens in a petri dish, not a "virus" inside of a living organism. You would have to understand the underlying fraud of virology to catch this, but it bascially means they never had a virus to start with, but they claim they have evidence of what a virus can do, and from that they claim they can create vaccine drugs to inject into humans.
It is all based on fraud and lies, though.
GX_P2V C7, was randomly selected for the evaluation of viral pathogenicity in hACE2 mice
Next, we assessed whether GX_P2V C7 could cause disease in hACE2 mice
OK, let's consider that statement by itself. First, these are MODIFIED mice, not regular mice. Second, HOW would YOU go about figuring out if this "virus" clone (GX) could cause DISEASE in these modified mice?
A total of four ... mice were intranasally infected with ... the virus.
FOUR. Would you want more than 4 test cases? I would.
Intranasally means they sprayed a concoction up their nose.
How much did they sray up their nose?
with a dosage of 5×10^5 plaque-forming units (pfu)
That's 500,000 units ... up a MOUSE'S nose, not your nose. Is that a lot? Seems like it, but what can we compare it to? I don't know, and they don't offer any comparison.
Look up the term, though, and you will see that it is a GUESS about how much will cause harm. It is NOT a unit of measurement about how MANY virus particles are in there -- because they don't know! Nobody does, because NOBODY has ever isolated a virus so they could count them. Instead, they use this surrogate "pfu" and call it a day. But how much is this, really? They do not tell us.
Four mice inoculated with inactivated virus and four mock-infected mice were used as controls.
There is no such thing as an "activated virus" or "inactivated virus" since no virus exists. But they must have squirted something up there. They don't tell us about it. How MUCH?
And what does "mock-infected" mean? Does it mean only air?
No explanation is given.
Which means, we don't REALLY know what their CONTROL was, and THAT COMPLETELY INVALIDATES THEIR EXPERIMENT.
Anyhoo ...
Surprisingly, all the mice that were infected with the live virus succumbed to the infection within 7-8 days post-inoculation, rendering a mortality rate of 100%
OK, now IF that were true, then they MIGHT have something. But, is it true?
Remember, "all" means 4.
They squirted SOMETHING in what seems like a large amount up the nose of these modified mice.
The nose cavity would have connections to other areas of the head. And what do you know? They found problems in areas in the head and respiratory system.
Shocking!
The mice began to exhibit a decrease in body weight starting from day 5 post-infection, reaching a 10% decrease from the initial weight by day 6
OK, you shoot some unknown substance up their noses, and they begin to lose weight. Loss of appetite? Trouble breathing? They don't seem to care much about what might have caused it, other than getting to the conclusion they want.
By the seventh day following infection, the mice displayed symptoms such as piloerection, hunched posture, and sluggish movements, and their eyes turned white.
Translation: You jam something up their nose, make them breathe it in, and they might have problems.
This does NOT prove that a "virus" did anything to them. They had some sort of toxin, which in theory MIGHT be a "virus," but THIS is NOT the way to prove it.
Also, ask yourself this: Does this have ANYTHING to do with what happens in HUMANS who are said to be "infected with Covid?"
Were a bunch of hunched-over people walking around? White eyes?
No.
We then evaluated the tissue tropism of GX_P2V C7 in hACE2 mice.
"Tropism" = the turning of something, in response to an external stimulous.
Using the infection method described above, eight hACE2 mice were infected, eight mice were inoculated with inactivated virus, and another eight mock-infected mice were used as controls.
So, they repeated the experiment, this time with 8 of each. Note, they never tell us what happened to the first 12 mice (4 in each category). In this 2nd batch, we have 24 total (8 in each category).
The organs of four randomly selected mice in each group were dissected on days 3 and 6 post-infection for quantitative analysis of viral RNA and titer.
So, they killed half of the mice in each group on Day 3 to study, and the other half on Day 6.
Note: This was because they ASSUMED that what they sprayed up the noses of the first group of mice is what caused illness, so now they want to dissect this batch of mice to see what the find, internally.
We detected significant amounts of viral RNA in the brain, lung, turbinate, eye, and trachea of the GX_P2V C7 infected mice (Figure 1D), whereas no or a low amount of viral RNA was detected in other organs such as the heart, liver, spleen, kidneys, tongue, stomach, and intestines.
Right. Because you sprayed your garbage up their NOSE, which affected their head and respiratory system, but not the rest of their body.
Specifically, in lung samples, we detected high viral RNA loads on days 3 and 6 post-infection ...
Gee... ya think?
In summary, in the mice infected with live virus, the viral load in the lungs significantly decreased by day 6; both the viral RNA loads and viral titers in the brain samples were relatively low on day 3, but substantially increased by day 6. This finding suggested that severe brain infection during the later stages of infection may be the key cause of death in these mice.
THINK ABOUT THIS:
Does this happen to HUMANS? Did HUMANS die by Day 6?
In fact ... did THESE MICE DIE by Day 6?
NO!!!
This 2nd batch of mice were SACRIFICED so that the tissues could be examined. The "researchers" killed these mice.
But that 1st batch of mice? All 4 of the "live virus" mice died within 7-8 days.
They do not tell us what happened to the other 8 mice -- GX infected and "control."
They ALSO do not tell us HOW THEY CAME UP WITH A "LIVE" VIRUS, SINCE NOBODY IN THE WORLD HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO DO IT.
Instead, they MUST have bought SOMETHING ("Substance X") which was CLAIMED to be a "live virus," and they did not question it. Whatever that was, was sprayed up the noses of the mice and they died within a week.
Is THAT how it works in HUMANS?
No.
Why didn't they try a lesser amount of the toxin they sprayed?
Why didn't they put the stuff in the room for them to breathe, rather than shoot it up their nose?
Was it the toxin -- or amount of it -- that caused the death, and nothing at all to do with a "virus?"
Why didn't they try this on their ardvark, which is where this whole shit show started?
This is not science.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report to analyze the cell-adapted mutations of pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V, and to show it can cause mortality in hACE2 mice.
No, they poisoned some modified mice, and claimed it was a virus that did it.
They did not prove they even started with a real virus. They did not tell us what that was that they claimed was a virus.
They did not tell us what the "control" was, or what happened to those 4 control mice or the 4 clone virus mice.
Did they all die?
What about this ardvark virus? Why do they claim it is the same as the bat virus?
Their conclusion is:
Currently, there is an urgent need for the development of broadly protective vaccines against pan-SARS-CoV-2, yet the emergence of the next SARS-CoV-2 variant is unpredictable. The pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR), which shares a certain degree of homology with SARS-CoV-2, may be valuable in assessing the effectiveness of broad-spectrum COVID-19 vaccine candidates against unknown future variants.
And they claim that THIS is "muh science."
In summary, our study provides a unique perspective on the pathogenicity of GX_P2V and offers an invaluable model for assessing the efficacy of drugs and vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.
Why don't you start with your ardvark?
Let's break down this ridiculous excuse for a "scientific study."
You guys need to learn to READ these things and at least try to understand what they are REALLY saying. If you don't, you can be fed any bullshit and believe it.
The paper is here:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.01.03.574008v2.full
First thing to note is the authors: All Chinese. Right off the bat, you should be suspicious, since the Chinese do NOT do SCIENTIFIC research.
They write papers that will please their bosses.
In other words: SUM TING WONG !
From Abstract:
SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR) ... can cause mortality in a ... mouse model, making it an invaluable surrogate model for evaluating the efficacy of drugs and vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.
Huh? Why is a "mouse model" a standard to use for CLAIMING the efficacy (i.e. effectiveness) of drugs for HUMANS?
These are MODIFIED mice. They DO NOT EXIST IN NATURE.
From Introduction:
Two SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin coronaviruses, GD/2019 and GX/2017, were identified prior to the COVID-19 outbreak (1, 2).
That is a false statement.
The "(1,2)" are references to two footnotes at the bottom that are SUPPOSED to provide the PROOF of the statement made, so that they don't have to put it all in the paper.
BUT ... when you LOOK at those references, here is what you get:
Footnote #1 & #2:
More "Chinese research," that shows a summary, but when I click on the links, they cannot be found.
Note the first article summary, which says:
Pangolins are endangered animals in urgent need of protection. Identifying and cataloguing the viruses carried by pangolins is a logical approach to evaluate the range of potential pathogens and help with conservation.
WTF is a "pangolin?"
From Wiki (look it up):
Pangolins, sometimes known as scaly anteaters, are mammals of the order Pholidota .
An ardvark! LOL!
It looks like this:
So ...
WTF does a so-called "pangolin coronavirus" have to do with the price of tea in China?
WTF does that have to do with a "virus" that harms humans (supposedly)?
These Chinese "researchers" are taking what they CLAIM is a virus from an anteater, doing some hocus pocus with genetically-modified mice, and then CLAIMING that this is some sort of PROOF of EFFECTIVENESS of a vaccine DRUG that is to be injected into HUMANS.
Seriously ???
THIS is what passes for "science" around the GAW?
HO LEE FUK !!!
Frens, ya'll gotta do better than this!
This garbage would not even be accepted by a THIRD GRADER if you broke it down to what it is ACTUALLY SAYING.
But let's continue ...
They make this statement:
The infectivity and pathogenicity of these isolates have been studied (4-6).
Again, this is false. The infectivity has NEVER been shown. The footnotes they cite (#4-#6) are, once again, (a) all "papers" written by Chinese "researchers," and (b) ONLY about the "pangolin coronavirus" -- whatever TF that is.
The next thing to note is there is no "Methods" section of this "paper." That is not standard.
Looks like they buried it in the "Results" section, which is really bassackward.
We first analyzed the adaptive mutations ... in cell cultures
So, they are looking at what happens in a petri dish, not a "virus" inside of a living organism. You would have to understand the underlying fraud of virology to catch this, but it bascially means they never had a virus to start with, but they claim they have evidence of what a virus can do, and from that they claim they can create vaccine drugs to inject into humans.
It is all based on fraud and lies, though.
GX_P2V C7, was randomly selected for the evaluation of viral pathogenicity in hACE2 mice
Next, we assessed whether GX_P2V C7 could cause disease in hACE2 mice
OK, let's consider that statement by itself. First, these are MODIFIED mice, not regular mice. Second, HOW would YOU go about figuring out if this "virus" clone (GX) could cause DISEASE in these modified mice?
A total of four ... mice were intranasally infected with ... the virus.
FOUR. Would you want more than 4 test cases? I would.
Intranasally means they sprayed a concoction up their nose.
How much did they sray up their nose?
with a dosage of 5×10^5 plaque-forming units (pfu)
That's 500,000 units ... up a MOUSE'S nose, not your nose. Is that a lot? Seems like it, but what can we compare it to? I don't know, and they don't offer any comparison.
Look up the term, though, and you will see that it is a GUESS about how much will cause harm. It is NOT a unit of measurement about how MANY virus particles are in there -- because they don't know! Nobody does, because NOBODY has ever isolated a virus so they could count them. Instead, they use this surrogate "pfu" and call it a day. But how much is this, really? They do not tell us.
Four mice inoculated with inactivated virus and four mock-infected mice were used as controls.
There is no such thing as an "activated virus" or "inactivated virus" since no virus exists. But they must have squirted something up there. They don't tell us about it. How MUCH?
And what does "mock-infected" mean? Does it mean only air?
No explanation is given.
Which means, we don't REALLY know what their CONTROL was, and THAT COMPLETELY INVALIDATES THEIR EXPERIMENT.
Anyhoo ...
Surprisingly, all the mice that were infected with the live virus succumbed to the infection within 7-8 days post-inoculation, rendering a mortality rate of 100%
OK, now IF that were true, then they MIGHT have something. But, is it true?
Remember, "all" means 4.
They squirted SOMETHING in what seems like a large amount up the nose of these modified mice.
The nose cavity would have connections to other areas of the head. And what do you know? They found problems in areas in the head and respiratory system.
Shocking!
The mice began to exhibit a decrease in body weight starting from day 5 post-infection, reaching a 10% decrease from the initial weight by day 6
OK, you shoot some unknown substance up their noses, and they begin to lose weight. Loss of appetite? Trouble breathing? They don't seem to care much about what might have caused it, other than getting to the conclusion they want.
By the seventh day following infection, the mice displayed symptoms such as piloerection, hunched posture, and sluggish movements, and their eyes turned white.
Translation: You jam something up their nose, make them breathe it in, and they might have problems.
This does NOT prove that a "virus" did anything to them. They had some sort of toxin, which in theory MIGHT be a "virus," but THIS is NOT the way to prove it.
Also, ask yourself this: Does this have ANYTHING to do with what happens in HUMANS who are said to be "infected with Covid?"
Were a bunch of hunched-over people walking around? White eyes?
No.
We then evaluated the tissue tropism of GX_P2V C7 in hACE2 mice.
"Tropism" = the turning of something, in response to an external stimulous.
Using the infection method described above, eight hACE2 mice were infected, eight mice were inoculated with inactivated virus, and another eight mock-infected mice were used as controls.
So, they repeated the experiment, this time with 8 of each. Note, they never tell us what happened to the first 12 mice (4 in each category). In this 2nd batch, we have 24 total (8 in each category).
The organs of four randomly selected mice in each group were dissected on days 3 and 6 post-infection for quantitative analysis of viral RNA and titer.
So, they killed half of the mice in each group on Day 3 to study, and the other half on Day 6.
Note: This was because they ASSUMED that what they sprayed up the noses of the first group of mice is what caused illness, so now they want to dissect this batch of mice to see what the find, internally.
We detected significant amounts of viral RNA in the brain, lung, turbinate, eye, and trachea of the GX_P2V C7 infected mice (Figure 1D), whereas no or a low amount of viral RNA was detected in other organs such as the heart, liver, spleen, kidneys, tongue, stomach, and intestines.
Right. Because you sprayed your garbage up their NOSE, which affected their head and respiratory system, but not the rest of their body.
Specifically, in lung samples, we detected high viral RNA loads on days 3 and 6 post-infection ...
Gee... ya think?
In summary, in the mice infected with live virus, the viral load in the lungs significantly decreased by day 6; both the viral RNA loads and viral titers in the brain samples were relatively low on day 3, but substantially increased by day 6. This finding suggested that severe brain infection during the later stages of infection may be the key cause of death in these mice.
THINK ABOUT THIS:
Does this happen to HUMANS? Did HUMANS die by Day 6?
In fact ... did THESE MICE DIE by Day 6?
NO!!!
This 2nd batch of mice were SACRIFICED so that the tissues could be examined. The "researchers" killed these mice.
But that 1st batch of mice? All 4 of the "live virus" mice died within 7-8 days.
They do not tell us what happened to the other 8 mice -- GX infected and "control."
They ALSO do not tell us HOW THEY CAME UP WITH A "LIVE" VIRUS, SINCE NOBODY IN THE WORLD HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO DO IT.
Instead, they MUST have bought SOMETHING ("Substance X") which was CLAIMED to be a "live virus," and they did not question it. Whatever that was, was sprayed up the noses of the mice and they did within a week.
Is THAT how it works in HUMANS?
Why didn't they try this on their ardvark, which is where this whole shit show started?
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report to analyze the cell-adapted mutations of pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V, and to show it can cause mortality in hACE2 mice.
No, they poisoned some modified mice, and claimed it was a virus that did it.
They did not prove they even started with a real virus. They did not tell us what that was that they claimed was a virus.
They did not tell us what the "control" was, or what happened to those 4 control mice or the 4 clone virus mice.
Did they all die?
What about this ardvark virus? Why do they claim it is the same as the bat virus?
Their conclusion is:
Currently, there is an urgent need for the development of broadly protective vaccines against pan-SARS-CoV-2, yet the emergence of the next SARS-CoV-2 variant is unpredictable. The pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR), which shares a certain degree of homology with SARS-CoV-2, may be valuable in assessing the effectiveness of broad-spectrum COVID-19 vaccine candidates against unknown future variants.
And they claim that THIS is "muh science."
In summary, our study provides a unique perspective on the pathogenicity of GX_P2V and offers an invaluable model for assessing the efficacy of drugs and vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.
Why don't you start with your ardvark?
Let's break down this ridiculous excuse for a "scientific study."
You guys need to learn to READ these things and at least try to understand what they are REALLY saying. If you don't, you can be fed any bullshit and believe it.
The paper is here:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.01.03.574008v2.full
First thing to note is the authors: All Chinese. Right off the bat, you should be suspicious, since the Chinese do NOT do SCIENTIFIC research.
They write papers that will please their bosses.
In other words: SUM TING WONG !
From Abstract:
SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR) ... can cause mortality in a ... mouse model, making it an invaluable surrogate model for evaluating the efficacy of drugs and vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.
Huh? Why is a "mouse model" a standard to use for CLAIMING the efficacy (i.e. effectiveness) of drugs for HUMANS?
These are MODIFIED mice. They DO NOT EXIST IN NATURE.
From Introduction:
Two SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin coronaviruses, GD/2019 and GX/2017, were identified prior to the COVID-19 outbreak (1, 2).
That is a false statement.
The "(1,2)" are references to two footnotes at the bottom that are SUPPOSED to provide the PROOF of the statement made, so that they don't have to put it all in the paper.
BUT ... when you LOOK at those references, here is what you get:
Footnote #1 & #2:
More "Chinese research," that shows a summary, but when I click on the links, they cannot be found.
Note the first article summary, which says:
Pangolins are endangered animals in urgent need of protection. Identifying and cataloguing the viruses carried by pangolins is a logical approach to evaluate the range of potential pathogens and help with conservation.
WTF is a "pangolin?"
From Wiki (look it up):
Pangolins, sometimes known as scaly anteaters, are mammals of the order Pholidota .
An ardvark! LOL!
It looks like this:
So ...
WTF does a so-called "pangolin coronavirus" have to do with the price of tea in China?
WTF does that have to do with a "virus" that harms humans (supposedly)?
These Chinese "researchers" are taking what they CLAIM is a virus from an anteater, doing some hocus pocus with genetically-modified mice, and then CLAIMING that this is some sort of PROOF of EFFECTIVENESS of a vaccine DRUG that is to be injected into HUMANS.
Seriously ???
THIS is what passes for "science" around the GAW?
HO LEE FUK !!!
Frens, ya'll gotta do better than this!
This garbage would not even be accepted by a THIRD GRADER if you broke it down to what it is ACTUALLY SAYING.
But let's continue ...
They make this statement:
The infectivity and pathogenicity of these isolates have been studied (4-6).
Again, this is false. The infectivity has NEVER been shown. The footnotes they cite (#4-#6) are, once again, (a) all "papers" written by Chinese "researchers," and (b) ONLY about the "pangolin coronavirus" -- whatever TF that is.
The next thing to note is there is no "Methods" section of this "paper." That is not standard.
Looks like they buried it in the "Results" section, which is really bassackward.
We first analyzed the adaptive mutations ... in cell cultures
So, they are looking at what happens in a petri dish, not a "virus" inside of a living organism. You would have to understand the underlying fraud of virology to catch this, but it bascially means they never had a virus to start with, but they claim they have evidence of what a virus can do, and from that they claim they can create vaccine drugs to inject into humans.
It is all based on fraud and lies, though.
GX_P2V C7, was randomly selected for the evaluation of viral pathogenicity in hACE2 mice
Next, we assessed whether GX_P2V C7 could cause disease in hACE2 mice
OK, let's consider that statement by itself. First, these are MODIFIED mice, not regular mice. Second, HOW would YOU go about figuring out if this "virus" clone (GX) could cause DISEASE in these modified mice?
A total of four ... mice were intranasally infected with ... the virus.
FOUR. Would you want more than 4 test cases? I would.
Intranasally means they sprayed a concoction up their nose.
How much did they sray up their nose?
with a dosage of 5×10^5 plaque-forming units (pfu)
That's 500,000 units ... up a MOUSE'S nose, not your nose. Is that a lot? Seems like it, but what can we compare it to? I don't know, and they don't offer any comparison.
Look up the term, though, and you will see that it is a GUESS about how much will cause harm. It is NOT a unit of measurement about how MANY virus particles are in there -- because they don't know! Nobody does, because NOBODY has ever isolated a virus so they could count them. Instead, they use this surrogate "pfu" and call it a day. But how much is this, really? They do not tell us.
Four mice inoculated with inactivated virus and four mock-infected mice were used as controls.
There is no such thing as an "activated virus" or "inactivated virus" since no virus exists. But they must have squirted something up there. They don't tell us about it. How MUCH?
And what does "mock-infected" mean? Does it mean only air?
No explanation is given.
Which means, we don't REALLY know what their CONTROL was, and THAT COMPLETELY INVALIDATES THEIR EXPERIMENT.
Anyhoo ...
Surprisingly, all the mice that were infected with the live virus succumbed to the infection within 7-8 days post-inoculation, rendering a mortality rate of 100%
OK, now IF that were true, then they MIGHT have something. But, is it true?
Remember, "all" means 4.
They squirted SOMETHING in what seems like a large amount up the nose of these modified mice.
The nose cavity would have connections to other areas of the head. And what do you know? They found problems in areas in the head and respiratory system.
Shocking!
The mice began to exhibit a decrease in body weight starting from day 5 post-infection, reaching a 10% decrease from the initial weight by day 6
OK, you shoot some unknown substance up their noses, and they begin to lose weight. Loss of appetite? Trouble breathing? They don't seem to care much about what might have caused it, other than getting to the conclusion they want.
By the seventh day following infection, the mice displayed symptoms such as piloerection, hunched posture, and sluggish movements, and their eyes turned white.
Translation: You jam something up their nose, make them breathe it in, and they might have problems.
This does NOT prove that a "virus" did anything to them. They had some sort of toxin, which in theory MIGHT be a "virus," but THIS is NOT the way to prove it.
We then evaluated the tissue tropism of GX_P2V C7 in hACE2 mice.
"Tropism" = the turning of something, in response to an external stimulous.
Using the infection method described above, eight hACE2 mice were infected, eight mice were inoculated with inactivated virus, and another eight mock-infected mice were used as controls.
So, they repeated the experiment, this time with 8 of each. Note, they never tell us what happened to the first 12 mice (4 in each category). In this 2nd batch, we have 24 total (8 in each category).
The organs of four randomly selected mice in each group were dissected on days 3 and 6 post-infection for quantitative analysis of viral RNA and titer.
So, they killed half of the mice in each group on Day 3 to study, and the other half on Day 6.
Note: This was because they ASSUMED that what they sprayed up the noses of the first group of mice is what caused illness, so now they want to dissect this batch of mice to see what the find, internally.
We detected significant amounts of viral RNA in the brain, lung, turbinate, eye, and trachea of the GX_P2V C7 infected mice (Figure 1D), whereas no or a low amount of viral RNA was detected in other organs such as the heart, liver, spleen, kidneys, tongue, stomach, and intestines.
Right. Because you sprayed your garbage up their NOSE, which affected their head and respiratory system, but not the rest of their body.
Specifically, in lung samples, we detected high viral RNA loads on days 3 and 6 post-infection ...
Gee... ya think?
In summary, in the mice infected with live virus, the viral load in the lungs significantly decreased by day 6; both the viral RNA loads and viral titers in the brain samples were relatively low on day 3, but substantially increased by day 6. This finding suggested that severe brain infection during the later stages of infection may be the key cause of death in these mice.
THINK ABOUT THIS:
Does this happen to HUMANS? Did HUMANS die by Day 6?
In fact ... did THESE MICE DIE by Day 6?
NO!!!
This 2nd batch of mice were SACRIFICED so that the tissues could be examined. The "researchers" killed these mice.
But that 1st batch of mice? All 4 of the "live virus" mice died within 7-8 days.
They do not tell us what happened to the other 8 mice -- GX infected and "control."
They ALSO do not tell us HOW THEY CAME UP WITH A "LIVE" VIRUS, SINCE NOBODY IN THE WORLD HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO DO IT.
Instead, they MUST have bought SOMETHING ("Substance X") which was CLAIMED to be a "live virus," and they did not question it. Whatever that was, was sprayed up the noses of the mice and they did within a week.
Is THAT how it works in HUMANS?
Why didn't they try this on their ardvark, which is where this whole shit show started?
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report to analyze the cell-adapted mutations of pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V, and to show it can cause mortality in hACE2 mice.
No, they poisoned some modified mice, and claimed it was a virus that did it.
They did not prove they even started with a real virus. They did not tell us what that was that they claimed was a virus.
They did not tell us what the "control" was, or what happened to those 4 control mice or the 4 clone virus mice.
Did they all die?
What about this ardvark virus? Why do they claim it is the same as the bat virus?
Their conclusion is:
Currently, there is an urgent need for the development of broadly protective vaccines against pan-SARS-CoV-2, yet the emergence of the next SARS-CoV-2 variant is unpredictable. The pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR), which shares a certain degree of homology with SARS-CoV-2, may be valuable in assessing the effectiveness of broad-spectrum COVID-19 vaccine candidates against unknown future variants.
And they claim that THIS is "muh science."
In summary, our study provides a unique perspective on the pathogenicity of GX_P2V and offers an invaluable model for assessing the efficacy of drugs and vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.
Why don't you start with your ardvark?
Let's break down this ridiculous excuse for a "scientific study."
You guys need to learn to READ these things and at least try to understand what they are REALLY saying. If you don't, you can be fed any bullshit and believe it.
The paper is here:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.01.03.574008v2.full
First thing to note is the authors: All Chinese. Right off the bat, you should be suspicious, since the Chinese do NOT do SCIENTIFIC research.
They write papers that will please their bosses.
In other words: SUM TING WONG !
From Abstract:
SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR) ... can cause mortality in a ... mouse model, making it an invaluable surrogate model for evaluating the efficacy of drugs and vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.
Huh? Why is a "mouse model" a standard to use for CLAIMING the efficacy (i.e. effectiveness) of drugs for HUMANS?
These are MODIFIED mice. They DO NOT EXIST IN NATURE.
From Introduction:
Two SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin coronaviruses, GD/2019 and GX/2017, were identified prior to the COVID-19 outbreak (1, 2).
That is a false statement.
The "(1,2)" are references to two footnotes at the bottom that are SUPPOSED to provide the PROOF of the statement made, so that they don't have to put it all in the paper.
BUT ... when you LOOK at those references, here is what you get:
Footnote #1 & #2:
More "Chinese research," that shows a summary, but when I click on the links, they cannot be found.
Note the first article summary, which says:
Pangolins are endangered animals in urgent need of protection. Identifying and cataloguing the viruses carried by pangolins is a logical approach to evaluate the range of potential pathogens and help with conservation.
WTF is a "pangolin?"
From Wiki (look it up):
Pangolins, sometimes known as scaly anteaters, are mammals of the order Pholidota .
An ardvark! LOL!
It looks like this:
So ...
WTF does a so-called "pangolin coronavirus" have to do with the price of tea in China?
WTF does that have to do with a "virus" that harms humans (supposedly)?
These Chinese "researchers" are taking what they CLAIM is a virus from an anteater, doing some hocus pocus with genetically-modified mice, and the CLAIMING that this is some sort of PROOF of EFFECTIVENESS of a vaccine DRUG that is to be injected into HUMANS.
Seriously ???
THIS is what passes for "science" around the GAW?
HO LEE FUK !!!
Frens, ya'll gotta do better than this!
This garbage would not even be accepted by a THIRD GRADER if you broke it down to what it is ACTUALLY SAYING.
But let's continue ...
They make this statement:
The infectivity and pathogenicity of these isolates have been studied (4-6).
Again, this is false. The infectivity has NEVER been shown. The footnotes they cite (#4-#6) are, once again, (a) all "papers" written by Chinese "researchers," and (b) ONLY about the "pangolin coronavirus" -- whatever TF that is.
The next thing to note is there is no "Methods" section of this "paper." That is not standard.
Looks like they buried it in the "Results" section, which is really bassackward.
We first analyzed the adaptive mutations ... in cell cultures
So, they are looking at what happens in a petri dish, not a "virus" inside of a living organism. You would have to understand the underlying fruad of virology to catch this, but it bascially means they never had a virus to start with, but they claim they have evidence of what a virus can do, and from that they claim they can create vaccine drugs to inject into humans.
It is all based on fraud and lies, though.
GX_P2V C7, was randomly selected for the evaluation of viral pathogenicity in hACE2 mice
Next, we assessed whether GX_P2V C7 could cause disease in hACE2 mice
OK, let's consider that statement by itself. First, these are MODIFIED mice, not regular mice. Second, HOW would YOU go about figuring out if this "virus" clone (GX) could cause DISEASE in these modified mice?
A total of four ... mice were intranasally infected with ... the virus.
FOUR. Would you want more than 4 test cases? I would.
Intranasally means they sprayed a concoction up their nose.
How much did they sray up their nose?
with a dosage of 5×10^5 plaque-forming units (pfu)
That's 500,000 units ... up a MOUSE'S nose, not your nose. Is that a lot? Seems like it, but what can we compare it to? I don't know, and they don't offer any comparison.
Four mice inoculated with inactivated virus and four mock-infected mice were used as controls.
There is no such thing as an "activated virus" or "inactivated virus" since no virus exists. But they must have squirted something up there. They don't tell us about it. And what does "mock-infected" mean? Does it mean only air?
No explanation is given.
Which means, we don't REALLY know what their CONTROL was, and THAT COMPLETELY INVALIDATES THEIR EXPERIMENT.
Anyhoo ...
OK, now IF that were true, then they MIGHT have something. But, is it true?
Remember, "all" means 4.
They squirted SOMETHING in what seems like a large amount up the nose of these modified mice.
The nose cavity would have connections to other areas of the head. And what do you know? They found problems in areas in and near the head and respiratory system. Shocking!
The mice began to exhibit a decrease in body weight starting from day 5 post-infection, reaching a 10% decrease from the initial weight by day 6
OK, you shoot some unknown substance up their noses, and they begin to lose weight. Loss of appetite? Trouble breathing? They don't seem to care much about what might have caused it, other than getting to the conclusion they want.
By the seventh day following infection, the mice displayed symptoms such as piloerection, hunched posture, and sluggish movements, and their eyes turned white.
Translation: You jam something up their nose, make them breathe it in, and they might have problems.
This does NOT prove that a "virus" did anything to them. They had some sort of toxin, which in theory MIGHT be a "virus," but THIS is NOT the way to prove it.
We then evaluated the tissue tropism of GX_P2V C7 in hACE2 mice.
"Tropism" = the turning of something, in response to an external stimulous.
Using the infection method described above, eight hACE2 mice were infected, eight mice were inoculated with inactivated virus, and another eight mock-infected mice were used as controls.
So, they repeated the experiment, this time with 8 of each. Note, they never tell us what happened to the first 12 mice (4 in each category). In this 2nd batch, we have 24 total (8 in each category).
The organs of four randomly selected mice in each group were dissected on days 3 and 6 post-infection for quantitative analysis of viral RNA and titer.
So, they killed half of the mice in each group on Day 3 to study, and the other half on Day 6.
Note: This was because they ASSUMED that what they sprayed up the noses of the first group of mice is what caused illness, so now they want to dissect this batch of mice to see what the find, internally.
We detected significant amounts of viral RNA in the brain, lung, turbinate, eye, and trachea of the GX_P2V C7 infected mice (Figure 1D), whereas no or a low amount of viral RNA was detected in other organs such as the heart, liver, spleen, kidneys, tongue, stomach, and intestines.
Right. Because you sprayed your garbage up their NOSE, which affected their head and respiratory system, but not the rest of their body.
Specifically, in lung samples, we detected high viral RNA loads on days 3 and 6 post-infection ...
Gee... ya think?
In summary, in the mice infected with live virus, the viral load in the lungs significantly decreased by day 6; both the viral RNA loads and viral titers in the brain samples were relatively low on day 3, but substantially increased by day 6. This finding suggested that severe brain infection during the later stages of infection may be the key cause of death in these mice.
THINK ABOUT THIS:
Does this happen to HUMANS? Did HUMANS die by Day 6?
In fact ... did THESE MICE DIE by Day 6?
NO!!!
This 2nd batch of mice were SACRIFICED so that the tissues could be examined. The "researchers" killed these mice.
But that 1st batch of mice? All 4 of the "live virus" mice died within 7-8 days.
They do not tell us what happened to the other 8 mice -- GX infected and "control."
They ALSO do not tell us HOW THEY CAME UP WITH A "LIVE" VIRUS, SINCE NOBODY IN THE WORLD HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO DO IT.
Instead, they MUST have bought SOMETHING ("Substance X") which was CLAIMED to be a "live virus," and they did not question it. Whatever that was, was sprayed up the noses of the mice and they did within a week.
Is THAT how it works in HUMANS?
Why didn't they try this on their ardvark, which is where this whole shit show started?
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report to analyze the cell-adapted mutations of pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V, and to show it can cause mortality in hACE2 mice.
No, they poisoned some modified mice, and claimed it was a virus that did it.
They did not prove they even started with a real virus. They did not tell us what that was that they claimed was a virus.
They did not tell us what the "control" was, or what happened to those 4 control mice or the 4 clone virus mice.
Did they all die?
What about this ardvark virus? Why do they claim it is the same as the bat virus?
Their conclusion is:
Currently, there is an urgent need for the development of broadly protective vaccines against pan-SARS-CoV-2, yet the emergence of the next SARS-CoV-2 variant is unpredictable. The pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR), which shares a certain degree of homology with SARS-CoV-2, may be valuable in assessing the effectiveness of broad-spectrum COVID-19 vaccine candidates against unknown future variants.
And they claim that THIS is "muh science."
In summary, our study provides a unique perspective on the pathogenicity of GX_P2V and offers an invaluable model for assessing the efficacy of drugs and vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.
Why don't you start with your ardvark?
Let's break down this ridiculous excuse for a "scientific study."
You guys need to learn to READ these things and at least try to understand what they are REALLY saying. If you don't, you can be fed any bullshit and believe it.
The paper is here:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.01.03.574008v2.full
First thing to note is the authors: All Chinese. Right off the bat, you should be suspicious, since the Chinese do NOT do SCIENTIFIC research.
They write papers that will please their bosses.
In other words: SUM TING WONG !
From Abstract:
SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR) ... can cause mortality in a ... mouse model, making it an invaluable surrogate model for evaluating the efficacy of drugs and vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.
Huh? Why is a "mouse model" a standard to use for CLAIMING the efficacy (i.e. effectiveness) of drugs for HUMANS?
These are MODIFIED mice. They DO NOT EXIST IN NATURE.
From Introduction:
Two SARS-CoV-2-related pangolin coronaviruses, GD/2019 and GX/2017, were identified prior to the COVID-19 outbreak (1, 2).
That is a false statement.
The "(1,2)" are references to two footnotes at the bottom that are SUPPOSED to provide the PROOF of the statement made, so that they don't have to put it all in the paper.
BUT ... when you LOOK at those references, here is what you get:
Footnote #1 & #2:
More "Chinese research," that shows a summary, but when I click on the links, they cannot be found.
Note the first article summary, which says:
Pangolins are endangered animals in urgent need of protection. Identifying and cataloguing the viruses carried by pangolins is a logical approach to evaluate the range of potential pathogens and help with conservation.
WTF is a "pangolin?"
From Wiki (look it up):
Pangolins, sometimes known as scaly anteaters, are mammals of the order Pholidota .
Looks like this:
So ...
WTF does a so-called "pangolin coronavirus" have to do with the price of tea in China?
WTF does that have to do with a "virus" that harms humans (supposedly)?
These Chinese "researchers" are taking what they CLAIM is a virus from an anteater, doing some hocus pocus with genetically-modified mice, and the CLAIMING that this is some soft of PROOF of EFFECTIVENESS of a vaccine DRUG that is to be injected into HUMANS.
Seriously ???
THIS is what passes for "science" around the GAW?
HO LEE FUK !!!
Frens, ya'll gotta do better than this!
This garbage would not even be accepted by a THIRD GRADER if you broke it down to what it is ACTUALLY SAYING.
But let's continue ...
They make this statement:
The infectivity and pathogenicity of these isolates have been studied (4-6).
Again, this is false. The infectivity has NEVER been shown. The footnotes they cite (#4-#6) are, once again, (a) all "papers" written by Chinese "researchers," and (b) ONLY about the "pangolin coronavirus" -- whatever TF that is.
The next thing to note is there is no "Methods" section of this "paper." That is not standard.
Looks like they buried it in the "Results" section, which is really bassackward.
We first analyzed the adaptive mutations ... in cell cultures
So, they are looking at what happens in a petri dish, not a "virus" inside of a living organism. You would have to understand the underlying fruad of virology to catch this, but it bascially means they never had a virus to start with, but they claim they have evidence of what a virus can do, and from that they claim they can create vaccine drugs to inject into humans.
It is all based on fraud and lies, though.
GX_P2V C7, was randomly selected for the evaluation of viral pathogenicity in hACE2 mice
Next, we assessed whether GX_P2V C7 could cause disease in hACE2 mice
OK, let's consider that statement by itself. First, these are MODIFIED mice, not regular mice. Second, HOW would YOU go about figuring out if this "virus" clone (GX) could cause DISEASE in these modified mice?
A total of four ... mice were intranasally infected with ... the virus.
FOUR. Would you want more than 4 test cases? I would.
Intranasally means they sprayed a concoction up their nose.
How much did they sray up their nose?
with a dosage of 5×10^5 plaque-forming units (pfu)
That's 500,000 units ... up a MOUSE'S nose, not your nose. Is that a lot? Seems like it, but what can we compare it to? I don't know, and they don't offer any comparison.
Four mice inoculated with inactivated virus and four mock-infected mice were used as controls.
There is no such thing as an "activated virus" or "inactivated virus" since no virus exists. But they must have squirted something up there. They don't tell us about it. And what does "mock-infected" mean? Does it mean only air?
No explanation is given.
Which means, we don't REALLY know what their CONTROL was, and THAT COMPLETELY INVALIDATES THEIR EXPERIMENT.
Anyhoo ...
OK, now IF that were true, then they MIGHT have something. But, is it true?
Remember, "all" means 4.
They squirted SOMETHING in what seems like a large amount up the nose of these modified mice.
The nose cavity would have connections to other areas of the head. And what do you know? They found problems in areas in and near the head and respiratory system. Shocking!
The mice began to exhibit a decrease in body weight starting from day 5 post-infection, reaching a 10% decrease from the initial weight by day 6
OK, you shoot some unknown substance up their noses, and they begin to lose weight. Loss of appetite? Trouble breathing? They don't seem to care much about what might have caused it, other than getting to the conclusion they want.
By the seventh day following infection, the mice displayed symptoms such as piloerection, hunched posture, and sluggish movements, and their eyes turned white.
Translation: You jam something up their nose, make them breathe it in, and they might have problems.
This does NOT prove that a "virus" did anything to them. They had some sort of toxin, which in theory MIGHT be a "virus," but THIS is NOT the way to prove it.
We then evaluated the tissue tropism of GX_P2V C7 in hACE2 mice.
"Tropism" = the turning of something, in response to an external stimulous.
Using the infection method described above, eight hACE2 mice were infected, eight mice were inoculated with inactivated virus, and another eight mock-infected mice were used as controls.
So, they repeated the experiment, this time with 8 of each. Note, they never tell us what happened to the first 12 mice (4 in each category). In this 2nd batch, we have 24 total (8 in each category).
The organs of four randomly selected mice in each group were dissected on days 3 and 6 post-infection for quantitative analysis of viral RNA and titer.
So, they killed half of the mice in each group on Day 3 to study, and the other half on Day 6.
Note: This was because they ASSUMED that what they sprayed up the noses of the first group of mice is what caused illness, so now they want to dissect this batch of mice to see what the find, internally.
We detected significant amounts of viral RNA in the brain, lung, turbinate, eye, and trachea of the GX_P2V C7 infected mice (Figure 1D), whereas no or a low amount of viral RNA was detected in other organs such as the heart, liver, spleen, kidneys, tongue, stomach, and intestines.
Right. Because you sprayed your garbage up their NOSE, which affected their head and respiratory system, but not the rest of their body.
Specifically, in lung samples, we detected high viral RNA loads on days 3 and 6 post-infection ...
Gee... ya think?
In summary, in the mice infected with live virus, the viral load in the lungs significantly decreased by day 6; both the viral RNA loads and viral titers in the brain samples were relatively low on day 3, but substantially increased by day 6. This finding suggested that severe brain infection during the later stages of infection may be the key cause of death in these mice.
THINK ABOUT THIS:
Does this happen to HUMANS? Did HUMANS die by Day 6?
In fact ... did THESE MICE DIE by Day 6?
NO!!!
This 2nd batch of mice were SACRIFICED so that the tissues could be examined. The "researchers" killed these mice.
But that 1st batch of mice? All 4 of the "live virus" mice died within 7-8 days.
They do not tell us what happened to the other 8 mice -- GX infected and "control."
They ALSO do not tell us HOW THEY CAME UP WITH A "LIVE" VIRUS, SINCE NOBODY IN THE WORLD HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO DO IT.
Instead, they MUST have bought SOMETHING ("Substance X") which was CLAIMED to be a "live virus," and they did not question it. Whatever that was, was sprayed up the noses of the mice and they did within a week.
Is THAT how it works in HUMANS?
Why didn't they try this on their ardvark, which is where this whole shit show started?
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report to analyze the cell-adapted mutations of pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V, and to show it can cause mortality in hACE2 mice.
No, they poisoned some modified mice, and claimed it was a virus that did it.
They did not prove they even started with a real virus. They did not tell us what that was that they claimed was a virus.
They did not tell us what the "control" was, or what happened to those 4 control mice or the 4 clone virus mice.
Did they all die?
What about this ardvark virus? Why do they claim it is the same as the bat virus?
Their conclusion is:
Currently, there is an urgent need for the development of broadly protective vaccines against pan-SARS-CoV-2, yet the emergence of the next SARS-CoV-2 variant is unpredictable. The pangolin coronavirus GX_P2V(short_3UTR), which shares a certain degree of homology with SARS-CoV-2, may be valuable in assessing the effectiveness of broad-spectrum COVID-19 vaccine candidates against unknown future variants.
And they claim that THIS is "muh science."
In summary, our study provides a unique perspective on the pathogenicity of GX_P2V and offers an invaluable model for assessing the efficacy of drugs and vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.
Why don't you start with an ardvark?