MARATHON OF WORLD LIES đ¤´19 part 2
PCR is a manufacturing technique, not a medical test. The creator of PCR himself, the American scientist and Nobel Prize winner Carey Mullis, constantly said that PCR cannot serve as a tool for medical diagnosis.Â
And on April 16, 2020, the European Commission released a report stating that as of April 16, 78 different types of PCR tests and 110 different antibody tests were used in Europe. None of these tests passed any verification and were not authorized. And what's most terrifying is that most of the manufacturers of these PCR tests didn't even report which gynetic sequences they used. This means that "inside" such tests could be anything. Even ordinary water and an algorithm tuned, for example, to give 30% positive results and 70% negative. As Stefano Sclogo, a candidate for the Nobel Prize in Medicine, says: "All this is simply criminal and we must take measures to sue those responsible for the fact that PCR tests and serological tests (antibody tests) for sars-cov-2 were allowed to be used."
Now, let's move on to a detailed discussion of serological tests. These tests examine the blood serum for the presence of antibodies. Antibody tests are based on the antigen-antibody theory. In this theory, antibodies fight antigens (viral proteins) that the body considers foreign. Their detection triggers an immune reaction or response, which in turn triggers the formation of antibodies. In this theory, a high number of antibodies means the presence of immunity to the disease, that is, the inability to get sick in the future. A low number of antibodies is the lack of immunity, and the ability to get sick, and thus become a "carrier" of the disease. It is important to understand, all this is only a theory, this territory has not been proven and has too many contradictions.Â
         Here are just a few:
In a report published by the Medical Research Council entitled Diphtheria Research in Two Areas of the UK, a series of special reports 272, HMSO 1950, demonstrated that many patients with diphtheria had high levels of circulating antibodies, while many of their contacts who remained perfectly healthy had extremely low antibody levels. And also, it is a known fact that children with congenital agammaglobulinemia, who cannot produce antibodies and have only minor traces of immunoglobulin in the bloodstream, get measles in the most usual way, have a normal sequence of symptoms and signs and subsequently never encounter measles again. No anti-measles antibodies were found in their serum. This is detailed in the article "Measles as an Indicator of Immunological Function" in The Lancet for 1968.
Measles as an Index of Immunological Function, The Lancet, September 14, 1968, p.611.
Yes, it is believed that a high number of antibodies means that the body has "successfully overcome" the infectious agent. However, with the HIV virus, this theory by the magic of a wizard's wand, without any logical explanation, ceases to be relevant, and the presence of antibodies to HIV, suddenly, no longer means any "protection" and "success". Quite the opposite.
And here is a famous quote from german microbiologist and virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka, who on January 16, 2017, won a case in the Supreme Court of Germany, proving that the virus considered responsible for the occurrence of measles does not exist:
"I am absolutely sure that no antibody test in medicine has absolute significance. In particular, when testing for HIV antibodies, it is obvious that the antibodies found in the test are present in all people.
In some people, they are in higher concentrations and in some at lower concentrations, but only when you reach very high levels of antibodies â much higher than any other antibody test â will you be considered "positive." This is a contradiction in terms because in other antibody tests, the lower your antibody level, the higher your risk of symptomatic infection. But with HIV, it's only said you're "positive" when you've reached very high levels of antibodies. From all this, we conclude that the whole theory of antibodies as a guarantee of protection against any disease is only someone's theory, an assumption that has never been scientifically confirmed, but which was very beneficial to those who are interested in vaccinating the population.Â
Let's look at covid-19 (sars-cov-2) antibody tests.
It is very important to understand that these so-called "tests for antibodies to sars-cov-2" confirm only the existence of antibodies, not the antigen. And that's the key point. This is so important that it is worth repeating it again: The so-called "tests for antibodies to sars-cov-2" confirm only the existence of antibodies, not the antigen.
When conducting such a test, we should already imply that sars-cov-2 has been isolated. Only then could the antigen be used to calibrate antibody tests for that particular antigen (sars-cov-2). That is, only in this way can it be checked whether antibodies react in response to this antigen (sars-cov-2) or not. And since we don't have this virus, because it hasn't been isolated, it doesn't make any sense to have such a test, just like a PCR test. When we know this information, the antibody test manufacturer's liner no longer looks surprising. It clearly states that "there is no recognized standard for determining the presence or absence of antibodies to sars-cov-2 in human blood." That is, on this insert they explicitly write that:Â
"We don't know what exactly a positive or negative result of this test means." Pretty honest on their part, isn't it?
It's no surprise that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved serological tests (antibody tests) to diagnose Covid-19. Despite the fact that this agency is famous for its low standards, approving drugs that are subsequently withdrawn from the market due to the fact that they crippled and led to the disability of hundreds of thousands of people. Even this organization, which was never able to approve these tests, washed its hands, so to speak.
But what, then, does an antibody test respond to?
Since the sars-cov-2 virus has never been isolated, the so-called "antigen" is created artificially from RNA-based proteins that are supposed to originate from the virus, but this is just their assumption and it is not proven because the viral particle has not been isolated and its RNA has not been determined. No one knows where the RNA they use for the test comes from. It can be of human origin, as well as any of those billions of microorganisms that live in the human body.
And what are antibodies? In fact, these are soluble blood proteins that play a central role in the healing of any wounds and damage occurring in the body. When you cut your finger, so-called antibodies (blood proteins) immediately form in your blood in response to this damage. They are formed in response to many factors. Even in response to emotional stress, grief, depression. This fact is well documented. An increased amount of antibodies in the blood is an absolutely normal phenomenon for a person. And since the virus was not isolated, it is impossible to prove that the antibodies were developed in response to this virus, and that they are specific to this virus. They can be found in the blood due to a long list of different causes.
And what is very important to know is that in a test tube containing a certain concentration of acids, bases, minerals and solvents, these blood proteins, also called globulins, will voluntarily bind to other proteins, that is, to the so-called antigens. Arbitrarily! They may or may not. Contacted = positive test result.
This means they can bind to this antigen (RNA) despite the fact that you have not been sick with anything before and are not sick with anything at the moment.
What does that mean? So you can force any sample taken from an animal or human, give a positive or negative result, during testing. Test results can be easily manipulated. And this explains why many people take an antibody test on the same day in different places and get completely different results.
David Crowe, a Canadian researcher with a degree in biology and mathematics, host of the infectious myth podcast, and president of the think tank Rethinking AIDS, in his recent analysis, addresses the challenges associated with Covid-19 (sars-cov-2) antibody tests.
Crowe immediately points out the first important point - how do we even know whether a person has acquired these antibodies to the new "virus" recently, or if he has always had them? If a person has had these antibodies for years, what does an antibody test prove? No problem.
Crow writes: "Almost 14% of the old preserved blood samples tested (who definitely could not have encountered Covid-19) tested positive in the study from Holland, and when checked the Cellex and Chembio tests, 4.4% and 3.6% of those who tested old samples were positive. The idealized antibody model is based on the date of "infection" as a starting point. (That is, this model implies the gradual appearance of antibodies after the moment of infection). However, we can never give an exact date for the "infection".
Even when someone came into contact with a person with so-called COVID-19 RNA positive on a particular day, this is no guarantee that it was the date of infection, given that before the quarantine, people could obviously "get infected" while playing in the park, eating at a restaurant, walking down the street, attending a concert or engaging in any other activity that is now prohibited. When antibody tests are done, the vast majority of people with a positive test result are unaware that they happen to have been infected before, and cannot be sure of the date." Therefore, it is not known when, in fact, they developed these antibodies. They could have been present many years ago, or even always.
Crowe continues, "But a much more serious the problem is that the results cannot be verified. When 1.5% of all Santa Clara volunteers tested positive, it was decided that this was true. This "truth" implies that all these people at some point in the recent past were necessarily RNA-positive (that is, they encountered the virus, were carriers of its RNA). But there is no evidence of this. We also have to imply that all people, before they became RNA positive (that is, before encountering the so-called virus), were also negative for antibodies to COVID-19. But there's absolutely no evidence for that." In other words, there is no evidence that people who test positive for Covid-19 antibodies have ever been RNA positive, meaning they have ever encountered this "virus."
"The big problem with Covid-19 antibody tests is that a significant number of antibody-positive samples were taken from people who were negative in COVID-19 RNA PCR tests (although some had 'symptoms' similar to COVID-19), and there was no evidence that the person was ever infected. In one Chinese study, the rate of positive results among supposedly never infected people was 25%."
"Test makers always test their tests on blood samples from people with unrelated diseases as a check. Although a very small number of samples have been examined, various manufacturers have found a significant percentage of samples positive for COVID-19 antibodies that are known not to contain COVID-19 but instead contain other "viruses," bacteria, mycoplasma, or were obtained from people with autoimmune diseases, indicating non-specificity of antibodies. For example, 10% of the hepatitis B samples were positive, 33% of the respiratory synctitis virus samples, 10% of the samples containing autoantibodies, and 17% of the streptococcus samples." All of this means that if you already have any problems with well-being, injuries, or increased stress levels, the chance of getting a positive result in this test is significantly increased, despite the fact that you have never encountered the so-called "Covid-19."
The tests that are used for Covid-19 are ELISA (Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay) tests.Â
They investigate IgM antibodies, which in this theory are infection-fighting antibodies that occur about a week or so after "infection" (positivity RNA) and IgG â which are thought to be more specific and, according to some, take longer to be created by the body. And accordingly, it is believed that after the infection resolves, the IgM antibodies will gradually disappear, and the IgG will remain, providing permanent immunity. "Unfortunately, this idealized picture is not supported by the available evidence." - explains David Crowe - "There has never been any scientific study that would show how reasonable such testing is. This study should consist of a large number of people who are currently negative for both viral RNA (PCR test) and antibodies. Every few days, these people must donate blood and a nasal swab. If some of them become RNA-positive, then they can be investigated to determine the exact nature of the development of antibodies, up to the disappearance of IgM antibodies and the preservation of IgG antibodies (as stated in this theory, permanent immunity). But such a study has never been conducted." Of course, this research will be time-consuming and expensive. But those considerations shouldn't stop us from doing such a study, especially given the billions that are being spent on COVID-19 and the trillions being lost by the economy, as well as politicians' claims that they are following science entirely. Given all this, they can't justify why they don't do real science.
And also due to the fact that such studies have never been conducted, we cannot know how antibodies behave and what significance they have in the process of disease. And such studies are not specifically conducted, because they can put an end to the idea of testing for antibodies, which those interested in vaccinating the population can not allow. Therefore, we have very little data regarding antibody tests. We have no data on how much this type of testing is scientifically based.
Official models that illustrate the time of appearance of antibodies show that after "infection", their total number (titer) gradually increases. But the number of IgM antibodies first gradually increases, and then decreases and completely disappears. However, many studies have shown negative antibody test results throughout the period of manifestation of the symptoms of the disease. The test, developed by the Wadsworth Center in New York City, found that 40% of the samples were negative for antibodies 11 to 15 days after the onset of symptoms and even more within 16 to 20 days. This indicates that antibodies can appear and disappear randomly, and do not behave smoothly and predictably. When Chembio tested, IgG antibodies were found in all four RNA-positive samples collected within 6 days of the onset of symptoms, while IgM antibodies were found in only one of four. It should have been the other way around if IgM occurs earlier than IgG. A study of 30 patients with severe and mild COVID-19 disease found that "most patients ... had an earlier IgG seroconversion than IgM [at the first detection of antibodies]." Some tests and studies have made it impossible to confirm this theory because they used common antibodies without distinguishing between IgM and IgG. Many other tests responded only to IgG antibodies, so comparison with IgM was not possible. Information is intentionally very limited, but it does not support the view of some that IgM antibodies develop earlier than IgG. This is consistent with the first so-called SARS coronavirus, in which IgG antibodies were detected before IgM antibodies, which completely calls into question the theory about the function of IgM antibodies during the course of the disease. "Based on the theory, IgM antibodies should disappear after a person gets rid of the "virus" (becomes RNA negative).
"During the validation of the Chembio test, samples were taken from 2 people 21 days after the onset of symptoms, and both were IgM positive. Similarly, a study of 85 patients in Wuhan followed patients for 30 days after recovery and did not record the disappearance of IgM."
Which contradicts the theory that IgM antibodies should disappear after recovery.
"In addition, many RNA-positive people often have negative IgM tests. The available documentation does not exclude the possibility that many people have never produced IgM antibodies."
Given the inconsistency of the model illustrating the time of appearance and function of IgM and IgG antibodies, it remains unclear on what scientific basis, Russians who took an antibody test (being perfectly healthy, both before the test and after) and received a "positive result" for IgM antibodies, above the value of 1.00, and then 2.00, were called contagious, put on the wanted list and locked up for quarantine? Those who did this declared themselves "doctors," and even if we omit the obvious fact that they are using an unproven, anti-scientific model and tests, the epidemiological case should include both laboratory and clinical characteristics. They act contrary to even their own logic. There is no scientific evidence, there have never been any studies that would prove that the official model of the appearance and function of antibodies is correct. But then, we have data that directly says that it is not true.
The dark field microscope is the most powerful and accurate microscope invented to date. It allows you to observe live samples of blood and other tissues. Unlike an electron microscope, for which you have to "paint" the sample with special dyes, which immediately kills it. In electron microscopy, you can only observe dead tissue. A dark field microscope allows us to study samples in the form in which they are present in our body, namely, in the living. We are not going to talk about the fact that medical science refuses to use a dark field microscope in its research, and uses only an electron microscope. But why, those who are professionally engaged in dark-field microscopy, have never been able to see how the "antibody" binds and attacks the "virus" in the blood? Or maybe it's because it never happened? And because neither viruses nor antibodies exist as we are told about them? Given all that we have, including the fact that the results of antibody tests are too easy to manipulate, it becomes clear that these tests can be used very destructively. If the number of people who test positive for antibodies and have a high titer remain below the level of "herd immunity" (90% or so), this will be an excuse for promoting or even forcing vaccination. Antibody tests can also be used as an excuse to quarantine indefinitely those people who do not test positive, claiming they are in danger, can contract the virus, and then spread it to others. They can be used to separate families, arguing that children should be taken away from parents who lack "immunity" to Covid-19, as they could be at risk of "contagion" at any time.
These tests have already been used to quarantine Chinese citizens indefinitely. But do people living in the UK, USA, Canada, Russia, EU really have more civil rights than in China?
"It's happened to us before," writes David Crowe. "The BBC's 2008 short story 'Life Sentence' always makes me cry. Beginning in 1907, about 50 women were locked up in the Long Grove Psychiatric Hospital in Surrey because they were considered carriers of typhoid fever. When they got there, they were sane and perfectly healthy, but most of them went crazy from solitary confinement, nurses in PPE, and from humiliations such as toilets in which boiling water is poured, constantly reminding them that even their excrement is a danger to the world. After such women were no longer imprisoned in the 1950s, the prisoners remained. In 1992, when the hospital closed permanently, the three remaining women were considered insane and transferred to other institutions. Their entire lives were ruined by the false panic of infection. Despite this, the UK Ministry of Health told the BBC that there has never been a policy of incarceration of people considered to be carriers of infectious diseases."Â
news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7523000/7523680.stm
 It seems that our reader owns everything about Covid-19, which means that you have all the facts about sars-cov-2 that humanity currently has. We, humanity, have a fictional virus, and 2 anti-scientific, deceitful tests with which some idiots sucked like leeches and drank our blood in search of a fictional virus. The panopticon of obscurantism of their statement is "immunity" to this fictional virus. We have samples of the Pau Pau (a relative of papaya) and goats tested by the President of Tanzania, both of which have tested positive for Covid-19 pcr many times in a row. We also have a 45-year-old Italian kindergarten teacher who threw herself out of the window of her apartment on September 10, leaving a suicide note in which she wrote that she was too frightened by the possibility of infection when returning to work. According to her husband, friends and neighbors, he was a calm and sane man who was driven to suicide by the terror of the media.
WHO estimates that 800,000 people commit suicide each year. This is the second cause of death among people 15 to 29 years old. But due to quarantine, home confinement, job loss, fear caused by deliberate intimidation of the media, this figure has increased by 33%. We have a real full-fledged genocide of hundreds of millions of people who died from a criminal "treatment" protocol consisting of therapy with highly toxic drugs (including chemotherapy drugs) and connection to ventilators that simply tore people's lungs. We have a question hanging in the air: if a deadly virus really exists, why then falsify the death certificates of people who died from various pathologies not related to respiratory diseases: heart, stroke, cancer, as well as those who died as a result of accidents, and indicate the cause of their death Covid-19?
We have quarantines, solitary confinement and isolation of people.
We have a shattered economy, millions of people who have lost their businesses, jobs and livelihoods. We have rags on the respiratory organs and in them people are made to suffocate, we have a liquid - a vaccine that does not contain the virus, since it has never been isolated, because it does not exist. We have closed borders, the impossibility of displacement, and many shattered plans and hopes. We have a long-planned second, third, and the next waves painted by the international bank until 2028. We have a population that has been purposefully misinformed about how their bodies work, the actual function of microorganisms, and how to stay healthy. It lives in a toxic environment, allows its corrupt government to poison itself in a variety of ways, and leads a toxic lifestyle, nutrition, and mindset. At the same time, it does not even suspect that this is what leads to mass diseases. The population does nothing about these disease-causing factors because it is trained to blame non-existent viruses and the people who transmit these viruses to them. The media factor has taught us to believe that the responsibility for our health lies with someone else. But the truth is that no one can transmit someone else's disease on such a huge scale, just as no one can pass on their health to us. This simple truth is so valuable that someone is constantly working to ensure that we forget about it forever and never remember it again. And yet, we have a completely creepy and dark road to digital slavery, along which a bunch of manipulators want us to voluntarily go into these pincers. This road is completely lined with lies. All penetrating lies are their only tool with which they try to force boundless beings â humans â to obey.
All their power and power lies only in lies and intimidation.
And as soon as the light of truth illuminates this dark road, we will immediately see what it is actually lined with, we will simply be horrified and will never want to walk along it again. This bunch of perverts will no longer be able to trick us into agreeing to our enslavement. To do this, we do not need wars, bloody revolutions, riots, and even rallies. We only need to know the truth, unite and start going down a different path. Completely ignoring all their infringing demands. Having learned the truth and understood the essence of what is happening, none of us will have the idea to take tests, wear masks, shy away from other people, allow us to direct an infrared beam to ourselves in the pineal gland, from a device that looks like a gun, under the pretext of measuring temperature, and also to be subjected to quarantine and the "second wave" long planned by manipulators. And we will not close our businesses, go bankrupt, and allow them to continue to destroy the economy. We came into this world to be happy, not to fulfill their delusional whims that are ruining our lives. That's what all this plan-demiya is. It's just their delusional whim. There is no deadly virus and no epidemic, no increased mortality from respiratory diseases, no hospitals packed to capacity. There are only lies controlled by gang manipulators of the media, pseudoscience consisting of complete garbage, which is passed off as science, false tests, diagnoses, death certificates, and on all sides deceived people.
The only virus that exists is only in our minds.
Stefano Scoglio, Bachelor of Science, Doctor of Medical Sciences, Candidate for the Nobel Prize in Medicine 2018.
"INVENTED PANDEMIC, LACK OF ISOLATED VIRUS AND FALSE TESTS FOR COVID-19"
By now, the number of deaths attributed to Covid-19 has dwindled to ridiculous numbers (but still, this figure is inflated and exploited as much as possible by the corrupt media). Therefore, the problem for the "pandemicists" has become this: how to prolong the fake pandemic? The founding goal is to extend it, at least until the next U.S. presidential election, in the hope that a false pandemic and the ensuing economic crisis will weaken President Trump and his chances for re-election. Their dream would be to prolong the pandemic indefinitely, because that would allow them to change society.
leading him to a tyrannical political civilization, without freedom and with the masses living in constant fear. And so they invented a new pathology of asymptomy, which is a positive test result for Covid-19, even if you are perfectly healthy.
In fact, in reality, things have been even worse since in May, the CDC released a new definition of a "likely case" of Covid-19: You just have to live in a state whose governor has declared a state of emergency due to Covid-19, as well as having even a small cough or a combination of two other symptoms, such as headache and chills or stiffness and myalgia, which should be defined as a "probable case" of Covid-19. and therefore immediately equate to a confirmed case of Covid-19. After that, the number of positive results is multiplied by involving all the people with whom the "probable" case of Covid-19 has been in contact.
At the heart of this pandemic project is a Covid test that is based on RT-PCR (reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction or reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction): a sample of organic material is taken from the throat or, less commonly, from the bronchoalveolar fluid of the individual under study, and then undergoes an RT-PCR procedure to check for the presence of the SARS-Cov-2 virus in the sample. This is the same RT-PCR methodology that was used to initially "isolate" the virus from the zero (very first) patient. Thus, the Covid test is significantly dependent on the initial or unproduced release of the SARS-Cov2 virus, since the initial isolation of the virus by PCR represents the gold standard necessary to confirm subsequent Covid tests.
There are many problems with isolating the original virus and therefore with the subsequent PCR test, and they all indicate that the SARS-Cov2 virus has never been isolated and has never been tested for pathogenicity. As you know, microbiology is based on the famous Koch Postulates, which establish sound principles of microbiological research: to determine that a microorganism is the cause of the disease, it is necessary to go through 4 main steps:
a) physically isolate (isolate) microorganisms using filtration methods from a sick patient;
b) grow the isolated microorganisms in a nutrient medium;
c) introduce this broth with microorganisms into the experimental host and assess whether the symptoms caused by this injection are similar to those of the original patient;
d) re-isolate the microorganism from the newly infected patient and culture it in culture broth.
These postulates have been applied to living microorganisms such as bacteria, but since they are logical postulates, they are also applicable to non-living ones.
"inorganisms", such as viruses, which are non-living particles consisting of a strand of RNA (or DNA) coated with a lipoprotein sheath (capsid). Well, even though at least one article has been published claiming that Koch's postulates have been met, the reality is that the SARS-Cov2 virus has never been isolated and tested. I looked at all the studies that claimed they isolated and even tested the virus, but they all did something completely different: They took the patients' pharyngeal or bronchoalveolar fluid, then centrifuged it to separate the larger and heavier molecules from the smaller and lighter molecules, such as the putative viruses. They then took a supernatant (the top of the centrifuged material) and called this extremely complex matrix an "isolated virus", to which THEY then applied RT-PCR (1. Zhu N et al, A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019, N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 20; 382(8): 727â733.)
This is a rather technical thing, but I will try to simplify it: a supernatant contains different types of molecules, billions of different micro and nano particles, including the so-called extracellular vesicles and exosomes - all these are useful particles for us, produced by our own body and absolutely indistinguishable from the virus:
"Currently, it is virtually impossible to separate extracellular vesicles and viruses using canonical vesicle isolation techniques such as differential ultracentrifugation because they are often co-granulated (come together) due to their uniform size." (2.Giannessi F. et al., The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS Viruses, Viruses 2020, 12, 571; doi:10.3390/v12050571, p.4.)
So how do you isolate a specific virus from this huge mixture of billions of indistinguishable particles, which includes the most useful exosomes for us?
Well, this is impossible to do, and so the virus is "recreated" through RT-PCR: to do this, two primers are taken, two already existing genetic sequences available in gene banks, they are placed in contact with a supernatant broth until they attach to some fragment of RNA in this broth, thus creating an artificial DNA molecule, which is then multiplied by a certain number of PCR cycles:Â each cycle doubles the amount of DNA, so theoretically the more cycles, the greater the amount of DNA produced. But, the more cycles you run, the lower the reliability of PCR, meaning its ability to actually "produce" something meaningful from a supernatant, something that has minimal relevance to the virus you're looking for. As a result, conducting more than 30 cycles is essentially pointless. (As also stated by one of the world's leading experts on PCR, Professor Stephen Bastin). In all studies, as well as in current PCR tests, 35 to 40 cycles are always used.
The first unanswered question: each primer consists of 18-24 bases (nucleotides); the SARS-Cov2 virus is thought to consist of 30,000 bases (nucleotides); thus, the primer represents only 0.07% of the viral genome. How can you detect the specific virus you're looking for based on such a small primer, as well as in a sea of billions of virus-like particles? It's like looking for an elephant with very small gray hairs on its tail: leaning on that gray hair, you can find gray cats, gray dogs, gray people, and so on. But that's not all. Since the virus you're looking for is new, there are clearly no ready-made genetic primers corresponding to a specific fraction of the new virus. So you have to take primers that are thought to resemble the supposed structure of a virus, but that's just a guess, and when you put primers on a supernatant broth, they can attach to any of the billions of molecules present, and it's not certain that what you created in this way is the virus you're looking for. In fact, it's a new artificial creation created by researchers that is then called the "SARS-Cov2 virus," but it has no connection to the alleged virus responsible for the disease.
The standard RT-PCR methodology suffers from fundamental problems, and it is for this reason that they are now trying to develop a new technology called NSG (Next Generation Sequencing), which is also full of limitations.
The most honest researchers admit:
"The most commonly used PCR-based methodologies require knowledge of the genomic sequences of a microorganism; however, this knowledge is not always available. A typical case is outbreaks of new pathogens..."
"Because random/unbiased amplification multiplies host nucleic acids along with microbial ones, looking for microbial nucleic acids is similar to finding a needle in a haystack."
And that, in line with everything I've been saying all along, and applies to both RT-PCR and NSG. Also, many studies have shown that up to 95% of the virus-like particles present in the bodies of patients belong to the patient's own genome:
"The identification of nucleic acids of pathogens in clinical samples is complicated by the presence of the usual predominant host background ... In the study by Brown and his colleagues, it was possible not to attribute to the human genome only 0.4% of the total number of readings. " (3. Calistri A. PalĂš G., Unbiased Next-Generation Sequencing and New Pathogen Discovery: Undeniable Advantages and Still-Existing Drawbacks, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2015; 60(6):889â91, p.889.)
This confirms my metaphor of a patient's pharyngeal or bronchoalveolar fluid as a sea of billions of virus-like particles, most of which, such as extracellular vesicles and exosomes, belong to the patient's genome. This raises the following question: if you don't know what kind of virus it is, and what it consists of, how can you then know that it causes anything at all? However, Chinese researchers have tried to prove the pathogenicity of the virus. In a specific Chinese study (4. Bao L. Et al. The Pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 in hACE2 Transgenic Mice, Nature (2020) 10.1038/s41586-020-2312-y.)
They took a pharyngeal supernatant (passing it off as an isolated virus) and injected it into mice, comparing it to a placebo. Now, even if the virus was not isolated, if it really was the cause of the disease, then the virus would still be present in significant quantities in the patient's supernatant of pathological fluid. Therefore, after injection into the experimental host, it should still have a devastating effect on the animals. But the worst effect it produced was "weak bristles" and a minimal weight loss of 8% (maybe this virus should be offered as a means to lose weight?); but even these minimal effects were obtained only in genetically modified mice, while there was absolutely no effect on natural, non-genetically modified or "wild" (WT) mice. This means that the virus, if present, cannot cause any harm to normal mice and therefore normal humans. The mice were genetically modified to produce a special enzyme called ACE2, the excess production of which could explain some of the mild symptoms found in genetically modified mice. ( 5.To give an example, the enzyme ACE2 breaks down or destroys the hormone ghrelin, which is responsible for stimulating hunger, so excess production of ACE2 can reduce hunger and promote weight loss. Unger T, Ulrike M, Steckelings UM, dos Santos RA (eds.). The protective arm of the Renin Angiotensin System (RAS): functional aspects and therapeutic implications, Academic Press. pp. 185â189.) What is certain is that the so-called virus had no effect on normal mice (normal humans). And this is the most important study demonstrating the pathogenicity of the Covid-19 virus, and in this regard, it was even published in the world's most important scientific journal Nature!
Since this virus has never really been isolated, and therefore there is no gold standard for conducting further research or tests, no standard for their guidance, anyone can create their own private SARS-Cov2 virus! That's why the GISAID Genome Bank currently has an organization that collects and stores all genomic sequences. They store more than 70,000 gene sequences of the SARS-Cov2 virus, with each of which claim that this is the real one. To adapt to this madness, they now tell us that the virus mutates, which is why there are so many different sequences. But can we assume that 70,000 different gene structures correspond to the same virus? It would be as if you had a guy named John who has 70,000 different images, in each of which he looks like a man, then a woman, then a dog, then a snake and so on, but you would like to convince me that they are all John! This, among other things, raises another very important question: if the alleged virus mutates so much that it has even produced more than 70,000 different genetic sequences, which ones will be selected for the vaccine? And how can a vaccine protect against anything if the other 69,999 sequences are not covered by it, and the virus is constantly mutating anyway? And here we are faced with the problem of the PCR test (smear) for the diagnosis of Covid, the real engine of this pseudo-pandemic. As we explained at the beginning, for smear testing, the same method we saw above is used for pseudo-isolation, starting with the presumably infected patient fluid. This fluid is centrifuged, then placed in a predetermined test, in which the viral standard, that is, the isolated virus, should be included. But if the virus has never been isolated, what standard is used? Various studies have found many mutations and variations between different geographic strains: one paper, whose authors also include Robert Gallo, found dozens of mutations increasing over time in parallel with the alleged spread of the virus from Asia to Europe and the United States. (6.Pachetti M. et al., Emerging SARS-CoV-2 mutation hot spots include a!novel RNA-dependent RNA polymerase variant, J Transl Med (2020) 18:179 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-020-02344-6) While another author analyzed 85 different GENOMIC sequences of SARS-Cov2 available in GISAID and found 53 different strains of SARS-Cov2 from different regions of China, Asia, Europe, and the United States (7. Phan Tung, Genetic diversity and evolution of SARS-CoV-2, Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 81 (2020), 104260).
So, which of these viral strains is PCR looking for when examining a smear? If the virus is constantly changing (this is assuming the virus exists at all, which has not been proven), then the test is useless because it is always looking for an older virus than the one that is currently circulating. That alone would be enough to understand that the PCR test for Covid-19 is completely, 100% wrong!
That's really what's really going on. The DROSTEN and Institut Pasteur PCR tests, the two tests that are considered the most reliable (although neither has passed external validation), both use the gene E test, although the Drosten test uses it as a preliminary test, while the Pasteur Institute uses it as a definitive test. According to the authors of the Drosten test (8. Corman VM et al., Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR, Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan 23; 25(3): 2000045), the E-gene test is capable of detecting all Asian viruses, thus being at the same time very non-specific (i.e., detecting all viral strains at once) and confined to a geographical area (Asia). Again, the Institut Pasteur test, one of the most common in Europe, uses the E-Gene test as the final test, although it is now known that the SARS-Cov2 virus (or viruses) that are thought to circulate in Europe will be different from those circulating in Asia. And then, in April, the WHO changed the algorithm "... recommending that from now on the test can be considered positive, even if only a dose of the E gene (which is likely to detect all Asian viruses!) will give a positive result. " ( 9. Engelbrecht T, Demeter K., COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientiďcally Meaningless, Jun 27 2020, p.21. https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-sc AR3G6Fuq8C-8XW7szL43scbKOYFx78irq52A6ZQCRdZmPMWiHTqD_2jv4Zo)
Clearly, all of this is only needed to create false test results, and foment the social panic associated with the explosion of the asymptomatic "disease" of Covid! That a swab test (PCR) for Covid-19 is designed to produce a variety of false-positive results was already discovered first in China when an article was published on March 5, 2020 (thus referring to tests conducted in February) reporting that false-positive results were 80.3% (10.Zonghua L et al, Potential false-positive rate among the 'asymptomatic infected individuals' in close contacts of COVID-19 patients, 2 0 2 0 Mar 5;4 1( 4):485-488. d o i : 1 0 . 3760 / cma.j.cn112338-20200221-00144)
It is noteworthy that after the explosion of the "pandemic", the Chinese newspaper withdrew this article!
But the official sanction for the ineffectiveness and complete unreliability of the Covid-19 test came from an unexpected place â the European Union. In a working paper of the European Commission of 16 April, i.e. after the peak of the pseudo-pandemic, the European Commission states:
"Timely and accurate testing for COVID-19 is integral to the fight against the COVID-19 crisis ... Already after placing on the market, the performance of devices can be confirmed, that is, approved by additional tests that confirm the specifications of the manufacturer, for example, in reference laboratories, academic institutions or national regulatory authorities. Such verification is not mandatory by law, but is strongly recommended for public health decision-making. Âť( 11.European Commission, Working Document of Commission Services, Current performance of COVID-19 test methods and devices and proposed performance criteria, April 16 2020.)
One would expect that there would be a certain standard, a fundamental testing methodology that would be tested and pre-authorized.
After all, this is not a "voluntary" object left to the management of the free market, but a tool that was necessary to justify the actions of governments to impose the worst dictatorial closure and violation of civil and economic rights, which can be remembered in the memory of all living people!
On the contrary, it is a situation described by the EU Commission itself:
"We now have 78 OT-PCR-based devices... 101 devices for detecting antibodies and 13 for detecting antigens. "
Of these 78 devices, some of which were imported from China, none have ever been pre-inspected or authorized, in other words, Confirmed. And only 3 of them. ÂŤ... documents from the Pasteur Institute, the Faculty of Medicine of Hong Kong and the CharitĂŠ have been internally validated", i.e. certified as valid by the manufacturer itself, that is, even they have never been validated or authorized by any independent or public authority. Besides:
"The most important information regarding RT-PCR methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 is the sequences of oligonucleotides (primers and probes) used to amplify cDNA ... except in a few cases, we were unable to find information about the actual sequences of primers and probes used in the devices."
In other words, as far as the authorities know, the devices in circulation can contain anything.
And the same level of unreliability also applies to serological tests (antibody tests), not only because, as we saw above, there are more than 100 different types of tests in circulation without any prior evaluation or permission, but also because the serological test is based on the same fundamental limitation. Namely, the lack of a reliable standard due to the lack of virus isolation. When we talk about serology, we're talking about antibodies, and everyone probably thinks that certain antibodies exist for every virus. However, there is nothing more distant from reality than this assumption: the antibodies that are detected in serological examination are only two types - IgG and IgM, the latter are early immune responses, and IgG - late. Now, if there are always only two of them, how do you know if they are produced on SARS-Cov2, and not a cold or emotional stress, a bruise and so on? Theoretically, these antibodies are extracted from the serum and subjected to the same PCR methodology used for the smear to see if they are activated upon contact with SARS-Cov2. But since, as we have seen, SARS-Cov2 has never been isolated, it is just an artificial laboratory construct, the result of a serological study is a simple batch of antibodies that is probably activated or not activated completely randomly, without a real connection with the alleged virus that is the alleged cause of Covid-19. In short, we have entrusted the end of our freedom to such uncontrolled, never confirmed and never sanctioned tests, whether smears or serological tests (antibody tests)!
All over the world's media is screaming that this alleged pandemic has already claimed the lives of more than 750,000 people. We know that this number was also very inflated: the deaths of very old people (80+ years old) and very sick (2-3 fatal pathologies). Death due to any serious pathology they suffered from was only referred to as deaths from Covid-19. Because patients, even after autopsy, gave a positive result, because of an unreliable test. Or even, they received such a verdict of death without any tests. However, even if it were indeed 750,000 deaths from COVID-19, they would clearly be within the normal number of deaths from respiratory diseases, as shown in the following graph:
Every year, as these official statistics show, almost 7 million people die from respiratory diseases worldwide. The 750,000 deaths attributed to Covid-19 in the last 6 months, even if they doubled (which is unlikely as the current death rate from Covid-19 is dropping dramatically worldwide), would result in an estimated 1.5 million deaths. That's still well below the nearly 7 million deaths a year from respiratory illnesses (and of course, all deaths reported as Covid were deaths that in years past would have been classified simply as deaths from respiratory diseases). Finally, EU statistics also confirm that the current mortality rate is absolutely normal:
As of the end of July 2020, according to EuroMoMo, the official agency that monitors deaths in the EU, there was no increase in mortality across Europe, with the exception of a slight increase in Spain and Portugal, including countries theoretically very hard hit by the pandemic, such as Italy and the UK. Therefore, everything would be fine if not for the destructive and dictatorial political and economic decisions.
Isolation, characterization and analysis of bacteriophages from the haloalkaline lake Elmenteita, Kenya, Juliah Khayeli Akhwale, Manfred Rohde, Christine Rohde, Boyke Bunk, Cathrin SprĂśer, Hamadi Iddi Boga, Hans-Peter Klenk, Johannes Wittmann
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0215734
A Virus Infection in the Marine Brown Alga Ectocarpus siliculosus (Phaeophyceae)
February 1990Botanica acta: Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft = journal of the German Botanical Society 103(1):72-82
DOI:10.1111/j.1438-8677.1990.tb00129.x
Project: My current work: See www.wissenschafftplus.de
Efficient exosome delivery in refractory tissues assisted by ultrasound-targeted microbubble destruction
December 2019Drug Delivery 26(1):45-50
DOI:10.1080/10717544.2018.1534898
Published: 15 August 2017
Antibiotic-induced release of small extracellular vesicles (exosomes) with surface-associated DNA
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08392-1
Oliver D. Mrowczynski1, Achuthamangalam B. Madhankumar1, Jeffrey M. Sundstrom2, Yuanjun Zhao2, Yuka Imamura Kawasawa3, Becky Slagle-Webb1, Christine Mau1, Russell A. Payne1, Elias B. Rizk1, Brad E. Zacharia1 and James R. Connor1
1Department of Neurosurgery, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA 17033, USA
2Department of Ophthalmology, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA 17033, USA
3Department of Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Institute for Personalized Medicine, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA 17033, USA
Correspondence to:
Oliver D. Mrowczynski, email: omrowczynski@pennstatehealth.psu.edu
Keywords: exosomes; radiation; resistance; glioma; glioblastoma
Received: October 05, 2017 Accepted: October 21, 2018 Published: November 16, 2018
https://www.oncotarget.com/article/26300/text/
Cryo-electron microscopy of extracellular vesicles in fresh plasma
https://exosome-rna.com/cryo-electron-microscopy-of-extracellular-vesicles-in-fresh-plasma/
Cryo-electron microscopy of extracellular vesicles in fresh plasma
https://exosome-rna.com/cryo-electron-microscopy-of-extracellular-vesicles-in-fresh-plasma/
When is a virus an exosome?
https://rupress.org/jcb/article/162/6/960/33690/When-is-a-virus-an-exosome
The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS Viruses
https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/12/5/571
COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless
Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to âdiagnoseâ Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose
https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless
Article
Published: 07 May 2020
The pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 in hACE2 transgenic mice
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2312-y#ref-CR1
Additional materials on the special operation Corona 𤴠19
https://telegra.ph/IN-THE-WAKE-OF-THE-CRIME-OF-THE-CENTURY-21-11-11
The Heliand (/ËhÉliÉnd/) is an epic poem in Old Saxon, written in the first half of the 9th century. The title means saviour in Old Saxon (cf. German and Dutch Heiland meaning "saviour"), and the poem is a Biblical paraphrase that recounts the life of Jesus in the alliterative verse style of a Germanic epic. Heliand is the largest known work of written Old Saxon.
Heliand excerpt from the German Historical Museum
The poem must have been relatively popular and widespread because it exists in two manuscript versions and four fragmentary versions. [1] It takes up about 6,000 lines. A praefatio exists, which could have been commissioned by either Louis the Pious (king from 814â840) or Louis the German (806â876). This praefatio was first printed by Matthias Flacius in 1562, and while it has no authority in the manuscripts it is generally deemed to be authentic. [2] The first mention of the poem itself in modern times occurred when Franciscus Junius (the younger) transcribed a fragment in 1587. [3] It was not printed until 1705, by George Hickes. The first modern edition of the poem was published in 1830 by Johann Andreas Schmeller. [4]