These questions make every virologist nervoustranslated by Corona Investigative
Don't we all know it when hard facts are thrown on the table in talk shows, live broadcasts with "experts" or in discussion groups? Or do we not? Haven't you also noticed that the same unimportant questions are on the agenda again and again? That the allegedly multifaceted discussion actually amounts to nothing more than a sham discussion at the lowest level? Then you feel exactly the same way I do! For about eight months now, no one has really dared to get into the nitty-gritty in such programs. I am completely aware why. Who likes uncomfortable questions that also require real expertise and proper research? It's better to stick to consensus, because no one wants to expose anyone else and no one wants to confront anyone with specific questions that could put the person in an uncomfortable position. This is how we deal with irrelevant assertions, assumptions and freely invented theses in order to distract the viewer from the really important questions.
I would like to change this and have decided to present you with a few questions that you may not have thought about yet.
My motto: "To ask the question is to answer the question"
If the virus is so dangerous that we had to introduce the most drastic measures in history, why:
- the politicians let themselves be freed from the mask duty (1),
- training in a gym without a mask is allowed (2),
- playing in an indoor playground without a mask is allowed (3),
- swimming in an indoor pool without a mask is allowed (4),
- there is no special precautionary measure when disposing of the masks,
- there is no calibration of the masks - any mouth and nose covering is allowed?
But: In a supermarket it must be worn under threat of heavy fines.
I think the nonsense of this action needs no further explanation.
If the virus is so dangerous that such fear prevails in parts of the population, why:
- is the mortality rate one of the lowest compared to all viral pandemics since 1967, when no global measures restricting freedom were prescribed (5).
- must then be threatened with penalties if the rules are not followed?
Wouldn't people want to protect themselves voluntarily in a real danger situation?
So, enough of suggestive questions, let's get down to business and the really important questions!
Have you ever calculated how many people, measured against the world population, have died of Corona?
I will leave out the fact that the SARS-CoV-2 does not exist in this calculation. But even if one remains within the claim that there is a disease-causing virus, the data presents itself as so "ridiculous" minor that the serious question must arise, why do people actually not see through it?
There are 979,388 deceased worldwide, who are said to have fallen victim to Corona.
This would correspond to a population share of:
979.388 / 7.833.326.049 * 100 = 0,0125 %.
This does not include the fact that the number of people claimed to have died "of" Corona has been massively reduced and at least declared as "with" and not "of", as happened recently in the USA. Instead of 161,000 deaths, only 9,600 "of" Covid-19 actually died in the USA according to the CDC (6), i.e. only 6% of the originally published number (as of August 26, 2020). All other statistically recorded Covid-19 deaths would have suffered from various serious diseases that were the cause of their death, an average of 2.6 pre-existing conditions per person.
So if we assume worldwide that these errors have been committed and use the determined 6% as reference value, this results in an even much lower value:
6 % of 979.388 is 58.763.
58.763 / 7.833.326.049 * 100 = 0,00075 %
If we continue to look at how many have died with corona in relation to all deaths worldwide, we are enclosed:
979.388 / 43.259.778 * 100 = 2,26 %
If we use the assumed number of people actually claimed to have died "of" Corona (6 %), we are enclosed:
58.763 / 43.259.778 * 100 = 0,135 %
In other words, only 0.135% of those affected die from an undetected SARS-CoV-2 virus, or in other words, 99% of those who died this year have completely different causes.
Hand on heart: Do these numbers really scare you, can you see a dangerous epidemic here?
Do you know what distinguishes a staged pandemic from a real pandemic?
In our article "Real pandemic versus. staged pandemic" (7) we have explained how you can tell that this current alleged pandemic never existed and that this can be easily recognized by the actions of politicians. We illustrate this with two scenarios/characteristics:
Did you know that the PCR test cannot be used as a detection method for a claimed virus?
- In an instruction (p. 38) of the US epidemic control authority CDC for the PCR test it says approximately: "Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection" (8) Translated it means: A positive test does not guarantee that the SARS-CoV-2 virus causes an infection at all. And, um, if you read between the lines, the SARS CoV-2 virus may not even be present in the body of the person tested.
- The Instructions for Use for the SARS-CoV-2 Assay (Panther Fusion®️ System) from Hologic, Inc. 2002-03 states on page 2:
"Some people become infected but don’t develop any symptoms and don’t feel unwell.” (9)
- Creative-Diagnostics Product Information about the test kit "SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit (CD019RT)"
“This product is for research use only and is not intended for diagnostic use.”
The following is stated as "intended use": "This product is intended for detection of the 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The result of detection of this device is for clinical reference only and should not be used as the sole evidence in clinical diagnosis and treatment" (10)|(11).
- In this interview with Prof. Tanner from the Corona Task Force, he confirmed that the PCR test itself is not meaningful (12).
- Information sheet on the current COVID-19 testing in Switzerland Still in May 2020 it was called Merkblatt of the Federal Office for Health BAG
Have the cut-off values of the PCR test been calibrated worldwide?
No, this has never happened and is not happening now. There is no uniformity worldwide as to which cut-off, i.e. after which number of cycles of material propagation a person is classified as PCR positive or negative. It is therefore possible to obtain a positive test result in one laboratory and a negative test result in the other laboratory. More information about different thresholds can be found in these PCR articles:
- The PCR test is not validated → read
- PCR: A DNA test becomes a instrument for manipulation → read
- The science fraud by Prof. Christian Drosten → read
Are the PCR tests used on the world market uniform and calibrated to specific sequences?
This is also not the case. Thus, each manufacturer can decide for himself which short sequence sections he wants to check the obtained material for.
Did you know that the "10 genes" (29,803 nucleotides long in total) of the corona virus are all made up of very short pieces of nucleic acid (about 11 to 26 nucleotides long)?
Each "gene" thus consists of an average of about 3,000 nucleotides.
Of 2 "genes", only fractions with a length of approx. 250-280 nucleotides are "detected" by PCR, whereupon it is claimed inadmissibly that the presence of these 2 genes has been proven. In reality, they do not even detect this, but RNA particles of approximately this length.
They never sequence (determination of nucleotide sequence) what they propagate by PCR, but only claim without proof that a specific piece of a coronavirus gene was detected by PCR.
Not even this assertion is true!
Has a whole and intact infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus ever been seen?
The answer is: No!
Did you know that the genome, i.e. the complete genetic material of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus, is almost 30,000 nucleotides long, and that this entire genome has not yet been seen in nature by a single virologist? You wonder how that can be, it has been isolated and photographed? No, the virologists do the following:
For the construction of the viral genome, only cell-own RNA molecules from the supernatant of cell cultures are used. The isolation of a viral structure and from it the viral genome does not take place. For the artificial creation of the genome, which is about 30,000 nucleotides long, one uses pieces of nucleotides that have a maximum length of only 150 nucleotides.
One " isolates " here extremely short sequences, which do not mean anything themselves, it is just like having a few crumbs of a cake on the palm of your hand. These very short sequences are aligned with e.g. the genome sequence of SARS-CoV-1 from the year 2003 and are mentally assembled/calculated in the computer to form a complete, "new" genome.
If the amount of short sequences available is not sufficient to construct a genome, the missing sequences are biochemically created or even freely invented.
No one has ever isolated, let alone seen, the complete nucleic acid of the claimed SARS-CoV-2 as a whole. All of these are computer models.
This must make it clear to everyone that no one has proved the existence of a new and - as is also claimed - "infectious" pathogen.
They must realize that what the virologists create is a pure construct, a model that does not really exist.
Quite simply put:
Let's imagine that we have 10 Lego bricks.
If the amount of Lego bricks available is not sufficient to assemble a Lego car, that is, to create a whole Lego car by throwing together bricks, these missing Lego bricks are created "biochemically" or simply freely invented. In any case, it is a construct. Nobody has ever seen the whole Lego car. It only works with the help of a computer. It is a pure intellectual construct.
Have control experiments been conducted and documented that prove that the nucleic acids used to align the genome of the virus are actually viral in nature and not tissue-specific?
One would think that this had happened. Firstly, because it is simply important to provide clarity before imposing such drastic measures affecting the general public and causing the world to panic - and secondly, because institutions must abide by the scientific rules of the German research community (12) that make these control experiments mandatory. Unfortunately, however, this has been neglected, not a single study worldwide has ever published these control experiments.
Did you know that Prof. Christian Drosten from the Charité in Berlin had the reagents (primers) for the SARS-CoV-2 virus PCR test synthesized at the company Tib Molbiol before the Chinese scientists around Fan Wu published their preliminary sequence proposals for the virus online on January 10, 2020?
But this is exactly how it happened.
Thereupon, I looked at their publication and was horrified to discover that the Chinese virologists had composed the genome of the virus, later renamed SARS-CoV-2, only purely mathematically, by adding up very short sequence pieces. They found neither the entire genome nor large parts of it.
What's more, they did not isolate a virus or viral structures and the viral nucleic acids from them, but only the entire RNA, which could be obtained by means of lung lavage.
Decisive: The Chinese virologists did not carry out control experiments to rule out the possibility
- that even with human/microbial RNA from a lung lavage of a healthy person,
- of a person with another lung disease,
- of a person who has been tested SARS-CoV-2 negative,
- or from such RNA from reserve samples from the time when the SARS-CoV-2 virus was still unknown
exactly the same addition of a virus genome from short RNA fragments is possible!
You can read about the science fraud by Prof. Christian Drosten in the article:
The science fraud by Prof. Christian Drosten | [Telegraph]
Several virologists, including the leading "corona researchers", have been asked by us and by others whether they have proof of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Not once could this question be answered in the affirmative.
To date, not a single virologist has been able to confirm or scientifically present the evidence upon request. The list is by far not complete, because I will publish separate articles incl. correspondence about certain persons!
The award-winning journalist Torsten Engelbrecht (13) and independent researcher Konstantin Demeter (14) have asked the scientific teams of the relevant papers referred to in connection with SARS-CoV-2 to prove whether the electron microscopic images shown in their in vitro experiments illustrate purified viruses.
But not a single team could answer this question with "yes" - and no one pretended that cleaning was not a necessary step. We only received answers such as "No, we did not receive an electron microscope image showing the degree of cleaning" (see below).
We asked several study authors: "Do your electron microscope images show the purified virus (an isolation)?", - and they gave the following answers:
Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health” Nature Medicine, March 2020 [Nature] (6)
Replying Author: Malik Peiris
Date: May 12, 2020
Answer: “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.”
Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020 [Pubmed ncbi] (7)
Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han
Date: May 6, 2020
Answer: “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.”
Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020 [Pubmed ncbi] (8)
Repyling Author: Wan Beom Park
Date: March 19, 2020
Answer: “We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”
Study 4: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020 [nejm] (9)
Replying Author: Wenjie Tan
Date: March 18, 2020
Answer: “We show an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”
Remark: This publication would not have needed the inquiry, the authors openly admit here to "our study does not fulfill Koch's postulates
Prof. Streeck was also unable to provide scientific proof with his own Heinsberg study, (15) as the DFG has been prescribing since 1998. (16) His finding was even that all swabs taken could not be cultivated, i.e. they could not be infectious. Prof. Streeck only worked with fractions of RNA, strictly speaking with very short gene sequences, never with the complete genome of the claimed SARS-CoV-2. Prof. Streeck has recently attracted a lot of negative attention, he started making claims that are not based on any evidence and are easy to refute.
Prof. Karin Mölling claims demonstrably that this virus exists and has been proven. When we asked her by e-mail if she could prove this and support us in the necessary control experiments, which are considered an absolute scientific duty, Prof. Mölling answered as usual simply with one word:
I quote: "NO!"
Even Prof. Karin Mölling is not in a position to provide this proof and demonstrably refuses to fulfill her duties as a scientist, thus acting contrary to scientific rules. Her statements must therefore not be considered as scientifically sound, at most as her opinion!
At the beginning of the corona crisis, Prof. Karin Mölling, the leading virologist in the field of the cell's own harmless, incomplete or defective viruses, which are considered endogenous, described the measures taken as unjustified. She has shown in publications and in a book that half of the human genetic material, i.e. half of the sequences of which our chromosomes are composed, consists of inactive and defective gene sequences of viral origin. What she does not know, or is hiding, is the fact that metabolism constantly produces a large amount of RNA gene sequences of any composition, which do not appear in the form of DNA sequences in the chromosomes. This fact calls into question the claim of existence of ALL RNA viruses, such as corona viruses, Ebola virus, HIV, measles virus and SARS viruses.
This fact alone is also the basis why, with the help of conducting control experiments, not only the corona crisis, but also the fear-mongering and faulty treatment initiated by the entire virology (the pseudo-specialty of the alleged disease viruses) must be ended immediately.
None of the leading German representatives of the official theory on SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 could answer the question of how to be sure that the RNA gene sequences of these particles belong to a particular novel virus without a purified virus being present.
Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter have invited the leading German representative (17) of the official theory of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 - the Robert Koch Institute (RKI), Alexander S. Kekulé (University of Halle), Hartmut Hengel and Ralf Bartenschlager (German Society for Virology), Thomas Löscher, Ulrich Dirnagl (Charité Berlin) or Georg Bornkamm (virologist and professor emeritus at Helmholtz Zentrum München) asked the following question:
"If the particles that are supposed to be SARS-CoV-2 were not purified, how can you be sure that the RNA gene sequences of these particles belong to a particular new virus?
Especially when there are studies showing that substances such as antibiotics, which are added to the test tubes during in-vitro experiments for virus detection, can "stress" the cell culture in such a way that new gene sequences are formed that were previously undetectable - an aspect that Nobel Laureate Barbara McClintock pointed out as early as 1983 in her Nobel Lecture." (18) (19)
It should not go unmentioned that we finally managed to get Charité - the employer of Prof. Christian Drosten, Germany's most influential virologist with regard to COVID-19, advisor to the German government and co-developer of the PCR test, which was the first to be "accepted" (not validated!) by the WHO worldwide - to answer questions on this topic. (20)
But we only received answers on June 18, 2020, after months of silence. In the end, we only made it with the help of Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer.
In response to our question: "If the Charité is satisfied that appropriate particle cleaning was carried out," the Charité admits that it did not use cleaned particles.
And although they claim that "the virologists at the Charité are sure that they are testing for the virus," they state in their work (Corman et al.)
"RNA was extracted from clinical samples with the MagNA Pure 96 system (Roche, Penzberg, Germany) and from cell culture supernatants with the viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany)” (21)
That is, they simply assumed that the RNA was of viral nature!
Are the virologists subject to misinterpretation by an effect that can be clarified once and for all by a control experiment?
Dying tissue does not change into viruses
Around 1954, a technique was proposed (in one of the six publications in the Measles Virus Process) to detect the suspected human viruses exactly as the phages of the bacteria were detected. They believed that when tissues died, they would turn into viruses - just as bacteria turn into phages. With the decisive difference that the phages were isolated and photographed in large numbers and in pure form each time, and their genetic strand, which is always the same length and always has the same composition, was and is represented as a whole. However, this is still not possible with the only suspected viruses. The "virologists" only mentally assemble a model of a virus from short fragments of decayed tissue and cells, which in reality does not exist.
Virologists refuse control experiments
Because these species of virologists still disregard the fundamental rules of scientific work and refuse to carry out control experiments, they have not noticed that the tissues and cells in the test tube die not because of a suspected virus, but because of accidental starvation and poisoning in the procedure that precedes any apparent "infection".
Therefore, genetic virus tests only detect the body's own sequences. Since the test only shows "positive" if there are enough gene snippets in the sample quantity to be tested, this explains why negative test results are also obtained. It is clear that the body releases more tissue material and thus gene fragments, especially during inflammatory processes, than when it is healthy or when the body does not release anything at all during certain phases of healing. You only have to increase the amount of sample and every human being, every animal and probably even every plant will test positive.
Virologists kill tissue unnoticed in the laboratory
Virologists do not use the word "isolation" in the true sense of the word isolation and become suspiciously nervous when asked about it. They understand "isolation" to mean the creation of an effect in the laboratory, which they also call
b) evidence of the presence of a virus
(c) proof of its propagation
d) evidence for the destructive power of the assumed virus.
In reality they kill tissue unnoticed and unconsciously and
cells in the laboratory - by starvation and poisoning.
This effect is known as cytopathic effect.
The alleged cultivation of the virus
This confluence is called giant cell formation and is called the "cytopathic effect". This result of many violent and insane steps is interpreted as central evidence for the "presence, isolation, multiplication etc." of the suspected virus. Those involved then claim that they have succeeded in cultivating the virus.
The expert opinion on the cytopathic effect refutes the claimed specific infectivity of the measles virus.
Cytopathic effect in monkey kidney cells is not specific for measles virus - Author: Laboratory manager of an independent laboratory in Germany
Result of the laboratory:
"Depending on the added non-viral and non-infectious substances, changes in cell morphology could be observed at different points in time, which since 1954 has been equated with the "isolation" of the "measles virus". Especially after the addition of high concentrations of penicillin/streptomycin (20%) or cultivation under deficient conditions (1% FCS), changes in cell morphology were observed that were microscopically identical to the formation of syncytia described by the measles virus (Table 1: Chemicals, solutions and cell culture media used). The investigations clearly showed that the formation of syncytia is not specific for a measles infection. Thus the forgotten observations of both Enders&Peebles and Bech&von Magnus were confirmed and the assumption that Enders&Peebles and successors had used this technique to prove the existence of a virus was refuted.
In the "mother" of all publications on the measles virus by John Franklin Enders and Peebles, they never claimed to have detected a measles virus, they had strong doubts, and this is so clearly written down in their publication. More about it in the article The Federal Court of Justice destroys the belief in Viruses (22).
Also in the publication by Bech, V. & von Magnus, P. (1958) Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. Acta Pathologica Microbiologica Scandinavica 42(1):75-85 it is described that the cytopathic effect is not measles-specific, but is caused by other factors.
This is stated in the publication on p.80:
„cytopathic changes similar to those caused by measles virus may be observed also in uninoculated cultures of monkey kidney tissue (Fig. 4-5). These changes are probably caused by virus-like agents, so called ‚foamy agents‘, which seem to be frequently present in kidney cells from apparently healthy monkeys“
This sentence is remarkable, since it points to the unspecificity of exactly those pathological changes that served as the starting point for the optical evidence of an infection in the first publication by Enders & Peebles.
Prof. Karlheinz Lüdtke, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Early History of Virology, reprint 125, 89 pages, 1999. i. K. (A 2) Preprint 1999 (23).
This reading is so important because it shows how important control experiments are in order to recognize that one was wrong. It shows that until 1953 it was clear and known to every virologist and the scientific community that all components that had been interpreted as components of viruses until then, turned out to be components of dead tissues and cells through control experiments. This is why it is so important to keep insisting on the lack of control experiments in the publications presented. I quote here from one of the laboratory analyses.
Did you know that animals are miserably tortured to meet the ever increasing demand for fetal serum needed for the production of vaccines?
In order to cover the constantly increasing need for fetal serum, 2 million pregnant cows are opened unanaesthetized every year, in which the unanaesthetized fetus is opened and its fetal blood is taken from the beating heart (24). If one would remove the fetus from the dam for this, one could "win" much less serum. If the mother and/or the fetuses were anaesthetized, the anaesthetics would quickly decompose the fetal serum, since the anaesthetics cannot be removed from the serum. Blood obtained in this way is used to produce fetal serum. Of course, for the purpose of profit optimization, adulteration is used, just as with wine. To save money, the laboratory technicians buy cheap serum, which everyone knows is even more contaminated than the more expensive serum. Only with the help of these fetal serums it is possible to produce vaccines. Components of these serums, which can by no means be sterile, are administered to us in the form of the vaccines. I have been surprised for a long time that this well-known fact is not discussed in the raw food or vegan scene. Raw food and veganism exclude vaccination, the extraction of fetal sera and cell culture experiments.
A statement "doctors against animal experiments" - registered association (Ärzte gegen Tierversuche e.V.) (25)
Have you ever wondered what powers such a claimed virus would have to muster to do what is attributed to it?
Virologists confirm: Viruses are biochemically dead!
All virologists define that a virus has no metabolism of its own and is biochemically dead.
Now please try to visualize the following
How, however, something dead can develop the power to
- fasciae and leather skins of the organs,
- coating of the vessels and against the mucus flow of the mucous membranes to enter the organism,
- to penetrate there through the tough connective tissue mass (which surrounds all cells)?
This is no longer an open question, but a refuted myth that has developed throughout our history.
If you enter into discourse with virologists or others, you can use five simple questions to make them very nervous and look for excuses.
1. What do you mean as an isolate in SARS-CoV-2?
2. Have you published on this and if not, to which publications do you refer?
3. Where in the key publication(s) is it described that a viral structure or molecules attributed to the virus have been isolated in the sense of the word "isolation"?
4. Where are the control experiments documented that prove that the nucleic acids used to align the genome of the virus are actually viral in nature and do not have tissue characteristics?
In case the control experiments mentioned in question 4 have not yet been performed (they have not been performed to date), please allow us to ask the following additional question:
5. If such a control experiment were to be conducted at our expense (isolation of RNA from uninfected cell cultures, sequencing and alignment to the SARS-CoV-2 genome), would you publish this data with us?
Please do not feel personally offended when I ask you the following questions:
- Is it true that you and your friends and acquaintances are convinced that dangerous viruses have been detected, i.e. that they exist, although this is not the case?
- Do you think it would be important to know whether viruses exist or not? (After all, the virus claim and belief in the existence of viruses justifies the whole event of the Corona crisis in 2020 and before)?
- Do you know that it can be proven that there are no malicious and dangerous and especially novel corona viruses? (26)
- Did you know that no virologist has ever isolated and seen a whole intact virus? (27)
- Did you know that the entire existence of virology is based on a science fraud on the one hand and on an "unfortunate" science development on the other? (28)
- Did you know that virology had already given up on itself once?
- Did you know that all virology works without real viruses as a basis?
- Did you know that the pharmaceutical manufacturers involved, without exception, all know that there are no viruses and will never be viruses?
- Did you know that the pharmaceutical industry promotes the field of virology because it brings it billions in profits?
- Did you know that probably 99.99% of all physicians are convinced of the existence of viruses and believe in the never proven pathogen/infection theory, because without exception all of them were wrongly trained?
- Did you know that it would be easy for pharmaceutical companies to carry out the necessary control experiments that show that all virology is based on misinterpretation?
- Did you know that the symptoms of the claimed SARS-CoV-2 cannot be distinguished from those of conventional influenza? (29)
- Did you know that the masks cannot provide any protection and that this has been scientifically proven many times? (30)
What is provable?
- There are no viruses.
- No virus has been proven by any human being until today. There can be no meaningful PCR test that detects viruses, because there are no viruses. The tests do not respond to viruses, but to short, endogenous protein fragments that can be found everywhere. Even in papayas.
- The prescribed and therefore necessary control tests were never carried out, which would have proved that it is a false assumption that they are actually viruses.
- None of the pseudo-scientists followed Henle-Koch's postulates, because it is impossible to follow them.
- All virology is based on errors and science fraud. Everything has been worked up and documented by us.
- The politicians act against any logic, this is due to the fact that the evidence for a dangerous situation caused by a novel virus does not exist.
Translated, adapted & reblogged version - Original here
Telegraph main page with overview of all articles: Link
Visit our Telegram Channel for additional news & information: Link
Chat with like-minded in our Telegram Chat Group: Link
Please support to keep this blog alive: paypal
(1) D.C. Mask Mandate Exempts Lawmakers and Government Employees
(2) Phase 2 and 3 Indoor Fitness and Training COVID-19 Reopening Requirements - Update
(3) Letting kids play indoors is high risk but practical:
(4) Swimming during the pandemic: What the CDC wants you to know before you hit the pool
(5) Mortality rate of selected virus outbreaks worldwide 1967-2020
(6) Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics
(7) Real pandemic versus staged pandemic
(8) CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel
(9) SARS-CoV-2 Assay (Panther Fusion® System)
(10) SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit (CD019RT)
(11) SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit (CD019RT) (general source)
(12) Prof. Marcel Tanner, Vorsitzender Sektion Public Health der Corona-TaskForce der Schweiz (Prof. Marcel Tanner, Chairman Public Health Section of the Corona TaskForce of Switzerland)
(12) Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice
(13) Thorsten Engelbrecht Biography
(14) Konstantin Demeter
(15) Heinsberg Study results published
(16) see 12
(17) COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless
(18) Antibiotic-induced release of small extracellular vesicles (exosomes) with surface-associated DNA
(19) The significance of responses of the genome to challenge
(20) The PCR test is not validated
(21) Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR
(22) The Federal Court of Justice destroys the belief in Viruses
(23) Zur Geschichte der frühen Virusforschung (Early History of Virology)
(24) Fetal bovine serum
(25) Ärzte gegen Tierversuche e.V. - Stellungnahme Fetales Kälberserum (Doctors against animal experiments - statement fetal calf serum)
(26) The end of virology is only a single control experiment away
(27) How to recognize "insufficient" publications and false virus images?
(28) Virchow - A strategist of power - Part 1
(29) Frequently asked questions and answers about influenza
(30) The mask scam unmasked