1) To @Kevin_McKernan @MichaelYeadon3 @ClareCraigPath This may appear patronizing & repetitive to you, but as you are REPEATEDLY evading this issue & patronizing lay people who look to you as authorities on a so-called ‘virus’ that has devastated their lives,
I feel it's-

2) -necessary to simply and repeatedly spell things out:
A ‘SARS-CoV-2 virus’, the alleged cause of so-called ‘COVID-19’, is based on ‘theoretical’ (NOT actual, NOT real) sequences supplied by a Chinese laboratory to Professor Christian Drosten & Co, early January 2020.
3) They’re NOT actual sequences because at that time (early January 2020) no 'LIVE' or 'INACTIVE' RNA of the virus was available to Professor Drosten & Co, the INVENTORS of the ‘SARS-CoV-2 virus’. https://t.co/z8CxXx9mE1
4) “To date no validation has been performed by the authorship [Drosten, Corman et al] based on SARS-CoV-2 viruses or full-length RNA thereof”.
Meaning that, until NOW, there’s NO proof the ‘SARS-CoV-2 virus’ is anything other than a THEORY.
5) How is it that, until today, an example of a fully-sequenced, ISOLATED ‘SARS-CoV-2 virus’ from an actual infected person has never been provided?
Because Drosten & Co, NOR ANYONE ELSE, is able to MAGIC a purely THEORETICAL virus into an ACTUAL one. https://t.co/QqqUz2lA3Y
6) And because Drosten & Co took those THEORETICAL sequences from China, did SOME MORE THEORETICAL work, and with the aid of computer programs, simply added and recombined gene sequences from a number of various sources, including RNA sequences common to ALL human beings-
7) -which were stored in gene banks (data banks of gene sequences). Drosten and Co. completely dispensed with the NEED for ACTUAL viral material, or even a test-tube, and used COMPUTERS to construct a THEORETICAL MODEL of a virus and its genome sequences.
8) Professor Drosten called his computer-constructed invention, ‘2019-nCoV’, which was later renamed ‘SARS-CoV-2’.
Meanwhile, in the REAL WORLD, the flu season had begun to pick up steam, so Drosten and his team, which included PCR ‘test’ manufacturer, Olfert Landt, quickly-
9) -developed a PCR ‘test’ protocol to 'detect' the newly-fabricated, 'SARS-CoV-2' computer virus.
This PCR ‘test’ protocol consisted of some snippets of gene-sequences from Drosten’s computer creation.
https://t.co/ggMBle7d8I
10) Some of these snippets included those from common sequences of human RNA, as well as RNA sequences from common cold corona-viruses and bacteria that were bound to provide a match, i.e. produce a ‘positive’ test result, in a significant percentage of any population tested.
11) To further ensure any tested population would provide ‘positives’ at a ‘PANDEMIC’ level, they took the added precaution of recommending an amplification cycle setting of 45ct (approximately double the scientifically accepted norm) for their PCR ‘test’ https://t.co/LDg0Uzsi3N
12) As there was already a predicted heavy flu season underway, they strove to get ‘approval’ to begin mass ‘testing’ for their computer-constructed ‘SARS-CoV-2 virus’, ASAP. They IMMEDIATELY got that approval from WHO on January 17th - just a few days after Drosten & Co had-

More from Society

global health policy in 2020 has centered around NPI's (non-pharmaceutical interventions) like distancing, masks, school closures

these have been sold as a way to stop infection as though this were science.

this was never true and that fact was known and knowable.

let's look.


above is the plot of social restriction and NPI vs total death per million. there is 0 R2. this means that the variables play no role in explaining one another.

we can see this same relationship between NPI and all cause deaths.

this is devastating to the case for NPI.


clearly, correlation is not proof of causality, but a total lack of correlation IS proof that there was no material causality.

barring massive and implausible coincidence, it's essentially impossible to cause something and not correlate to it, especially 51 times.

this would seem to pose some very serious questions for those claiming that lockdowns work, those basing policy upon them, and those claiming this is the side of science.

there is no science here nor any data. this is the febrile imaginings of discredited modelers.

this has been clear and obvious from all over the world since the beginning and had been proven so clearly by may that it's hard to imagine anyone who is actually conversant with the data still believing in these responses.

everyone got the same R

You May Also Like