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

You May Also Like

Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.