Check out our latest joint article (myself and Jessica Hockett) on the "social media reports" which apparently pointed the authors of the paper describing the PCR test which launched the “covid pandemic” towards SARS….
Thought experiment: How hard would it be to cook up a 'pandemic' during a random winter season with sufficient sniffles going through the population?
Provide plenty of well orchestrated fear mongering through various channels and government information, use the absurdly dodgy PCR test on a sufficiently large scale and many 'cases' will be detected. Combine that with the deadly WHO protocols, hire some mad statisticians presenting their scary graphics, based on completely unscientific models. Add a pinch of drama (the first Covid-19 patient in the Netherlands was reported just when the minister of health was being interviewed on national tv. And he was informed by handing over a small piece of paper that contained the dreaded message. Later we learned via an FOO request that it was staged). It would only work if many nations would follow the same path of course. Et voila, you have your 'pandemic'.
Absolutely agree, and this is why I don't think "GoF" is relevant to anything, nor would banning it acheive anything, because no actual novel pathogen is needed, only a story.
Which is also fortunate as I’ve said nothing about whether they do or don’t, as my thesis (that the only novel thing which emerged was a test / propaganda-driven chimera) doesn’t depend on it.
BioNTec is a German company, that had been financially supported by German Govt for circa 10 years. There is German influence in the paper. MRNA was a solution looking for a problem AND pharma needs another mass medication now Statins, DOAC coming out of patent.
Probably not deliberate, too much ability needed to manipulate, but opportunist in nature that got out of hand and solved a few problems for different people.
I wish people would stop referring to PCR as a test. It is not a test---it is a laboratory procedure used to multiply small amounts of DNA. Primers consisting of short sequences of nucleotides are added to a sample solution and bind to complementary sequences there and multiply them to whatever level is desired by repeated doubling each time the PCR protocol is followed (each doubling is a cycle). The sequences "found" are definitely determined by the selection of the primers to which they bind. The short sequences found are then put into one of a few computer programs that will then generate a large number of possible "genomes" from which one can be selected that fits with one in a large existing registry of supposed viral genomes. Virology has inappropriately labelled this technique as having "isolated" a virus despite the fact that no single virus has ever been physically or biochemically isolated in the sense that the average reader would imagine. Read the original study out of Wuhan claiming to have discovered a "novel" virus and pay particular attention to the Methods section that describes how several short sections of nucleotides were used as primers to identify and then multiply via PCR and then generated an enormous number of possible genomes that would suggest that it was in the group designated as corona viruses.
Precisely. Kary Mullis, Nobel prize winner for his work on PCR, always insisted that the procedure should never be used as evidence of infection. He objected to the use of PCR in the HIV/AIDS controversy. Ironically, he died just a few months before the Covid scam.
Agreed. The central point is individual liberty. I don't like the fact that many would accept the idea of biosurveillance and the legitimacy of "public health" if the tests were accurate. But my hope is that exposing the absurdity of the statistics will cause some of the many that don't understand the concept of individual freedom to reject the propaganda they are given.
It is important, however, to bear in mind that the criticisms of the Drosten test therein focus on technical issues with the test as designed, eg choice of primers etc, not with the underlying value of it, not is the premise that there was a newly emergent virus and a "test" of some sort was desirable in order to help effectively contain "it" challenged at all.
Indeed, some of the authors have become very staunch defenders of PCR technology as a whole, pushing back strongly against anyone who questions whether there was truly anything novel circulating.
Note also these:
This short article of mine about the uncanny parallels between the PCR delopment for SARS-CoV-2 and that for SARS. Many don't seem to realise that Drosten was central to both:
This piece by myself and Martin Neil proposing that the obsession with Ct (and hence sensitivity) served (unwittingly or not) to distract people from questioning sensitivity:
Thought experiment: How hard would it be to cook up a 'pandemic' during a random winter season with sufficient sniffles going through the population?
Provide plenty of well orchestrated fear mongering through various channels and government information, use the absurdly dodgy PCR test on a sufficiently large scale and many 'cases' will be detected. Combine that with the deadly WHO protocols, hire some mad statisticians presenting their scary graphics, based on completely unscientific models. Add a pinch of drama (the first Covid-19 patient in the Netherlands was reported just when the minister of health was being interviewed on national tv. And he was informed by handing over a small piece of paper that contained the dreaded message. Later we learned via an FOO request that it was staged). It would only work if many nations would follow the same path of course. Et voila, you have your 'pandemic'.
Absolutely agree, and this is why I don't think "GoF" is relevant to anything, nor would banning it acheive anything, because no actual novel pathogen is needed, only a story.
Yup, and it paves the way for the only way out: the magic potion. Oh, forgot to mention: dont try this at home:-)
That’s fortunate since none has been shown to exist.
Which is also fortunate as I’ve said nothing about whether they do or don’t, as my thesis (that the only novel thing which emerged was a test / propaganda-driven chimera) doesn’t depend on it.
BioNTec is a German company, that had been financially supported by German Govt for circa 10 years. There is German influence in the paper. MRNA was a solution looking for a problem AND pharma needs another mass medication now Statins, DOAC coming out of patent.
Probably not deliberate, too much ability needed to manipulate, but opportunist in nature that got out of hand and solved a few problems for different people.
So much pharma is Germanic, or germ-manic as I like to say!
I wish people would stop referring to PCR as a test. It is not a test---it is a laboratory procedure used to multiply small amounts of DNA. Primers consisting of short sequences of nucleotides are added to a sample solution and bind to complementary sequences there and multiply them to whatever level is desired by repeated doubling each time the PCR protocol is followed (each doubling is a cycle). The sequences "found" are definitely determined by the selection of the primers to which they bind. The short sequences found are then put into one of a few computer programs that will then generate a large number of possible "genomes" from which one can be selected that fits with one in a large existing registry of supposed viral genomes. Virology has inappropriately labelled this technique as having "isolated" a virus despite the fact that no single virus has ever been physically or biochemically isolated in the sense that the average reader would imagine. Read the original study out of Wuhan claiming to have discovered a "novel" virus and pay particular attention to the Methods section that describes how several short sections of nucleotides were used as primers to identify and then multiply via PCR and then generated an enormous number of possible genomes that would suggest that it was in the group designated as corona viruses.
Precisely. Kary Mullis, Nobel prize winner for his work on PCR, always insisted that the procedure should never be used as evidence of infection. He objected to the use of PCR in the HIV/AIDS controversy. Ironically, he died just a few months before the Covid scam.
Agreed. The central point is individual liberty. I don't like the fact that many would accept the idea of biosurveillance and the legitimacy of "public health" if the tests were accurate. But my hope is that exposing the absurdity of the statistics will cause some of the many that don't understand the concept of individual freedom to reject the propaganda they are given.
Drosten or should that be Dross-ten, a load of dross.
https://baldmichael.substack.com/p/christian-drosten-german-virologist?utm_source=publication-search
The paper you're talking about actually apeared on multiple platforms, one of which is here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346483715_External_peer_review_of_the_RTPCR_test_to_detect_SARS-CoV-2_reveals_10_major_scientific_flaws_at_the_molecular_and_methodological_level_consequences_for_false_positive_results
It is important, however, to bear in mind that the criticisms of the Drosten test therein focus on technical issues with the test as designed, eg choice of primers etc, not with the underlying value of it, not is the premise that there was a newly emergent virus and a "test" of some sort was desirable in order to help effectively contain "it" challenged at all.
Indeed, some of the authors have become very staunch defenders of PCR technology as a whole, pushing back strongly against anyone who questions whether there was truly anything novel circulating.
Note also these:
This short article of mine about the uncanny parallels between the PCR delopment for SARS-CoV-2 and that for SARS. Many don't seem to realise that Drosten was central to both:
https://sanityunleashed.substack.com/p/the-creation-of-the-test-for-sars
This piece by myself and Martin Neil proposing that the obsession with Ct (and hence sensitivity) served (unwittingly or not) to distract people from questioning sensitivity:
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/why-do-people-still-believe-in-covid