[Another article from Corona_Fakten I felt worthy of translation. While I find the author's unconcealed exasperation regrettable – I don’t believe expressing these emotions in articles of this type helps –, much of the content itself is valuable, particularly the details on the alignment process said to constitute isolation of a virus, as well as the humanisation of viruses virologists express. My interest in this broad area remains; I believe virology has a case to answer, though of course as a lay person I might be wrong and have missed something obvious or complicated.]
By Corona_Fakten • 22 December 2020
When the “new variant” of the SARS-CoV-2 virus appeared on the scene, the whole of Greater Brexitania was tossed into turmoil. Neighbouring countries lost no time in sealing their borders. It was a royal feast for all mass-media outlets. They sipped from the information as if it were fine champagne and once again excelled at their most holy mission: incite panic as loudly and far as possible from the rooftops of the world. Of course Drosten rushed into the spotlight to offer up his two cents, whereby one must honestly say his six cents (because within three days he changed his mind three times, but more about that later ...).
The wooly mammoth of a question looming in the room – who verified the claims?
I’m getting a stomach ache; it seems there isn’t a scientist out there who takes the trouble to read and learn what’s actually in all these publications. Their apparent reluctance is an important causal factor of this confected Plandemic. That said, right at the start of this “pandemic”, German radio successfully peered through the fog of what is currently afoot in our scientific circles.
Once again I feel obliged to bring some light to the darkness. Perhaps you still belong to those people who, despite the many false claims of the last few months, still hold to their belief that science produces only honest work and checks everything rigorously.
“In research topics such as coronavirus, there is a fundamental conflict between disseminating the latest findings as quickly as possible and making sure the statements are accurate.”
“The trend is towards quick, untested pre-release.”
“Quality journals published without peer review of the content submitted.”
“Reports had to be withdrawn (by the Lancet) because they were released without peer review.”
“Occasionally, nonsense is published as apparent science; we learn from BioRxiv that the coronavirus comes from outer space.”
You should bear in mind that half of the most important publications, also referenced by the World Health Organization (WHO), come from this self-same source: BioRxiv.
Undeterred, acolytes of Scientism would then argue, “The vast majority of work is sound even though no peer reviews were carried out.” But how can any work be deemed sound if not subjected to examination? And look at the vocabulary that confronts us: “quick”, “untested”, “without peer review”, “flawed”, “withdrawn”, “no controls” and so on.
Please keep the following in mind: most scientists and physicians still have not studied the two publications from the CCDC, which were instrumental in shaping the course of the corona crisis [1] [2]. The third publication, which led to this “pandemic” being called, was the one from Prof. Christian Drosten [3], also left unexamined by the vast majority for a long time. Only after we and a few others drew attention to the flawed details in these studies month after month[4], have some started to pay closer attention. All come to the same conclusion: Drosten’s paper is riddled with an incredible number of scientific errors.
[1] A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019
[2] A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China
[3] Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR
[4] Der Wissenschaftsbetrug durch Prof. Christian Drosten (Prof Christian Drosten’s Scientific Fraud)
Claims asserting viral mutations are pure speculation. One look at the study in question should suffice to learn that no new virus has been found. We begin with a simple two-part question: What are mutations in the first place, and who benefits from claiming viruses mutate?
When Chinese researchers took bronchial lavage fluid (BALF) from a patient in January, the BALF was aligned against a bat corona-virus gene sequence and processed on a computer via various algorithms to [in effect] create a new sequence. In other words, a fictitious model was created that was not in fact observed in reality. If a PCR test were developed that tested for every single gene attributed to this new “virus”, it would not yield a single positive case, except of course for the false-positive artefacts resulting from the PCR procedure.
This procedure sequences all of the BALF. The human sequences in the mixture of genetic materials already “known” to us are screened out (alignment via database entries). The overlapping sequences are then filtered out from the remaining set.
Before any overlapping sequences are extracted from the BALF for further assessment, the sequenced 150-nucleotide pieces are computationally subdivided into 21-kMers: 1-21, 2-22, 3-24 ... 129-150. Then the overlaps are searched for from among these 21-kMers (in the alignment program Megahit; 25-kMers in the alignment program Trinity), and of course many are found.
Everything that overlaps is called a “contig”. Everything that does not is filtered out of the alignment.
Next, those sequences that match the given genome (bat coronavirus) using the BLAST program are used for alignment.
The percentage of the entire genome that has gaps is not specified (1% to almost all???).
A gap-filling program closes these gaps by calculating what kind of gene (for a protein of the virus) might fit at each relevant position.
Then further smoothing is carried out to comply with ORF rules (Open Reading Frames).
It follows logically, then, that that which has been brought into being, artificially, via all manner of steps, each guided by asserted-though-never-verified assumptions, has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality!
The RNA is then “isolated” from the BALF for sequencing.
To “infect” cell cultures (e.g., Vero E6) [test for pathogenicity], a portion of the BALF, including all of the dying protein soup, microbes, and contaminants, is injected into a poisoned and starving cell culture.
This is the trick virology uses to present you with a new virus. Everyone should realise by now (at the very latest), that this generation of new hereditary strands, which are passed off as a new dangerous and disease-causing virus, have nothing at all to do with reality. New “viruses” could be discovered on a daily basis. We could, if we wanted, model a new virus for each and every symptom, claim each as a new discovery and assert them as the alleged causes of each relevant symptom. But the modelled genome (hereditary strand) does not actually exist in reality. It is just the product of particular algorithms that piece together new compositions of several short sequences, with “gap fillers” liberally added as needed.
To understand this in more detail, we politely ask you to read our articles (German) entitled:
1. Corona: Die nachvollziehbare und überprüfbare Widerlegung der Virus-Behauptungen (Corona: A plausible and verifiable refutation of the virus claims)
2. Eine große Bitte an Frau Prof. Ulrike Kämmerer (An important request for Professor Ulrike Kämmerer)
So what actions did the British undertake to arouse belief in this recent mutation? Our educated guesses – before having read the paper – were:
Most likely, they only amplified a gene from a spike protein (using PCR), or another protein they considered essential to the infection process.
They then sequenced this short product of the PCR test, which one would never otherwise do, and detected a (real?) change in gene sequence as compared to the primary alignment. (Readers will recall the alignment process [from other articles].)
They probably took samples from people in whom the symptoms were particularly severe, which is why they were compelled to assume – as guided by the strictest logic of course – that the virus must have become more dangerous.
It is highly unlikely that they conducted a new alignment. Our suspicion that no alignment can EVER be replicated [and yield the same results] is growing stronger by the day.
After plowing through the British publication, we found our suspicions to be right on the money.
When those involved claim they sequenced thousands of (viral) genomes, this is instantly disproven by referencing the following verifiable facts:
1. No genome has been published.
2. No alignment was conducted.
3. Only sequenced bits of gene fragments were attributed to much larger gene regions.
4. Since this sequencing delivers different results on each iteration – as per the nature of DNA (constant structural change independent of the components) –, these naturally, ever occurring changes can be passed off as viral mutations. [The strange fruits of a] circular argument.
5. This virus is obviously an intellectual construct and cannot reasonably be asserted as extant, when applying proper knowledge of biology!
Were it an intent or a compulsion of viruses to continually improve and accelerate their propagation by means of mutation – which would constitute a clear contradiction of the observations, laws and logic of thermodynamics, for which there has never been any exception – mankind would have been exterminated long ago … unless we credit viruses with perceptive and reasoning faculties sufficient to avert their own destruction by deliberately choosing not to destroy us.
Prof. Christian Drosten changed his mind about the claimed new virus mutation almost daily
On 20 December, Christian Drosten tweeted it was line B.1.1.7. This implies an amplifying and an attenuating mutation (ORF8). Important to note: “Not yet analysed in the lab”, [he said]. (It’s essential to be one of the first [with your statement]!)
On December 21, we read how virologist Drosten reacted cautiously to reports from the UK:
“The claim of a 70% higher infection rate compared to the original variant is just an estimate, Drosten told Deutschlandfunk radio. The data remains highly incomplete and scientifically unreliable. British scientists have made it clear that they need at least until the middle of the week to make accurate statements.”
On 22 December (Tagesspiegel) – Virologist Drosten concerned about virus mutation: “This does not look good!”
Drosten classifies the new findings:
“Following a publication of new data on the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus B.1.1.7 mutation, which is spreading rapidly in the UK and now in other countries around the world, Berlin-based Charité chief virologist Christian Drosten expressed concern: “Unfortunately, this does not look good,” he commented on Twitter. Nevertheless, he is confident we are not completely unprotected against the new variant.”
And again on December 22: Drosten sees no cause for concern regarding coronavirus variant:
“According to virologist Christian Drosten, the new coronavirus variant is already in Germany. He does not see this as a problem for the time being.”
Please draw your own conclusions from these sham theatrics. A scientist’s first and foremost task should be to verify claims independently by trying to disprove them via control experiments. But it is precisely this that has yet to happen. A violation of the clearly stated rules of science that are part of [Drosten’s] employment contract. A paper may not be deemed a scientific work if its authors disregard these authoritative guidelines [on control experiments]. The German Research Foundation codified this 1998.
When virologists are asked what a virus is and what intentions this dead nucleic acid has, it becomes obvious we are dealing with fanatics who have long since left reality behind.
I don’t want to get into the whole swine-flu scandal here. You can check out the excellent documentary (Arte – Profiteure der Angst (“Profiteers of Fear”)) and the article (Rubikon - Schweinegrippe 2.0 (“Swine Flu 2.0”)). But I would like to reproduce a statement of Drosten’s from “Profiteers of Fear” – which was so aptly answered by a Raphael-Viaveto post of Wed 25 Mar 2020 that I agree 100% with his description. It could not have been expressed any better.
It is without question well worth watching the entire film. But one particular interview segment initially caused me great amusement, and then caused me to shudder. A virologist describes how viruses mutate (from 27:30):
“One might say this virus could adopt certain gene segments from other, very dangerous viruses, e.g. from bird-flu viruses, and itself become a very dangerous virus. But even there, one should always speak cautiously: the current virus is actually already very, very successful and one wonders what such a virus would gain from [such an act]. Because a sudden mutational leap of this kind is almost always accompanied by the virus being worse off than before, at least for a while. Viruses do not want to kill people, they just want to exist. A virus can do this particularly well if its hosts continue to move inconspicuously about their social environment, i.e. are not seriously ill.”
I almost collapsed with laughter at the sheer ridiculousness and quasi-religious, medieval belief informing this account. Then I wanted to take another look at who was yapping such nonsense. To my quickly mounting horror, it was none other than Prof. Christian Drosten, developer of the current corona PCR test and well known co-discoverer of the cuddly corona virus.
The belief system behind these statements is, for me, indicative of an almost incomprehensible, childlike ignorance. The alleged virus, i.e. a simple membrane shell with RNA content, is assumed to have a will and the ability to make decisions. The virus is said to have the ability to make mutational leaps at will when it feels its outlook is bad (whatever that means; how does membrane-enveloped RNA feel bad? – there’s nothing about “random mutations”, the virus decides when it mutates)! The virus is said to have a survival instinct (it doesn’t want to kill, it just wants to exist)!!
Such abysmally silly humanisation cannot even be called unscientific. It is akin to the purest pre-scientific, infantile belief in ghosts. It is not easy, after the many, many years of dealing with the rubbish that passes for modern science, to surprise, or even shock me with nonsensical statements. But this account, combined with the position this man holds today, actually appalls me. It is the most bone-chillingly stupid thing I have heard from an academic’s mouth in the last ten years.
But it makes you realise a few things about virology.
An interview on the German TV station “mdr” with Prof. Gerd Liebert, Institute of Virology, Leipzig, also reveals the childlike thinking these gentlemen use to create phantoms. We will comment on a few of these “lapses” in immediately subsequent paragraphs.
Prof. Gerd Liebert: “That is a philosophical question. Some say they are living beings. Others say they are not living beings. I am one of those who say it is not an independent living being because it cannot reproduce autonomously, that is, independently.”
Corona_Fakten: So we now know that virologists are in fundamental disagreement about whether a virus is alive or dead. All virologists assert that a virus has no metabolism of its own and is biochemically dead. Now please try to imagine the following: How on earth can something dead develop the power to enter an organism through skin, fasciae, organ derma, vessel linings and against the mucous flow of mucous membranes to penetrate the tough connective-tissue mass (which surrounds all cells)?
This is no longer an open question, but a disproven myth that we develop below.
Prof. Gerd Liebert: “He describes a virus as DNA snippets in an envelope. They are wrapped fragments of genetic material that – on their own – are incapable of doing anything. Viruses cannot move, have no metabolism and cannot reproduce. It is possible that they were the first life form or life pre-form on this planet. There are different theories about that too.”
Corona_Fakten: They are incapable of anything, cannot move, have no metabolism and cannot reproduce. There are various theories about their origin. So we can conclude that a DNA/RNA envelope that is actually incapable of doing anything can, however, as just described, develop the power to fight its way through a number of barriers. It can even float in midair without decaying (RNA decays very quickly).
Prof. Gerd Liebert: “But this initially dead packet of DNA begins to become active when it comes into contact with other cells, with bacteria or our mucous membranes. After years in road dust, after a brief stop on a doorknob, after being transported by a breeze or the cough of a sick person, it reaches a new cell. The most stable viruses are those that are built like a twenty-corner sphere, almost like a football. They are highly stable and can remain infectious for months and years, possibly even decades. That means they are lying in street dust somewhere, and if these viruses get into the body, they can multiply again.”
Corona_Fakten: Not only are these biochemically dead “viruses” not actually capable of anything themselves, they lie in wait until a child comes along to play in the sand and brings this dead “structure” to life, whereupon it becomes one of the cleverest entities on earth. To put it in Prof. Drosten’s words:
“Viruses do not want to kill people, they just want to exist. A virus can do this particularly well if its hosts continue to move inconspicuously about their social environment, i.e. are not seriously ill.”
So it has a conscience, a will and clear goals!
Prof. Gerd Liebert: “As small as the DNA snippet inside a virus is – it contains a plan that is as ingenious as it is devious. At the mere touch of a cell wall, the virus awakens and initiates its program, clawing at the cell and injecting its DNA into the cell interior. This is the only chance a virus has to become a living being – to change sides, to awaken from the realm of the undead.”
Corona_Fakten: We have now entered the realm of science fiction, probably where all those film ideas come from.
So let’s nail this down:
Viruses have a will
Viruses have an ingenious and devious plan
Viruses are intelligent
Viruses are said to have intent and the ability to make decisions
Viruses are said to have a survival instinct (they do not want to kill, but to exist)
Viruses decide for themselves when they mutate and make such decisions if their outlook is bad
Viruses are wired with a masterful program that rewrites the source code of cells
The dead DNA/RNA can do nothing at first, but can [when brought to life] penetrate all barriers, make its way to the cell, where it then (and I quote): “claws at the cell and injects its DNA into the cell interior. This is the only chance a virus has to become a living being – to change sides, to awaken from the realm of the undead.”
Aha. That hits the nail on the head.
Prof. Gerd Liebert: “If a viral-DNA snippet integrates into the cell’s genome, the virus is suddenly part of a living organism. Now the virus has no time to lose. It begins to make virus copies in the cell. The cell dies under the viral load; it bursts and out pour thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of new viruses that storm other cells.”
Corona_Fakten: What more can one say. The virus is simply not of this world. Far too clever to become extinct, far too clever to wipe out its host (humanity, because that would wipe it out ...).
The human body recognises the danger too late; millions upon billions of virus copies course through it. The body had no chance; the enemy is too intelligent. And yet the body, er I mean the immune system, which at first did not even notice the attack, regains the upper hand. Only when the body is at its worst is it able to regain the upper hand and defeat this insidious and sentient foe.
And they lived happily ever after!
Please don’t take me the wrong way; I can only stomach this material with humour. The virologists themselves provide the laughs.
No comments:
Post a Comment