I’ve been exposing the fact that the CDC, in July of this year, admitted, in a document, that…
They didn’t have the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It wasn’t “available.”
This means they couldn’t obtain an isolated specimen of the virus. There is only reason why.
The virus hasn’t been isolated. And THAT means no one has proved it exists.
And
now, I’ve discovered ANOTHER key document. This one apparently formed
the basis for the first PCR test aimed at detecting the COVID virus all
over the world.
READ
WHAT THIS STUDY SAYS. These quotes should be engraved in stone above
the entrance to a museum dedicated to the history of medical fraud.
“We
aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in
public health laboratory settings without having virus material
available.”
TRANSLATION: We want to develop a test to detect the new COVID virus without having the virus.
“Here
we present a validated diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV, its design
relying on close genetic relatedness of 2019-nCoV with SARS coronavirus,
making use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”
TRANSLATION:
We HAVE developed a diagnostic test to detect the new COVID virus. We
ASSUME this new virus is closely related to an older coronavirus. We
ASSUME we know HOW it is related. We ASSUME, because we don’t have the
new COVID virus. Therefore, all our assumptions are made out of
nothing. Actually, we have no proof there is a new coronavirus.
“The workflow reliably detects 2019-nCoV, and further discriminates 2019-nCoV from SARS-CoV.”
TRANSLATION:
Our new test to detect the new virus? We don’t have the new
virus. We’ve never observed it. We can’t study it directly. There is no
proof it exists. But we will use the test to detect it.
The
study is titled, “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by
real-time RT-PCR.” [Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan;25(3):2000045. doi:
10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045.]
Those
quotes from the study are astounding. A diagnostic test for the virus,
but there is no virus. No standard against which to compare the
reliability of the test.
The
authors blithely assume they can somehow infer that the virus exists in
the first place, without having an isolated specimen.
Then they assume they can understand the structure of the virus that isn’t there.
The
virus isn’t there. It has NOT been isolated. It has NOT been separated
out from other material. Therefore, it has not been observed and its
existence has not been proved.
And
yet, the test which these authors have developed is launched, all over
the world, to detect that virus; to promote the unproven notion that
there is a pandemic; to form the basis for counting COVID case numbers;
and ultimately to justify all the lockdowns which have crashed the
global economy and destroyed millions upon millions of lives.
A
great deal of confusion has been created, because scientists are now
talking about the “new virus” as if they understand its structure and
sequence. No. They’ve INTERPRETED that genetic structure. And once
they’ve made their interpretations, they gibber about what it means.
It’s
like this. A man has a very thick steel vault. He clams there is a pile
of treasure inside. But no one can open the door to the vault. People
show up with all sorts of fancy instruments, and they make indirect
measurements. They then issue very authoritative-sounding statements
about what is inside the vault.
But
no one can get in there. This is a magic vault, you see. You can’t
drill into it. You can’t blow it up. But in its vicinity, all sorts of
hustlers are gathered. And they PONTIFICATE. They BLOVIATE. They wave
their credentials. Reporters interview them. Governments follow their
recommendations.
And that’s all it is. It’s that kind of party.
There
is also confusion about what the word “isolate” means, when it comes to
viruses. SAYING you have isolated a virus doesn’t mean you have.
It
may mean you THINK you have the virus inside a mess of material which
contains many different genetic sequences and all manner of cellular
debris and who knows what.
Some scientists will claim “a lesser amount of mess” entitles them to state they’ve “isolated” the virus.
Other
scientists will claim that because they can grow, in a dish, what they
BELIEVE to be the virus, this is “proof” that the virus exists.
They’re wrong.
Still
other scientists will say that, in a dish in a lab, they “have the
virus growing”, and they know it, because the virus is destroying
certain cells in the soup in the dish. But in this soup, there are
various added chemicals, and those chemicals could easily be doing the
cell-killing.
So they are wrong, too.
As
the late independent researcher David Crowe has written: “And the word
‘isolation’ has been so debased by virologists it means nothing (e.g.
adding impure materials to a cell culture and seeing cell death is [as]
‘isolation’).”
This
is why something called real-world experiments were introduced into
science. Experiments that were forced out of the lab into the arena
where actual humans live.
In
my last article, I described exactly the kind of experiment that should
have been initiated five minutes after scientists claimed there was an
“outbreak in China.” It’s a large scale study involving humans who were
diagnosed with the “epidemic illness.” Tissue samples would be taken
from 500 of these patients and correctly analyzed via electron
microscope photography.
But
studies of that dimension and precision don’t interest scientists who
live in the lab. Such studies are too dangerous. There is every chance
that, in the harsh glare of sunlight, all their warnings about a vast
pandemic will be shown to be false. False and ridiculous. Absurd. And
insane.
These “experts” don’t want to take that chance.
So they fiddle and diddle in their labs, and they make wild claims based on nothing, on NO VIRUS.
For
them, there is no such thing as NO VIRUS. There must always be a
virus. They will build strings of thought that circle around and meet up
and shake hands and justify themselves, BY DEFINITION.
When
all is said and done, that is what they are playing at. “We make all
the definitions, and therefore we can conclude anything we want to
conclude. And call it science.”
That’s what’s going on.
I see the con and I’m pointing out the con.
I’m telling scientists who are honest to call it a con, too.
Empty
out the house of modern virology; open the windows and let the fresh
air in; and then we’ll be living in a far better world.
And,
oh yes, prosecute these researchers who devised a test for the virus
they never found. Prosecute them for crimes against humanity, and send
them to prison.
(The link to this article posted on my blog is here.)
No comments:
Post a Comment