reSee.it - Related Post Feed

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Mega Thread: The PCR “Test” You know the now ubiquitous test, a long piece of plastic with a bulbous end that has ridges on it, that you shove up your nose until you almost stab your brain. We have been told it can test for COVID but is this truly the case? #PCRTEST

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Much like everything else we have been told during the “pandemic”, this turns out to be a gross misrepresentation. Until we understand this fully, it will be used again to foment more fear and panic. PCR IS NOT A TEST. Kind of like how the Vaccines aren’t actually Vaccines.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

First lets learn more about what PCR actually is and establish a baseline understanding. Then we will look at who decided this would be a trojan horse to create the public perception that a dangerous virus was spreading rapidly throughout the world population, even in the healthy

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

PCR stands for Polymerase Chain Reaction “Sometimes called "molecular photocopying," the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a fast and inexpensive technique used to "amplify" - copy - small segments of DNA.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Because significant amounts of a sample of DNA are necessary for molecular and genetic analyses, studies of isolated pieces of DNA are nearly impossible without PCR amplification.” https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Polymerase-Chain-Reaction-Fact-Sheet

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Fact Sheet Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a technique used to "amplify" small segments of DNA. genome.gov

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

PCR was invented by scientist Kary B. Mullis and in 1993 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry. PCR is considered to be one of the most important discoveries in the field of molecular biology.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

While Mullis was alive he was an outspoken critic of the way his invention was being used. He knew that PCR can detect almost anything microbial but it was not designed as a clinical diagnostic test.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

“With PCR if you do it well you can find almost anything in anybody. It starts making you believe in the sort of Buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else, right?“

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

“Because if you can amplify one single molecule up to something that you can really measure, which PCR can do, then there’s just very few molecules that you don’t have at least one single one of them in your body.”

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

“PCR is separate from that, it’s just a process that’s used to make a whole lot of something out of something. That’s what it is. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that.”

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Here is a clip of him discussing this. I don’t know about you but I’d say he has the authority to make statements like this and we should be inclined to believe him. https://youtu.be/ZmZft4fXhQQ

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Cycle Thresholds otherwise known as ‘amplification” are used to detect a virus or nucleotides. This is key because the CT setting, meaning the number of cycles ,needs to be set at between 1-30 to reliably detect viral loads.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

If the CT is set higher than 30, it may detect dead viral fragment but there will be so few that it cannot be relied upon to determine a positive test or infection/illness. Again, the cycle thresholds can be adjusted to seemingly find anything the user wants to find.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

The higher the cycle/amplification, the higher the likelihood you will find something. To further this point here is a quote from an official CDC document titled: “CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel,” https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

They admit that PCR Tests do not automatically assume Covid-19 positive infections and can be misinterpreted as something else…

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

‘SARS-CoV-2 RNA is generally detectable in upper and lower respiratory specimens during infection. Positive results are indicative of active infection with SARS-CoV-2 but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses.”

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

“The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.Negative results do not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information.” And yet they thought it would be a reliable method to help control the spread of the virus on a worldwide basis.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

In regards to the cycle threshold, don’t take my word for it, none other than Tony Fauci stated as such on an episode of This Week in Virology in July 2020. Listen for yourself. https://youtu.be/A867t1JbIrs

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

It simply is not a diagnostic tool for infections and disease. The paper of record The New York Times ran a story that elucidates the shortcomings of PCR to accurately assess whether or not a person is infected or contagious. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html%20

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be. (Published 2020) The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus. nytimes.com

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

“We have been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus — that’s all,” Dr Mina said. “We’re using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making.”

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

“But yes-no isn’t good enough, he added. It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient’s next steps. “It’s really irresponsible, i think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,” Dr. Mina said.”

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

“The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.”

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

This next quote is very revealing in regards to the true number of “cases” that were being reported.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

“In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.”

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

So 90 percent of the results weren’t applicable and should have been thrown out. The FDA never provided guidance on what the CT Values should be set at to ensure accuracy and to determine if the viral load was significant enough to be recorded as a positive test.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

We don’t know the CT Value’s of the PCR tests that were being used worldwide because unbelievably it wasn’t factored into the decision making of our public health institutions. I would venture to say that the CT Values were most likely set too high (above 30ct)

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

and the data gleaned from all of those tests should be considered unreliable. If we consider this in context, this means the mass testing was nothing more than a way to further pandemic policies, i.e. lockdowns, masking, social distancing etc.. It was all rubbish.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

The failure of our institutions to take into account the CT Values of the tests that were used under Emergency Use Authorization is a further indictment of their unwillingness to conduct basic public health policy in a responsible, scientific manner.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

You are probably wondering, how was this allowed to happen? Who or what is responsible for selecting PCR as a way to test for COVID worldwide? Surely they have evidence that using the PCR in this way is legitimate right?

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

January 2020 - Enter German virologist Professor Dr. Christian Drosten.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Christian is a corona star in Germany and in the world of virology. He is the Director of the Berlin Charité Institute, a premier biomedical research institute and serves as a very influential advisor to the German government.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

He always seems to forecast worst case scenarios that need to be remedied by taking a vaccine. So many coincidences.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

He first entered the public health fray when the first SARS outbreak occurred in 2003. He predicted that Germany’s economy could expect a serious impact from the outbreak when in reality only 9 cases were reported with 0 deaths.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Then in 2009 without any reliable data he become a proponent for swine flu vaccination. Once again the predicted epidemic didn’t happen but with the help of his evangelizing, millions of swine flu vaccines were ordered & caused more disease and suffering than the flu itself.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Sound familiar? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/jun/04/swine-flu-experts-big-pharmaceutical

Report condemns swine flu experts' ties to big pharma

Trio of scientists who urged stockpiling had previously been paid, says report

theguardian.com

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

As a side note, if you want to learn more about the history of pandemic false alarms watch this clip from 60 Minutes about the Swine Flu Vaccinations given in 1976. They knew the neurological harm they caused and covered it up. https://youtu.be/4bOHYZhL0WQ

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

So given his terrible track record in predictions, of course our Public Health leaders looked towards him for guidance on testing for COVID. It cannot be understated how important it is to understand the PCR fraud because it is the Trojan Horse..

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

that allowed governments and institutions to usher in unprecedented restrictions on fundamental rights. Without this test and its ability to massively inflate case numbers, none of it could happen.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

They had to have something to point to that seemingly proved the virus was spreading rapidly worldwide among people without symptoms. The media then wildly exaggerated the significance, plastering “case counts” across every screen. “Case counts” that were extremely dubious.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

The decision to employ PCR as a diagnostic test to detect SARS-Cov-2 was based on one paper authored by Drosten and his associates. Here is the paper if you’d like to look for yourself. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045#html_fulltext

Eurosurveillance | Page Not Found eurosurveillance.org is the online home of Eurosurveillance, Europe's journal on infectious disease surveillance, epidemiology, prevention and control. eurosurveillance.org

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

What’s Christian fails to disclose to the public is that he has major conflicts of interest. If you look at the list of co-authors on that report, right on the first line you’ll see Olfert Landt. https://t.co/l5OroyQuOT

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Olfert is the owner of the Berlin biotech company TIB Molbiol and take a wild guess at what they produce? Corona PCR Tests and they were one of the first to market with these tests. What a profitable coincidence!

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

“The test, the design, the development, came from the Charité. We just immediately converted that into a kit format. When you don’t have the virus, which was initially only available in Wuhan,

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

we can make a synthetic gene [i.e. using computer modeling] to simulate the virus genome. We did that very quickly.” This quote was given to the German Newspaper Berliner Zeitung by Olfert. Notice anything curious about it?

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

They made a synthetic gene to simulate the virus genome because at the time they didn’t have access to the wuhan strain. I’m not a scientist and don’t pretend to be but this seems quite curious, given that Olfert was making 1.5 million tests per week by February 2020

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

If anyone can enlighten me on how they simulated the virus and how that is a reliable method to mass produce tests I would love to here your thoughts. On its face it seems very suspicious. In any event this shows the obvious conflicts of interest between Drosten and Olfert.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

So to recap: The decision to use PCR as a diagnostic tool to detect coronavirus was based on one paper written by Christian Drosten and colleagues. Who incidentally authored the paper with Olfert Landt..

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

who owns a company that manufactures Coronavirus Tests and they were first to market as luck would have it. TIB Molibol was mass producing 1.5 million corona test per week just one month after the paper was published.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

There is only one large problem though. The paper has since been thoroughly refuted by a group of 22 scientists who published this paper. ‘External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level”

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

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

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

The authors identified 10 major errors in the report that show PCR test has inherent fallacies that render it useless for its stated purpose. I have provided the 10 errors identified below. This gets into the weeds a bit but is important to understanding the flaws in the test.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

1. There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. The described concentrations lead to increased nonspecific bindings and PCR product amplifications, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify SC2

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

2. Six unspecified wobbly positions will introduce an enormous variability in the real world laboratory implementations of this test; the confusing nonspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Standard Operational Protocol making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

3. The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SC2 virus and make inferences about infection

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

4. A difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) also makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

5. A severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative. This Ct value is also not found in follow-up submissions making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

6. The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level. This fact makes the protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

7. The PCR test contains neither a unique positive control to evaluate its specificity for SARS-CoV-2 nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

8. The test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no SOP. This highly questions the scientific validity of the test and makes it unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

9. Most likely, the Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

10. We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on..

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

July 29 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version).

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

TIB-Molbiol is the company which was “the first” to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted [20]; further,..

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there [21] and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

So there you have it folks, I have tried to provide a understandable, somewhat concise review of the evidence showing that the PCR Test, which was used to perpetuate the pandemic, strip people of their rights, destroy businesses,

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

…demonize human beings and separate them from dying family members is a fraudulent diagnostic method.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

By using cranked up Cycle Thresholds, they were able to create a “casedemic” and most importantly a perception in the publics mind that there was a dangerous pathogen spreading worldwide and even if you don’t exhibit symptoms you were a threat to society.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

So next time you are asked to be tested, push back on the notion, ask questions about the CT values, refer them to the ample evidence I’ve provided.

@JoshWalkos - Champagne Joshi

This cannot happen again and until there is a widespread understanding of this kind of fraud you can bet it will continue to be used. It all starts with the PCR Deception, it allowed for the pretext of every other draconian policy. Don’t let it happen again.

@Inversionism - Inversionism

Oh look, I caught the CDC scrubbing another document from the internet that shows they intentionally manipulated the RT-PCR cycle count for those who got the vaccine, to manufacture the narrative that it's a pandemic of the unvaccinated because they were still receiving 40+ cycle count tests. Just a few months later into the fall, they eventually admit false positives are a problem, and they phase out the use of RT-PCR for other tests and assays, which lead to the largest jump in COVID cases that we ever saw. How convenient. Why does no one talk about RT-PCR fraud anymore? Why are people still trying to argue any of the COVID numbers as if they are legitimate? Early vaccine efficacy data was predicated on RT-PCR. Lockdowns, social distancing, etc, were predicated on RT-PCR. Vaccine mandates were predicated on RT-PCR. The foundation of the entire psyop relies on this one test, which was completely misused intentionally, per the inventor Kary Mullis. He criticized Fauci heavily for the same practices during AIDS, but no one cared. Fauci destroyed his career and sent him into obscurity for speaking truth, just like all the rest. https://odysee.com/Kary-Mullis-on-PCR:5… Dead link: https://cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/Information-for-laboratories-COVID-vaccine-breakthrough-case-investigation.pdf Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20210429220602/https:/www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/Information-for-laboratories-COVID-vaccine-breakthrough-case-investigation.pdf… This paper also proves the entire pandemic was a fraud, so quit arguing their contrived data. They used these tests to capture deaths from the vaccine and cover it up. They classified people as unvaccinated until they had every shot + 2 weeks, to which they then used high cycle RT-PCR to manufacture a positive. Once they were considered vaccinated, down to 28 cycle count, and then not positive. Thus reality was manufactured. Everything destroyed in it's wake. https://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

Kary Mullis on PCR Kary Mullis, the inventor of the RT-PCR Test Speaking in 1993. odysee.com

Page Not Found | CDC Page Not Found | CDC cdc.gov

ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable researchgate.net

@Inversionism - Inversionism

Here Ontario public health making shit up, predicated on the fraudulent Corman Drosten paper that was debunked in entirety. https://publichealthontario.ca/en/About/news/2021/Explained-COVID19-PCR-Testing-and-Cycle-Thresholds Why aren’t cycle threshold reported on test results? (because it's fraud) Like with other PCR tests (including non-COVID-19 tests), it is not recommended to provide Ct values on test results in Ontario (and Canada). PCR tests tell us if the virus is present or not in the sample provided to the lab; however, there are other factors to consider in interpreting lab results. Ct values are not directly comparable from one PCR test kit to the next, and can change with increased transportation times, sample storage conditions, and sample collection method. Because of this, Ct values can help support lab specialists in validating results as well as reviewing complex cases. However, they need to be considered alongside the other important factors we discussed earlier – like exposure history and individual characteristics. At PHO, Ct values are available to health care professionals upon request, and low level detected results (Ct value 35 to 38) are indicated on the laboratory report (since November 2020). We also have specialists who are available to health care professionals who have any questions on interpreting lab results or want to discuss complex cases. There is still a lot to learn about Ct values and more research is required to fully understand Ct values and their link to disease onset, severity and infectiousness.

Explained: COVID-19 PCR Testing and Cycle Thresholds | Public Health Ontario Learn more about COVID-19 PCR testing including information on how testing works and understanding cycle threshold values. publichealthontario.ca

@Inversionism - Inversionism

Here Ontario public health making shit up, predicated on the fraudulent Corman Drosten paper that was debunked in entirety. https://publichealthontario.ca/en/About/news/2021/Explained-COVID19-PCR-Testing-and-Cycle-Thresholds Why aren’t cycle threshold reported on test results? (because it's fraud) Like with other PCR tests (including non-COVID-19 tests), it is not recommended to provide Ct values on test results in Ontario (and Canada). PCR tests tell us if the virus is present or not in the sample provided to the lab; however, there are other factors to consider in interpreting lab results. Ct values are not directly comparable from one PCR test kit to the next, and can change with increased transportation times, sample storage conditions, and sample collection method. Because of this, Ct values can help support lab specialists in validating results as well as reviewing complex cases. However, they need to be considered alongside the other important factors we discussed earlier – like exposure history and individual characteristics. At PHO, Ct values are available to health care professionals upon request, and low level detected results (Ct value 35 to 38) are indicated on the laboratory report (since November 2020). We also have specialists who are available to health care professionals who have any questions on interpreting lab results or want to discuss complex cases. There is still a lot to learn about Ct values and more research is required to fully understand Ct values and their link to disease onset, severity and infectiousness.

Explained: COVID-19 PCR Testing and Cycle Thresholds | Public Health Ontario Learn more about COVID-19 PCR testing including information on how testing works and understanding cycle threshold values. publichealthontario.ca

@catsscareme2021 - Jessica Rojas 🇺🇸💪

Feels like a good time to repost this. Written by a medical professional- should put things into perspective for a lot of you panicking and fearful about the COVID-19 virus, the spread, how they are testing and what they are testing. I am personally aware of many who have been tested and told they are presumptive positive and to go home and monitor. Nothing about this whole thing makes too much sense. Especially the over zealous response by governments around the world. Once again this post along with the others posted today is not for the people who believe government is here to protect them and those who are begging to be enslaved. These are for critical thinkers who can decide for themselves and are not for those who are are rushing to catch the sheep wagon not knowing it's headed for the slaughter-house ______ (Author unknown)- Edited I work in the healthcare field. Here's the problem, we are testing people for any strain of a Coronavirus. Not specifically for COVID-19. There are no reliable tests for a specific COVID-19 virus. There are no reliable agencies or media outlets for reporting numbers of actual COVID-19 virus cases. This needs to be addressed first and foremost. Every action and reaction to COVID-19 is based on totally flawed data and we simply can not make accurate assessments. This is why you're hearing that most people with COVID-19 are showing nothing more than cold/flu like symptoms. That's because most Coronavirus strains are nothing more than cold/flu like symptoms. The few actual novel Coronavirus cases do have some worse respiratory responses, but still have a very promising recovery rate, especially for those without prior issues. The ‘gold standard’ in testing for COVID-19 is laboratory isolated/purified coronavirus particles free from any contaminants and particles that look like viruses but are not, that have been proven to be the cause of the syndrome known as COVID-19 and obtained by using proper viral isolation methods and controls (not PCR that is currently being used or Serology /antibody tests which do not detect virus as such). PCR basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies any DNA to look for ‘viral sequences’, i.e. bits of non-human DNA that seem to match parts of a known viral genome. The problem is the test is known not to work. It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very very tiny amount of DNA (or RNA) and growing it exponentially until it can be analyzed. Obviously any minute contaminations in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery. Additionally, it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues. The Mickey Mouse test kits being sent out to hospitals, at best, tell analysts you have some viral DNA (or RNA) in your cells. Which most of us do, most of the time. It may tell you the viral sequence is related to a specific type of virus – say the huge family of coronavirus. But that’s all. The idea these kits can isolate a specific virus like COVID-19 is nonsense. And that’s not even getting into the other issue – viral load. If you remember the PCR works by amplifying minute amounts of DNA (or RNA). It therefore is useless at telling you how much virus you may have. And that’s the only question that really matters when it comes to diagnosing illness. Everyone will have a few virus kicking round in their system at any time, and most will not cause illness because their quantities are too small. For a virus to sicken you you need a lot of it, a massive amount of it. But PCR does not test viral load and therefore can’t determine if a osteogenesis is present in sufficient quantities to sicken you. If you feel sick and get a PCR test any random virus DNA (or RNA) might be identified even if they aren’t at all involved in your sickness which leads to false diagnosis. Continued

@MJTruthUltra - UltraMJTruth

MASTER THREAD 🧵 THE PLANDEMIC The Greatest Trick the the CDC ever pulled was convince everyone they were sick without any symptoms. Bookmark this Thread! This Master Thread will be updated with everything I’ve accumulated over the last 3 years. It will take me some time to update & it will be an ongoing thread for you to refer to. I will update this thread with 5-10 posts at a time, over time. WHY AM I DOING THIS? I’m just a normal guy with a family… who began questioning where this medical tyranny was taking us. Then I, as did thousands of fellow patriots who felt like something was very wrong, began speaking up. As a consequence to speaking up, thousands of us were banned off of social media. I’ve only been back a few months now, but I have 3 years worth of research that I want everyone to use as ammunition to help awaken others and hopefully avert Plandemic 2.0, which is coming. I have my theories as to why all of this is happening, but for this thread I will do my best to stick to facts & leave conjecture out of it. Let’s begin…

@MJTruthUltra - UltraMJTruth

This is my very first post in this thread because I believe the greatest driver of the Plandemic was the Main Stream Media. Whoever controls the media, controls the mind. Roughly six corporations control 90+% of ALL what you hear, read, & see. This video should terrify you. As we move forward in this thread, keep this video in mind. https://rumble.com/v3braja-the-mockingbird-mainstream-media-the-illusion-of-choice.html

The Mockingbird Mainstream Media - The Illusion of Choice Truth Seeker in my Spare Time You Can Follow Me at: Telegram is my home base of Operations https://t.me/candlesinthenight TWITTER https://mobile.twitter.com/MJTruthUltra Truth Social https://truthsoci rumble.com

@MJTruthUltra - UltraMJTruth

“Covid Surges” were the cause of all the draconian lockdowns we experienced. Those “surges” were determined by something called a PCR test. The powers that be behind this plandemic knew that in order to maintain the constant fearporn of high cases, they decided to use the PCR test. Three Videos for your Review: 1.) This video summarizes how the PCR tests were weaponized against healthy individuals to exaggerate millions of case numbers. In a nutshell, the sample you provided is magnified by each Cycle Threshold (CT’s) A sick person with a viral load can successfully be picked up at 7 CTs. The recommended amplification of a sample is not to exceed >30 CT’s. However, a lot of labs ran everyones samples through 38-40 CT’s, which equated to millions of false positive Covid-cases… The “Experts” then began their campaign to convince everyone that asymptomatic people were spreading Covid. https://rumble.com/v3bnnni-share-with-anyone-who-wants-to-get-a-pcr-test-to-tell-them-if-they-have-cov.html 2.) Kary Mullis, the man who invented the PCR test, who was also a 1993 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry… Said himself… “PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody… It allows you to take a minuscule amount of anything & make it measurable..” Mr. Mullis unfortunately died in 2019, before the Plandemic. Very coincidental… Kary Mullis Video https://rumble.com/v3bnr9s-kary-mullis-inventor-of-the-pcr-test-you-can-find-anything-in-anybody.html 3.) Anthony Fauci himself admitted that running Cycle Thresholds greater than 35 will almost always result in dead nucleotides of past sicknesses. This is very important to understand why there were so many “cases”. The media ran with it and never stopped. Fauci Video https://rumble.com/v3bnpb0-dr-anthony-fauci-admits-the-pcr-tests-are-useless-if-ran-at-high-thresholds.html

The PCR Test’s are Flawed Truth Seeker in my Spare Time You Can Follow Me at: Telegram is my home base of Operations https://t.me/candlesinthenight TWITTER https://mobile.twitter.com/MJTruthUltra Truth Social https://truthsoci rumble.com

Kary Mullis - Inventor of the PCR Test “You can Find anything in Anybody” Truth Seeker in my Spare Time You Can Follow Me at: Telegram is my home base of Operations https://t.me/candlesinthenight TWITTER https://mobile.twitter.com/MJTruthUltra Truth Social https://truthsoci rumble.com

Dr Anthony Fauci Admits the PCR Tests are Useless if Ran at High Thresholds Truth Seeker in my Spare Time You Can Follow Me at: Telegram is my home base of Operations https://t.me/candlesinthenight TWITTER https://mobile.twitter.com/MJTruthUltra Truth Social https://truthsoci rumble.com

@MJTruthUltra - UltraMJTruth

I want to again highlight the Mainstream Media & their relentless psychological attacks on the unvaccinated… This should terrify you.. —— MSNBC • “You are the unvaccinated. You are the problem. It is the unvaccinated who are the problem, period, end of story. • “The anti-vaxer’s seem to have a thing for death & home remedies” • “The unvaccinated should be taxed. They should pay more for healthcare.” —— CNN • “The only people you can blame, maybe they should be shamed, are the unvaccinated” • “Anyone you came into contact with, Will blame you, as will the rest of us.” • “It’s time to start blaming the unvaccinated folks” • “It’s the unvaccinated are the threat” • “You’re punishing the vaccinated for the sins of the vaccinated” • “You’re treading on our freedom, really you’re killing other people” • “You have to start doing things for the greater good of society and not for idiots who think they can do their own research.” • “Oh you can’t shame them.. you can’t call them stupid. Yes, they are.” • “We need to start looking at the choice to remain unvaccinated, the same while driving while intoxicated.” • “Literally, the only people dying are the unvaccinated, and for those spreading misinformation, shame on you.” —— OTHER MSM • “ We know we can’t trust the unvaccinated” • “The vaccinated feel the unvaccinated are making me feel upset or angry” • “No, screw your Freedom” • “When are we going to stop putting up with the idiots of this country and say it’s mandatory to get vaccinated. F*ck their freedom • Fauci said our hospitals are overwhelmed… “It’s not complicated to me… Vaccinated person who suffered a heart attack, come on in…. Unvaccinated person who gobbled horse goo, rest in peace weezy” —— JOE BIDEN - The p[R]esident • “We’ve been patient… but our patience is wearing thin. • “It’s not about freedom or personal choice” • “Those who are not vaccinated will end up paying the price” This Video https://rumble.com/v2nr2ry-the-unvaccinated-are-scum.html

The Unvaccinated are Scum Truth Seeker in my Spare Time You Can Follow Me at: Telegram is my home base of Operations https://t.me/candlesinthenight TWITTER https://mobile.twitter.com/MJTruthUltra Truth Social https://truthsoci rumble.com

@MJTruthUltra - UltraMJTruth

October 18, 2019, something called EVENT 201 took place in New York, NY. EVENT 201 was a Tabletop Pandemic Simulation of a Coronavirus that escaped & killed 60 million people, sponsored by the WHO, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, World Economic Forum, John’s Hopkins Center for Security, & the CIA. Covid was announced 6 weeks after this tabletop exercise. Is that a coincidence? This Clip https://rumble.com/v1ovvf0-the-real-anthony-fauci-event-201-the-pandemic-simulation-in-2019.html RDK’s Full Documentary can be found by searching for “The Real Anthony Fauci Documentary” Online.

The Real Anthony Fauci: Event 201, the Pandemic Simulation in 2019 Watch the Full FILM HERE https://rumble.com/v1ovda8-the-real-anthony-fauci-documentary-part-1.html Truth Seeker in my Spare Time Telegram is my home base of Operations— follow me at t.me/candlesinthen rumble.com

@MJTruthUltra - UltraMJTruth

In 2017, Anthony Fauci made “prediction” that Trumps administration will have to deal with a “Surprise outbreak” How did he know? https://rumble.com/v1f3sn7-anthony-fauci-predicts-there-will-be-a-surprise-outbreak-in-trumps-administ.html

Anthony Fauci “Predicts” There will be a Surprise Outbreak in Trumps Administration- 01/10/2017 Dr. Anthony Fauci “Predicts” There will be a Surprise Outbreak in Trumps Administration- January 10, 2017 Truth Teller in my Spare Time Telegram is my home base of Operations— follow me at t.me/candle rumble.com

@MJTruthUltra - UltraMJTruth

October 23, 2022 The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, in partnership with WHO and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, along with the CIA conducted a tabletop Catastrophic Contagion exercise at the Grand Challenges Annual Meeting in Brussels, Belgium. This “exercise” pandemic is deadlier than the coronovirus and SPECIFICALLY TARGETS CHILDREN! “As of today, there have been an estimated 1 billion cases worldwide with more than 20 million deaths, including nearly 15 million children. Countless millions are alive, but left with paralysis or brain damage,” says GNN, the fake news agency from the exercise. TODAY— Now we’re hearing about an even “deadlier variant” and upcoming lockdowns again in the fall… Joe Biden just announced “New Vaccines” for the new variant. Is that a coincidence? This video https://rumble.com/v206rpy-johns-hopkins-who-and-gates-foundation-simulate-a-catastrophic-contagion-th.html The exercise https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/exercises/2022-catastrophic-contagion/

Johns Hopkins, WHO, & Gates Foundation Simulate a Catastrophic Contagion that Targets Children! Truth Seeker in my Spare Time Telegram is my home base of Operations— follow me at t.me/candlesinthenight Truth Social at @MJTruth Gab https://gab.com/mjtruth ALL MY RUMBLE CHANNELS - Feel Goods https rumble.com

Catastrophic Contagion A pandemic tabletop exercise at the Grand Challenges Annual Meeting in Brussels, Belgium, on October 2022. catastrophiccontagion.centerforhealthsecurity.org

@MJTruthUltra - UltraMJTruth

Look who “predicted” another Pandemic in April 2023 Anthony Fauci… “There will absolutely be another outbreak of another pandemic.” This Video https://rumble.com/v2glmpu-anthony-fauci-there-will-absolutely-be-an-outbreak-of-another-pandemic..html

Anthony Fauci - “there will absolutely be an outbreak of another pandemic.” April 3, 2023 Truth Seeker in my Spare Time You Can Follow Me at: Telegram is my home base of Operations https://t.me/candlesinthenight TWITTER https://mobile.twitter.com/MJTruthUltra Truth Social htt rumble.com

@MJTruthUltra - UltraMJTruth

It wasn’t just Fauci…. May 2023, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus even gave his own “prediction” The next pandemic that will be ‘even deadlier’ than COVID is coming, warns WHO “The threat of another variant emerging that causes new surges of disease and death remains,” Tedros said. “And the threat of another pathogen emerging with even deadlier potential remains.” “When the next pandemic comes knocking — and it will — we must be ready to answer decisively, collectively and equitably,” He goes on to say how we need to hand over our sovereignty by agreeing to the Pandemic Accord. (I’ll cover this later in the thread) This Video https://rumble.com/v2pn9xa-the-next-pandemic-will-be-even-deadlier-than-covid-is-coming-warns-who.html

The next pandemic will be ‘even deadlier’ than COVID is coming, warns WHO Truth Seeker in my Spare Time You Can Follow Me at: Telegram is my home base of Operations https://t.me/candlesinthenight TWITTER https://mobile.twitter.com/MJTruthUltra Truth Social https://truthsoci rumble.com

@MJTruthUltra - UltraMJTruth

Before I get too ahead of myself, let’s talk again about “Covid Cases” Without “cases”, there is no need for lockdowns. Without “cases”, there is no Pandemic… One of the biggest mysteries of the Plandemic was the fact that the Flu completely disappeared… According to CDC & WHO data, as well as scientific journals, since November 2020, the drop-off in flu numbers following COVID’s arrival was swift and global, which caused a less than 1% positivity rate. What the “Fact Checkers” Say… • The Flu Vaccines were very effective that year, that’s why… • Due to Covid, staying home, social distancing, washing our hands, wearing masks slowed the spread of the flu…. Me— Ok…. If that worked for the flu, why didn’t it work for Covid? The logic doesn’t add up.. https://google.com/amp/s/www.scientificamerican.com/article/flu-has-disappeared-worldwide-during-the-covid-pandemic1/%3famp=true…

Flu Has Disappeared for More Than a Year Scientific American is the essential guide to the most awe-inspiring advances in science and technology, explaining how they change our understanding of the world and shape our lives. scientificamerican.com

@MJTruthUltra - UltraMJTruth

VAERS Data A nurse friend of mine, who was terrified of losing her job, brought this to my attention… She didn’t want to lose her job, but she didn’t want to get the vaccines either due of all of the adverse effects she saw in those who did get vaccinated early. She was also very familiar with something called VAERS and what she saw terrified her. VAERS is the primary mechanism in the U.S. for reporting adverse vaccine reactions. According to the VAERS website, healthcare providers are required by law to report to VAERS. Sadly, fewer than 1% of adverse events have ever been reported to VAERS… but… and this is a very big but…. That 1% tells quite a terrifying story. VAERS began recording data in 1990 of ALL vaccine adverts events. Notice the difference in numbers in every single category, by year… Let’s Go Over a Few Categories: DEATHS: • 2021- 22,277 deaths were reported. • 2022- 12,462 deaths were reported • 2023, As of Today- 2,472 deaths have been reported. — Compare the Years prior. — If these numbers represent only a 1% reporting rate, do some math on what the possible real number could be. Check for Yourself https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality MYOCARDITIS/PERICARDITIS: • 2021- 15,710 incidents reported • 2022- 10,604 incidents reported • 2023 as of Today- 1,372 incidents reported so far — Compare the Years prior. — If these numbers represent only a 1% reporting rate, do some math on what the possible real number could be. Check for Yourself https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/myo-pericarditis MISCARRIAGES & STILLBIRTHS: • 2021- 3,427 incidents reported • 2022- 1,525 incidents reported • 2023- As of Today- 188 incidents reported Check for yourself https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/reproductive-health MENSTRUAL: • 2021- 27,799 incidents reported • 2022- 16,214 incidents reported • 2023- As of Today- 1,945 incidents reported — Compare the Years prior. — If these numbers represent only a 1% reporting rate, do some math on what the possible real number could be. — Women everyone bagn experiencing menstrual issues after being vaccinated, which prompted hundreds of thousands of women to create groups on Facebook. One of the groups was reported to have 40k+ members… Ultimately, Facebooks “Covid-19 Misinformation Policy” reportedly took these groups down & Facebook even began removing individual posts. https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/08/facebook-bans-vaccine-misinformation Check for yourself https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data/reproductive-health Every single category on the VAERS website is just like this. What was the one common denominator that occurred worldwide around the time of these spikes? The vaccines…

Mortality - OpenVAERS openvaers.com

Myo/Pericarditis - OpenVAERS openvaers.com

Reproductive Health - OpenVAERS openvaers.com

Facebook bans misinformation about all vaccines after years of controversy Company will remove posts with false claims about vaccines on Facebook and Instagram amp.theguardian.com

Reproductive Health - OpenVAERS openvaers.com

@MJTruthUltra - UltraMJTruth

If those numbers don’t terrify you, this will… What if It was far worse? Many of those adverse events talked about in the above post are not even reported because the CDC did something truly sinister. According to the CDC, a person is not considered fully vaccinated until after two weeks of their last recommended dosage. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0402-travel-guidance-vaccinated-people.html Click on any category on VAERS… Look at the spike in numbers following inoculation. https://www.openvaers.com/covid-data Let’s focus on just one of these Categories in VAERS: 👉 Deaths The CDC denies that these deaths are related to C19 vaccines, but their own data as well as VAERS data shows approximately 50 percent of all deaths occurred within 48-hours of vaccination. 2+2=4 Here’s the kicker— Everyone that died within that two week window (after being vaccinated) were considered an unvaccinated death. Do you understand what I just said? The CDC’s claim that an individual is not fully vaccinated until after two weeks of their final shot, exonerates them from all vaccine related harm that occurred within that two week window, while additionally serving to inflate the numbers.

CDC Newsroom CDC public health news, press releases, government public health news, medical and disease news, story ideas, photos. cdc.gov

COVID Vaccine Data - OpenVAERS openvaers.com

@MJTruthUltra - UltraMJTruth

It gets worse… These slides are from an FDA document “Vaccines & Related Biological Products Advisory Committee October 22, 2020” and provides a list of possible adverse reactions to be expected with the C19 vaccines. FDA Document https://fda.gov/media/143557/download In a nutshell, the FDA expected & projected the same adverse reactions from the C19 vaccines. The FDA even states they would be holding weekly & bi-weekly meetings on VAERS activities. This VAERS document from December 31, 2021 states: “The total number of deaths associated with the COVID-19 vaccines is more than double the number of deaths associated with all other vaccines combined since the year 1990.” https://vaersanalysis.info/2022/01/07/vaers-summary-for-covid-19-vaccines-through-12-31-2021/ If the FDA held weekly meetings on VAERS activities, you would this statement alone would set off alarms.. It never did…

FDA Error fda.gov

VAERS Summary for COVID-19 Vaccines through 12/31/2021 – VAERS Analysis vaersanalysis.info

@MJTruthUltra - UltraMJTruth

With the explosion of Myocarditis reports in young healthy adults & children that occurred after allowing children to be vaccinated, which is evident in the VAERS data… Pfizer ended up adding an Anti-Heart Attack Drug called Tromethamine for 5-11 year olds after thousands of cardiac disorders were seen in 12-17 year olds. The document also says, “The medicine may cause tissue damage if the drug leaks from the vain.“ along with a plethora of other effects. It appears they recognized the jab was causing heart attacks in children and swapped one ingredient with another to assist with the rise in heart attacks. They did all of this quietly… EUA Amendment Request for Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 Vaccine for Use in Children 5 Through 11 Years of Age October 26, 2021 https://fda.gov/media/153447/download

@MJTruthUltra - UltraMJTruth

Medical Professionals Raised Alarms that Babies were Having HEART ATTACKS in the Wombs of Vaccinated Women - CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY! Prior to 2021, Intrauterine fetal demise (stillbirth) occurs when a child dies in the womb at or around the 20th week pregnancy— was extremely uncommon. 2021, the number of stillbirths explode… 1,200 fold increases… One single OBGYN was on track to see 9,000 high risk OB ultrasounds. • 1,200 fold increases in menstrual abnormalities • Miscarriages up • Birth defects up • Fetal cardiac arrhythmia up • Fetal malformations up • Reduction in amniotic fluid — Are you saying babies are having heart attacks in the womb? “Yes, The vaccines are causes a significant inflammatory effect.” March 1st, 2021 The FDA, under a federal judges order, began releasing data… one of these documents was a Post Marketing Analysis https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf This Document Outlined • 83% of all vaccinated pregnant women ended up with a dead baby • 274 Pregnancies, they couldn’t account for what happened to 238 of those pregnancies… the remaining pregnancies resulted in a dead baby… all but one single baby. Pfizer wanted these documents to come out 55 years later. Why??? Crimes Against Humanity! This Video https://rumble.com/v1wjpjy-the-vaccines-are-causing-babies-to-have-heart-attack-in-the-womb-crimes-aga.html Link For Video in Above Post (forgot to add) https://rumble.com/v3c4vdi-pfizer-quietly-adds-anti-heart-attack-drug-tromethamine-to-child-covid-shot.html

The Vaccines are Causing Babies to Have Heart Attacks in the Womb! CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY! Truth Seeker in my Spare Time Telegram is my home base of Operations— follow me at t.me/candlesinthenight Truth Social at @MJTruth Gab https://gab.com/mjtruth ALL MY RUMBLE CHANNELS - Feel Goods https rumble.com

Pfizer Quietly Adds Anti-Heart Attack Drug Tromethamine to Child Covid Shots - October 26, 2021 Truth Seeker in my Spare Time You Can Follow Me at: Telegram is my home base of Operations https://t.me/candlesinthenight TWITTER https://mobile.twitter.com/MJTruthUltra Truth Social https://truthsoci rumble.com

@MJTruthUltra - UltraMJTruth

That’s it for the day …. I will update THIS THREAD again over the next few days. When it’s updated, this message will self-destruct. Stay Tuned! There’s a lot more. :)

@LobservateurLi2 - L'Observateur Q2

Lauréat du Prix Nobel et créateur du test PCR, le Dr. Kary Mullis s'est toujours opposé à Fauci, aux bureaucrates et à l'utilisation de son test Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) comme outil de diagnostic. Il a essayé de débattre publiquement avec Fauci à plusieurs reprises, mais « il ne débattrait jamais avec moi ! » disait-il. Un menteur corrompu et incompétent comme Fauci ne pouvait pas défendre ses lubies devant un prix Nobel, on le comprend bien. « Avec un PCR bien ficelé, tu peux retrouver tout ce que tu veux (comme molécule) sur tout le monde.» « Si vous amplifiez suffisamment le test PCR, vous pouvez trouver presque tout ce que vous voulez dans un corps » Le protocole officiel utilisé pour le covid-19 à des taux de réplication supérieurs à 30 fois a probablement créé un tsunami de faux résultats positifs, qui ont à leur tour alimenté la psychose covid qui persiste encore à ce jour. Un positif covid qui n'est pas malade est dit "asymptomatique" et c'est un mensonge. Ces personnes n'ont pas de symptômes parce qu'elles n'ont pas le covid. Quand aux tests positifs sur des gens symptomatiques, on ne saura jamais de quel virus ils sont affectés, on sait seulement que des traces de SARS-COV2 ont été détectées dans leur corps mais on ne sait absolument pas si c'est en rapport avec leurs symptômes. Le lien de causalité ne peut être établi par PCR. Le Dr. Mullis est décédé le 7 août 2019, trois mois avant que le cirque covidiste ne prenne son envol. Fauci et ses affidés ont dû en être très soulagés, c'est le moins que l'on puisse dire. Merci à Kary Mullis et qu'il repose en paix. À nous d'y voir maintenant! #KaryMullis #TestPCR #PCRtest #Asymptomatique #FauxPositif Vidéo en français: https://odysee.com/@viviane:9/Kary.Mullis:b?r=FLysXE9RWJ9FepFUVt7CnacdTw22TKH9…

@LobservateurLi2 - L'Observateur Q2

Lauréat du Prix Nobel et créateur du test PCR, le Dr. Kary Mullis s'est toujours opposé à Fauci, aux bureaucrates et à l'utilisation de son test Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) comme outil de diagnostic. Il a essayé de débattre publiquement avec Fauci à plusieurs reprises, mais « il ne débattrait jamais avec moi ! » disait-il. Un menteur corrompu et incompétent comme Fauci ne pouvait pas défendre ses lubies devant un prix Nobel, on le comprend bien. « Avec un PCR bien ficelé, tu peux retrouver tout ce que tu veux (comme molécule) sur tout le monde.» « Si vous amplifiez suffisamment le test PCR, vous pouvez trouver presque tout ce que vous voulez dans un corps » Le protocole officiel utilisé pour le covid-19 à des taux de réplication supérieurs à 30 fois a probablement créé un tsunami de faux résultats positifs, qui ont à leur tour alimenté la psychose covid qui persiste encore à ce jour. Un positif covid qui n'est pas malade est dit "asymptomatique" et c'est un mensonge. Ces personnes n'ont pas de symptômes parce qu'elles n'ont pas le covid. Quand aux tests positifs sur des gens symptomatiques, on ne saura jamais de quel virus ils sont affectés, on sait seulement que des traces de SARS-COV2 ont été détectées dans leur corps mais on ne sait absolument pas si c'est en rapport avec leurs symptômes. Le lien de causalité ne peut être établi par PCR. Le Dr. Mullis est décédé le 7 août 2019, trois mois avant que le cirque covidiste ne prenne son envol. Fauci et ses affidés ont dû en être très soulagés, c'est le moins que l'on puisse dire. Merci à Kary Mullis et qu'il repose en paix. 🙏 À nous d'y voir maintenant! #KaryMullis #TestPCR #PCRtest #Asymptomatique #FauxPositif Vidéo en français: https://odysee.com/@viviane:9/Kary.Mullis:b?r=FLysXE9RWJ9FepFUVt7CnacdTw22TKH9…

@DjaonBea - ✨DJΛӨП BΣΛ✨ (🌿🌺🍀🌳)❤️CO2

@LobservateurLi2 Test PCR Nombre de cycles et nombre d'amplifications Ça augmente très vite... 25 cycles 33 millions d'amplifications 30 cycles 1 milliards d'amplifications

@BanounHelene - Hélène Banoun

"ai récemment analysé lots vaccins par séquençage tout ADN du vaccin et par qPCR en utilisant amorces dirigées vers les séquences du squelette du vecteur vaccin à ARNm Pfizer est contaminé par vecteur ADN plasmidique utilisé comme modèle pour réaction transcription in vitro.

@P_J_Buckhaults - Phillip J. Buckhaults, Ph.D.

Dear @US_FDA and @pfizer Phillip Buckhaults, PhD. here. Cancer genejock faulty at the university of South Carolina. I have recently analyzed a couple of lots of vaccine by nanopore sequencing of all the DNA in the vax, and by qPCR (DNA pcr, not reverse-transcriptase pcr)…

@MartinZ_uncut - Martin Zizi

Dans la série pour en finir une fois pour toutes avec les conneries mensongères de la Doxa- Cas des PCR Belges, Situation et Racontars. Ok. Le Dr. Van Laethem - du CSS (conseil supérieur de Santé) récemment nommé Président du Comité Consultatif National de Bioéthique - a raconté bien des choses à propos des PCR - y en a vraiment marre, et donc voici des données de calibration Belges. Le Dr Yves Van Leathem va remplacer le Dr Cosyns, au niveau du Comité National Consultatif d'Ethique - ce qui est un comble vu ce qui s'est passé! https://health.belgium.be/fr/composition-du-bureau Aucun problème de diffamation ou de mensonges - copie des fichiers officiels sont déjà chez un huissier, donc les poursuites, c'est quand ils le veulent! 1. 30 fiable? Ce n'est pas une question de fiabilité. La PCR va TOUJOURS donner un résultat. Le problème va être ce que ce résultat signifie. A un CT de 23 on est dejà en dessous du seuil de CONTAGION qui est de 1 million de particules virales par millilitre, car on se trouve à 100.000 particules/ml [Voir l'image en bas, niveau seuil est en rouge] A un CT de 30, on est 128 fois plus bas (2 exposant 7) en théorie et encore plus bas en pratique, donc à 781 particules. 2. Et avec des CT plus haut encore? Vous pouvez TOUS le voir - et je répète - ceci sont les données de calibarations officielles BE, si on va vers 33, ce qui fut fait au début, on tombe à une trentaine de particules par ml!!! Mais il y a un second problème avec un tel nombre de cycles. Les sondes perdent de leur spécificité. Et des séquences qui ne sont pas du SARS sont également amplifiées. Ce phénomèmen se passe aussi pour des cT bien inférieurs mai reste peu significatif - mais si on monte dans les tours, il prend bcp d'ampleur. Vous comprenez maintenant pourquoi le Dr Drosten (GE) et l'OMS sont dans la mouise - et mériteraient d'être traînés en Justice. Ils ont requis plus de 35 CT. Ce qui permet d'avoir TOUT le monde positif, ou parfois négatif le jour même, car le test n'est plus fiable a ce niveau.... donc nous avions une PANDEMIE de test PCR. Relisez cette dernière ligne avant de devenir furieux! Puis l'OMS a fait une rentrante - un an plus tard - en annonçant Urbi et Orbi de stopper les CT aussi haut, mais sans plus donner de directives - contrairement aux "ordres données en 2020"! Et ceci SANS explication - pour cacher leurs traces bien sûr. J'ai la gerbe là! 3. PCR ≠ INFECTION & PCR ≠ CONTAGION. C'est - sur cette base - que je tentais d'expliquer aux lecteurs BE moyens qu'il était INCORRECT de limiter leurs déplacements ds le pays ou de définir des codes couleurs par région en 2020 et 2021! C'est ce que je disais dans mes papiers ds La Libre, Kairos, Le Vif - et qui me valut des attaques publiques (n'est ce pas Dorian?) Kairos - un challenge provoquant masi EXACT! https://kairospresse.be/en/about-pcr-testing-open-letter-to-my-colleagues-who-advise-our-governments/ Le Vif - 75% des PCR étant des faux positifs. https://levif.be/international/covid-19-et-strategie-de-depistage-mensonges-ou-stupidite/ A part me faire allumer, et salir... rien ne changea. Même lorsque ce papier co-écrit entre experts sortit. Bonne info TOUS PUBLICS sur les PCR, à partager, et discuter. Cela vous donne ue occasion d'ouvrir les yeux de vos proches. Plus de 46 références scientifiques précises qui confirment tout cela. https://covidrationnel.be/2021/05/28/pour-une-strategie-de-depistage-efficace-et-objective-des-personnes-susceptibles-de-transmettre-le-sars-cov-2/ 4. Image est un tableau récapitulatif de calibrations PCR BE. 2 séries de valeurs entre Dec '20 et Fév '21. La personne qui a RECALIBRÉ nos PCR en BE (et qui s'est fait remercier/virer de Gossselies) a dû le faire ces tests à DEUX reprises vu les push-back des autres lasso de PCR qui ne le croyaient pas (ou faisaient semblant de ne pas le croire ?) 5. Il nous faut maintenant reconnaitre ce problème des PCR, sinon TOUT pourra toujours recommencer à chaque instant. C'est déjà le cas avec les tentatives de vous faire croire que COVID revient. Ce qui est un comble! Donc - 3 propositions concrètes. - Le gouvernement devrait donner les fichiers des PCR effectuées durant toute l'année 2020 - avec leurs CT. Ne pas le fiare, cest reconanitre sa culpabilité et donc endosser la responsabilité des dégâts directs et indirects que ces test FAUSSÉS ont causé. - Il faut OFFICIELLEMENT ramener les PCR à leur vraie place dans l'arsenal clinique - que l'Académie de Médecine, et l'Ordre des Médecins fassent les notes nécessaires à ce sujet - afin que ce message CRUCIAL passe auprès de TOUS les médecins de Belgique. - Il faut que l'INAMI ARRETE les remboursements de ces tests PCR inutiles du point de vue médical [47 Euros le test en BE]. Les tests et remboursements ne peuvent Ietre demandés que SI SYMPTOMES évidents et danger patient. Les PCR ≠ fishing trip, masi test de confirmation CLINIQUE ! Cela nous/vous a couté des milliards - qui in fine ont servi a tuer des belges, par la manipulation de la PEUR! 5. Et je termine avec une image choc - Qui DEMONTRE TOUT CE QUE JE VIENS DE VOUS EXPLIQUER. Données US - depuis Janvier 2020 jusque mtn. En bleu sur le graphe, le # morts par semaine attribués au COVID. (et il y aura `a dire à ce sujet aussi, mais passons) En orange le # tests PCR positifs NON le COVID ne revient pas. Mais vous voyez mainetent CLAIREMENT pourquoi ILS font ces tests! Stoppez le non sens des "vaccins" aussi inutile que dangereux Dites NON! PS- Dernière question - Que faut-il faire du Dr Y. VAn Laethem? ------- Moins important mais illustratif - Ici un article pour contrer le mensonge publie par La Source dans La Libre -------------- Debunking de l'attaque ad hominem de La Libre contre ce que je tentais d'expliquer à tous les citoyens BE - https://kairospresse.be/en/pcr-useless-if-asymptomatic/

@MartinZ_uncut - Martin Zizi

Dans la série pour en finir une fois pour toutes avec les conneries mensongères de la Doxa- Cas des PCR Belges, Situation et Racontars. Ok. Le Dr. Van Laethem - du CSS (conseil supérieur de Santé) récemment nommé Président du Comité Consultatif National de Bioéthique - a raconté bien des choses à propos des PCR - y en a vraiment marre, et donc voici des données de calibration Belges. Le Dr Yves Van Leathem va remplacer le Dr Cosyns, au niveau du Comité National Consultatif d'Ethique - ce qui est un comble vu ce qui s'est passé! https://www.health.belgium.be/fr/composition-du-bureau Aucun problème de diffamation ou de mensonges - copie des fichiers officiels sont déjà chez un huissier, donc les poursuites, c'est quand ils le veulent! 1. 30 fiable? Ce n'est pas une question de fiabilité. La PCR va TOUJOURS donner un résultat. Le problème va être ce que ce résultat signifie. A un CT de 23 on est dejà en dessous du seuil de CONTAGION qui est de 1 million de particules virales par millilitre, car on se trouve à 100.000 particules/ml [Voir l'image en bas, niveau seuil est en rouge] A un CT de 30, on est 128 fois plus bas (2 exposant 7) en théorie et encore plus bas en pratique, donc à 781 particules. 2. Et avec des CT plus haut encore? Vous pouvez TOUS le voir - et je répète - ceci sont les données de calibarations officielles BE, si on va vers 33, ce qui fut fait au début, on tombe à une trentaine de particules par ml!!! Mais il y a un second problème avec un tel nombre de cycles. Les sondes perdent de leur spécificité. Et des séquences qui ne sont pas du SARS sont également amplifiées. Ce phénomèmen se passe aussi pour des cT bien inférieurs mai reste peu significatif - mais si on monte dans les tours, il prend bcp d'ampleur. Vous comprenez maintenant pourquoi le Dr Drosten (GE) et l'OMS sont dans la mouise - et mériteraient d'être traînés en Justice. Ils ont requis plus de 35 CT. Ce qui permet d'avoir TOUT le monde positif, ou parfois négatif le jour même, car le test n'est plus fiable a ce niveau.... donc nous avions une PANDEMIE de test PCR. Relisez cette dernière ligne avant de devenir furieux! Puis l'OMS a fait une rentrante - un an plus tard - en annonçant Urbi et Orbi de stopper les CT aussi haut, mais sans plus donner de directives - contrairement aux "ordres données en 2020"! Et ceci SANS explication - pour cacher leurs traces bien sûr. J'ai la gerbe là! 3. PCR ≠ INFECTION & PCR ≠ CONTAGION. C'est - sur cette base - que je tentais d'expliquer aux lecteurs BE moyens qu'il était INCORRECT de limiter leurs déplacements ds le pays ou de définir des codes couleurs par région en 2020 et 2021! C'est ce que je disais dans mes papiers ds La Libre, Kairos, Le Vif - et qui me valut des attaques publiques (n'est ce pas Dorian?) Kairos - un challenge provoquant masi EXACT! https://www.kairospresse.be/en/about-pcr-testing-open-letter-to-my-colleagues-who-advise-our-governments/ Le Vif - 75% des PCR étant des faux positifs. https://www.levif.be/international/covid-19-et-strategie-de-depistage-mensonges-ou-stupidite/ A part me faire allumer, et salir... rien ne changea. Même lorsque ce papier co-écrit entre experts sortit. Bonne info TOUS PUBLICS sur les PCR, à partager, et discuter. Cela vous donne ue occasion d'ouvrir les yeux de vos proches. Plus de 46 références scientifiques précises qui confirment tout cela. https://covidrationnel.be/2021/05/28/pour-une-strategie-de-depistage-efficace-et-objective-des-personnes-susceptibles-de-transmettre-le-sars-cov-2/ 4. Image est un tableau récapitulatif de calibrations PCR BE. 2 séries de valeurs entre Dec '20 et Fév '21. La personne qui a RECALIBRÉ nos PCR en BE (et qui s'est fait remercier/virer de Gossselies) a dû le faire ces tests à DEUX reprises vu les push-back des autres lasso de PCR qui ne le croyaient pas (ou faisaient semblant de ne pas le croire ?) 5. Il nous faut maintenant reconnaitre ce problème des PCR, sinon TOUT pourra toujours recommencer à chaque instant. C'est déjà le cas avec les tentatives de vous faire croire que COVID revient. Ce qui est un comble! Donc - 3 propositions concrètes. - Le gouvernement devrait donner les fichiers des PCR effectuées durant toute l'année 2020 - avec leurs CT. Ne pas le fiare, cest reconanitre sa culpabilité et donc endosser la responsabilité des dégâts directs et indirects que ces test FAUSSÉS ont causé. - Il faut OFFICIELLEMENT ramener les PCR à leur vraie place dans l'arsenal clinique - que l'Académie de Médecine, et l'Ordre des Médecins fassent les notes nécessaires à ce sujet - afin que ce message CRUCIAL passe auprès de TOUS les médecins de Belgique. - Il faut que l'INAMI ARRETE les remboursements de ces tests PCR inutiles du point de vue médical [47 Euros le test en BE]. Les tests et remboursements ne peuvent Ietre demandés que SI SYMPTOMES évidents et danger patient. Les PCR ≠ fishing trip, masi test de confirmation CLINIQUE ! Cela nous/vous a couté des milliards - qui in fine ont servi a tuer des belges, par la manipulation de la PEUR! 5. Et je termine avec une image choc - Qui DEMONTRE TOUT CE QUE JE VIENS DE VOUS EXPLIQUER. Données US - depuis Janvier 2020 jusque mtn. En bleu sur le graphe, le # morts par semaine attribués au COVID. (et il y aura `a dire à ce sujet aussi, mais passons) En orange le # tests PCR positifs NON le COVID ne revient pas. Mais vous voyez mainetent CLAIREMENT pourquoi ILS font ces tests! Stoppez le non sens des "vaccins" aussi inutile que dangereux Dites NON! PS- Dernière question - Que faut-il faire du Dr Y. VAn Laethem? ------- Moins important mais illustratif - Ici un article pour contrer le mensonge publie par La Source dans La Libre -------------- Debunking de l'attaque ad hominem de La Libre contre ce que je tentais d'expliquer à tous les citoyens BE - https://www.kairospresse.be/en/pcr-useless-if-asymptomatic/

Composition du Bureau Composition du Bureau du Comité durant le sixième  mandat (20 mai 2019 – 19 mai 2023)  health.belgium.be

About PCR testing. Open letter to my colleagues who advise our governments - Kairos By Prof.. Dr. Martin ZIZI, MD-PhD, Biophysicist. Former Scientific Medical Director at the Belgian Defense, Former Director of the Epidemiology and Biostatistics Division, Former Chairman of the Ethics Committee BE Def. I challenge any Belgian or foreign scientist to prove that my explanations on these PCR tests, depending on whether one is symptomatic or not, are wrong For a little more than 2 weeks, most EU countries have again confined their citizens, justifying these measures as necessary to limit the human spread of a virus that is not even unique to humans[note]. What is most disturbing is that these measures are justified on the basis of results that measure the presence of the virus by means of a genetic detection technique called PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction). However, we do not hear in the "mainstream" media that these measurements used out of context do not allow conclusions to be drawn on real scientific or medical grounds. It is only on the basis of the results of the PCR test that it is decided whether an area will be considered as a danger zone or not, and thus be declared "red" or "green". This is also the basis for deciding whether someone should be quarantined or not; this is the basis for deciding the economic and social well-being of the populations of an entire planet. On this basis, it was decided to put restaurant owners, artists, theaters, hairdressers, manicurists and a host of other trades out of business. It is on this basis that decisions are made to close or open schools, and to deprive children of the need to play to learn... However, on many occasions, scientists have criticized the misuse of these tests. The experts then engaged in statistical jousting that was as useless as it was destructive, talking about false-positive or false-negative results, when it is the very usefulness of PCR tests that is at issue, and it is their large-scale use for screening purposes that has put us in these ridiculous situations. In addition to being extreme and undemocratic, as jurists and sociologists have pointed out, these confinement measures have no real medical or scientific basis. The experts then engaged in statistical jousting that was as useless as it was destructive, talking about false-positive or false-negative results, when it is the very usefulness of PCR tests that is at issue The usefulness of PCR in relation to symptoms I am a Medical Doctor, Molecular Biologist and Biophysicist, but also the former Director of the Epidemiology and Biostatistics Division of the Belgian Department of Defense. PCRs, my lab has been doing them for years, and I take issue with the information we have been served daily since March 2020. PCR is therefore used to screen for COVID. This method, however, only detects the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus genes, but in no way informs about the physical condition of the tested person. To be clear, the status and usefulness of these PCR tests (which measure the presence of viral genes) vary depending on whether the person being tested has symptoms or not. If that person has no symptoms, a positive result means nothing in terms of disease and nothing in terms of contagion. This method, however, only detects the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus genes, but in no way informs about the physical condition of the tested person Such a positive result may mean that this person is either a carrier of the active virus, or that this person is a carrier of an inactive virus - therefore NOT infectious, and therefore there is no danger. That same person - positive for PCR - can also get sick and be contagious, or not get sick and therefore not be contagious. Because it takes a certain number of viruses to get sick, and PCR can measure 3 or 4, or 10, which is not a sufficient dose to get sick. Therefore, the medical and social utility of PCR in the absence of any symptoms is almost nil. If that person has symptoms, the situation is quite different. A positive PCR test can then confirm that the person is sick with SARS and not with another virus (e.g., influenza), or confirm that more than one virus is present at the same time. This is useful for establishing good and reliable medical statistics. The medical and social utility of PCR in the absence of any symptoms is almost nil In conclusion, PCR is a diagnostic confirmation tool and not a mass screening tool. In addition, it is very expensive and requires a laboratory infrastructure and specialized technicians. Positive PCRs on asymptomatic persons (such as the famous contacts we are tracking) are therefore in no way a medical and scientific measure of danger for them or their relatives. This is not an opinion, but is based on a whole scientific literature and solid and demonstrable facts and therefore, in order to cut short any false debate as useless as deleterious, I challenge any Belgian or foreign scientist to demonstrate that my explanations on these PCR tests, depending on whether one is symptomatic or not, are wrong. Let the reality be known to all! And don't come up with articles published under media pressure since March, PCR has been around since 1985, so its advantages, limitations and disadvantages are not new. No legitimacy to declare "red zones PCR tests certainly have their place in public health, they measure the presence of the virus, can confirm a diagnosis, and therefore can be used as a logistical tool to allocate resources, but to pass them off as a measure of a potential danger and therefore to declare certain areas, cities or countries "green" or "red", is incorrect and medically false. And throwing them out on a daily basis to a population that needs clarity and leadership does not contribute to good risk management. Apart from creating, and above all maintaining, the feeling of panic, incomprehension and resignation among the population, PCR used outside the context of sick patients has led to its massive abuse - an abuse that is costly in terms of time and resources. The only true measure of the danger posed by this virus is the famous IFR (Infection Fatality Rate), i.e. the mortality rate calculated by taking into account both symptomatic and asymptomatic people, and the only way to identify the latter is by randomized testing in a representative sample of the population. There is no need to test everyone to calculate such an IFR. These tests should be serological tests, not PCRs. The question of their timing in relation to the time of infection is not even relevant, because the purpose of these tests is precisely to be randomized and thus to capture the state of a population at a given time - whether or not the people tested are sick. This is as simple as it sounds. After more than 10 months of crisis, it is legitimate to ask the question of the absence of the ONLY measure of real danger, which alone would allow for sound risk management. For the information of the readers, such measurements have already been carried out in various countries on several occasions, according to the standards and practices in the matter, and the results show the real mortality rates, thus of danger related to COVID, which oscillate between 0.3 and 0.6% and are thus very far from the 3 to 5% reported by all the press, and by certain experts up to the point of exhaustion or drunk with their new media power[note]. After more than 10 months of crisis, it is legitimate to ask the question of the absence of the ONLY measure of real danger, which alone would allow for sound risk management Making other scientists who have tried to keep a cool head look uninformed may not be the best way for the press to defend the Public Interest. It is surprising that health professionals and many molecular biologists remain silent on this subject. Some people said they were afraid of this false media hype, which is the last straw in a democracy. I am not afraid and I have my conscience as my guide. I repeat one last time: I challenge any scientist to demonstrate that my explanations of PCR tests used in symptom-free people are wrong - and in the absence of that, it is time to demand that we fundamentally change our approaches to bring them in line with good risk management. It's high time to deal with people instead of dealing - like mad scientists - with numbers! The fact that Brussels or Antwerp have more positive PCRs on asymptomatic people than a village in the Gaume region, means nothing, absolutely nothing in terms of risk management. And I'm not even talking about the very high rate of false positives that are specific to PCR, I leave that to the experts... The problem is not who - between Antwerp and Brussels - manages this crisis better. Save your pennies, and instead of doing PCRs on contacts that are being tracked, reserve them for patients who have symptoms, which will allow physicians to have useful statistics to provide you with to help you manage this crisis with intellectual honesty and efficiency. Who takes up the challenge? kairospresse.be

Covid-19 et stratégie de dépistage : mensonges ou stupidité ? Lors de toute crise de santé publique, il est crucial d'avoir une vision globale de la situation pour prendre des décisions éclairées. Voici pourquoi depuis le début de la crise de Covid-19, les gouvernements ont mis en place une stratégie de dépistage. levif.be

Pour une stratégie de dépistage efficace et objective des personnes susceptibles de transmettre le SARS-CoV-2 Que le contrôle de l’épidémie de SARS-CoV-2 nécessite une stratégie de dépistage de masse est largement reconnu au niveau mondial {{{https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1323285/retrieve}}}. Pour être efficace, une telle stratégie doit remplir trois critères : détecter un maximum de personnes contagieuses, les isoler le plus rapidement possible, à un coût total efficient {{{Alors que l’efficacité dénote de la… covidrationnel.be

PCR USELESS IF ASYMPTOMATIC - Kairos Fact-checking the fact-checkers - The Source (April 4, 2021) Prof dr. Martin Zizi, former President of the Ethics Committee and of the Commission for Medical Ethics within the Belgian Department of Defense, in charge of the relations with the Order of Physicians between 1997 and 2004, former Scientific Director and Head of the Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, researcher in Molecular Biology and Biophysics; he was an advisor/expert for the Belgian authorities, the EU and the UN. This article is a response to the publication "Do PCR tests overestimate Covid-19 cases?" - published in the new "fact checking" section of La Libre Belgique. In a Democracy, the press must control the power in place and not the citizens. The solution: a true testing policy without exclusivity and based on reality, not on a "rubber band" that keeps us all in fear and allows us to decide anything. Recently, an article mentioned me in a fact-checking column (The Source, a new column in La Libre) about PCRs and their misuse throughout this SARS2 crisis. I find the intention commendable and I share the desire of the Editor-in-Chief and the journalist. However, reading the article, I believe that the result is not nearly informative enough, the conclusion being to reassure about the use of PCR and to contrast it with other types of tests. As announced in a previous article, we need to work on solutions, and this light fact-check publication gives me the opportunity to not only explain the problem to the general public, but also to outline the solution to this problem. So I have to come back to this subject because it is far too important to be diluted even with brilliance. Note that I have intervened in the press twice on this subject, and I have never said or written that RCPs had no role to play as the article describes ([note], [note], as well as numerous exchanges between La Libre and myself). I also differentiate between symptomatic and asymptomatic every time. What is the problem with the PCR tests that have been made the cornerstone of this health, social and economic debacle? In fact, there is not one, but two perfectly distinct problems and they must be clearly distinguished. Problem #1. PCR ≠ Infections. This means that a positive PCR does not automatically equate to infection (a given for all molecular biologists). Germs simply live among us. For example, almost all of us have staphylococcal germs on our skin at one time or another. The frequency is between 20-30% at any given time[note], and 66% of people have this germ on their skin intermittently, but repeatedly[note]. If we did PCRs on thousands of people tomorrow, we would almost always have between 30% and 66% of "positive cases" in the entire random population. How many of us have a staph infection of the skin? Almost nobody! Do you understand the problem now? So a disease is not the same as a positive PCR test. On the other hand, if we have a skin disease, then in that case, PCR can help the clinician to demonstrate that it is staphylococcus, to know if it is resistant or not, and to know if it is another germ, and in Inall cases, it will help the physician to prescribe the appropriate treatment. The context of the test is therefore absolutely cardinal. To be sick with a virus, measuring a dozen or millions of viruses per measurement - and PCR does this - means nothing if one does not understand the notion of threshold of infection . Indeed, each virus has a different threshold to make us sick; for hepatitis B this threshold is very low, but for HIV it is higher. For SARS2 we need about one million particles per milliliter in our bronchial tubes to get infected and sick[note] (references even quoted by Sciensano). As a reminder, PCRs amplify the genetic material to be measured per cycle, each cycle doubling the mass of what is to be measured. But as with any instrument, whether in the scientific field or elsewhere (music, construction, etc.), it is necessary to start by calibrating the tool to be used. For PCR, this is equivalent to performing a detection of a series of viral solutions with a known number of particles (10 viruses/ml, 100 viruses/ml, 1000 viruses per ml, and so on). It is then possible to match these different viral concentrations to PCR multiplication cycles: 2, 3, 4 ... 20, 30, 40 cycles. This makes it possible to define the number of cycles necessary (the Ct or Cycle Treshold) to reach the famous threshold of one million viruses per ml (below this threshold, there is no infection). It is important that this calibration is done for all laboratories, as there are differences between the machines. Note, however, that after a very large number of cycles, any instrument will inevitably fall outside the PCR's range of use. WHO had initially published standardized protocols at 35 cycles - then more recently reported as an addendum that each laboratory should indeed calibrate their machines (reference given in the insert). And in Belgium? We were happily doing 35 cycles, where the million per ml is reached at around 23 cycles according to our own standards (this figure fluctuating only by a few units depending on the machine used)! Remember also that the PCR is a test that works in reverse - the longer you run the reaction, the less you measure what you're looking for. 23 cycles give us the threshold of one million viruses per milliliter - which is necessary to say that we have a risk of infection - which is still not an infection because each of us can be more or less sensitive to the virus (another problem real but which is beyond the scope of this article). 33 cycles lead us to measure 1000 times less viruses (because 2 exponent 10 = 1024, i.e. the difference of cycles between 33 and 23), so instead of a million viruses, the sample contains only 1000! Above this threshold (called "Ct" in the PCR results) of 23, we can conclude that : This is not an infection! If you repeat these tests with too many cycles, the results become random and non-specific and are no longer reliable at all: i.e. the SAME sample could be positive once, negative once... so the test gives no valid information. Figure1.The problem is that PCRs are considered positive by Sciensano from 100 copies, which is much lower than the threshold needed to be counted as a case (an infected patient). As for conclusions about contagiousness, the term "potential" does not help. A physician who receives these answers cannot interpret them correctly because he is not a PCR specialist - but he knows whether his patient has symptoms or not, and THAT should be his criterion.Can a NON-INFECTED patient be contagious? Of course not. This would be an absolute NO SENSE. The last column (on the right) is what I explain when I say that PCR ≠ Infection.Above 25, it is obvious that the person is NOT infected - therefore cannot be a "case" - based on these erroneous PCRs, most governments have done a lot of fooling around... unfortunately, the cost to our societies is enormous.[Table showing the number of viral copies during a calibration, the number of cycles for a gene X, the recommendations of Sciensano and the RAG and especially the reality of an infection according to the threshold.](RAG - Risk assessment group) Let's go even further: if I explain to you that in the ICU (Intensive Care Unit) in Belgium, some of these patients who have not contracted COVID are nevertheless labelled "COVID" because the test is "positive". And this even in the absence of any clinical picture of respiratory infection sometimes!!! This can't happen in our good kingdom? Don't believe me, talk to the ICU nurses and doctors. So the problem of CRP extends even in part to hospital beds... And when we know that in France and Germany, PCR is done at 38, even more than 40 cycles, in Ireland at 45 cycles (some protocols and standards were shared so comparisons are possible), we can only notice that the problem goes beyond our borders... Are you beginning to understand why this debate about PCR cycles and calibration is critical? Problem #2. PCR ≠ Contagiousness. A positive PCR does not equate to an infectious person. This is the 'tail' of the infections. The Source article does a better job on this - and I thank the reporters for their informative clarity, as they are not scientists. Fig. 2. If we test NON-symptomatic people, we are therefore six times more likely to find a positive but non-contagious PCR test than a positive and contagious one. Even if we take a safety margin of a factor of two (the period of possible contagion is eight days), we are still four times more likely to have a positive PCR test but not contagious. In this case, we can say that only 25% of the tests correctly indicate a risk of contagion. The SARS-CoV 2 virus remains in our bodies for weeks after the illness is over - so we are no longer contagious at that point. There are many publications on this subject (this point is no longer contentious at all). What the article does not highlight is that this non-contagion period is 4 to 6 times longer than the contagion period! If the "window" for concluding that someone is "dangerous to others" is a few days, then the chance of getting it wrong - that is, of testing positive while not being contaminated - is obviously much greater. Furthermore, the fact-checking does not mention that I provided them with the Lancet which was used to introduce the subject[note]as well as another article[note] from New England Journal of Medicine that covers this topic and tries to explain how to do it better - to use the tests intelligently. Which is my goal too. The Source article mentions a scientific reference which, after studying and explaining this problem, concludes that between 50% and 75% of PCR tests are false positives for this 'infection tail' reason, but points out - without any data that the 75% figure is surely wrong because and I quote "We do not randomly test [...] people suspected of COVID because they have symptoms or their contacts". This quote is completely false, we will come back to it. Did the scientist questioned by the journalist of La Libre Belgique present a table with statistics? On what basis are the symptoms estimated? After clinical medical consultation or after a declaration on honour - as is permitted? Did the journalist only check the number of cycles performed in the Belgian labs? With hindsight, it is difficult to estimate the proportion of correct versus incorrect tests, as this would have required systematic correlation of PCR, symptoms and serological tests [qui sont des tests qui mesurent les anticorps dans le sang des personnes réellement infectées] - something that was apparently not done. So we can only have an estimate based on current scientific knowledge. But if the residence period of the virus in the body is 4 to 6 times shorter than the period of contagion, we could deduce that a significant proportion of these tests do not reflect any risk of contagion. It is high time to stop the war of numbers on this subject - especially when people without symptoms are massively tested - and recognize that we don't know... but then why present these tests as the only possibility of measurement? This raises questions. There is a 3rd problem with these PCR tests: the huge financial stakes. This was one of the issues that the journalists told me they were going to address in this fact-check and that they don't even touch on in their opus. Why not? The potential conflicts of interest of some of the advisors in this area should be investigated. Search on different university sites, start-ups or companies that provide this expensive service (test statistics are published on the site of La Libre Belgique) and check possible links with experts or advisors. Controlling shareholder agreements. At a rate of 600-2000 tests per day in peak for a small lab [données contrôlées indépendamment par téléphone], and at a price of 47 Euros, it is a lot of money. How much is it? What about a large university lab or private companies? How much is it? It would be necessary to analyze this of course, but it would not be surprising to reach figures approaching several hundred million euros just for small Belgium and for the PCRs. All this money for tests that help us so little and allow us to justify in an ad hoc way this medical, social and economic suicide? Also, you probably don't know this... but we've been there. After 9/11, my phone was constantly clogged with companies wanting to " help me manage the crisis " and so the pressure to recommend purchases of PCR machines (between 80 and 100 machines) and to push a vaccine (yikes!) against anthrax was enormous. And I have never recommended PCRs (nor this vaccine) in my capacity as an advisor to the Defense Cabinet but also to the Prime Minister's Office and to Health (via the Intercab). Measuring anthrax by PCR was expensive and unnecessary because anthrax lives among us. As experts - and especially during crises - the commercial pressures and temptations are enormous... There is also a side problem: false oppositions. Indeed, some people oppose PCR tests to antigenic and serological tests - for reasons of conflict of interest, and they hide them well. And I fear that the press does not understand that it is being taken for a ride. My communications do not attack PCR and do not want to promote other types of tests. I have nothing to sell, no test, no drug, and especially not - contrary to some of our experts and journalists - wind - and I am out of these activities in biotechnology which made my daily life for nearly 40 years! I only explain, and this in full agreement with the WHO, that PCR is a powerful tool for diagnostic confirmation if one is ill with symptoms. But - as the WHO points out - we have to be very careful with the conclusions if we test people who are not ill or without symptoms. I say this less politely than WHO, I agree. It's a much-needed wake-up call - not a whisper of discomfort! I personally wrote in the press, and explained to the reporter that a testing strategy was needed and I invite readers of all my LinkedIn posts to check for themselves by giving them keywords to search. I do not give an opinion, but try to raise the debate. About the other tests - and this makes me sad because they would save lives - it would be good if others would talk about them. Once again, the Source article does not reflect our conversation. I never told the reporter that these antigenic tests were all calibrated for this purpose. On the contrary, I explained to the journalist that these tests could be perfectly calibrated to be positive[note] only during the period when the person tested is contagious. This is a problem of the mass of chemical reagents to be put in the test kits. So I deplore the "drowning" of fish with these rates of true or false positives and comparisons made on tests that were never optimized for this period of contagion. Finally, if we know that a test gives erroneous results for multiple reasons ([note] and [note]) and was imposed in a financial blur[note], and serves to block any debate and to break everything[note], it is not only legitimate, but even our duty to say it. It is a bit of a stretch to say that the PCR, despite its limitations, is the only screening option in light of all that has been decided and the NON-COVID deaths it has caused. Let's call it for what it is: the bungee tests, which allow to justify everything. This debate around RCPs is TOO important to put it under the carpet, because it is on this basis that lockdowns, green or red zones, or travel control are decided... This is the same basis for calculating COVID beds in ICUs (intensive care units). It should be noted at this point that The Source, in addition to the problems mentioned above, contradicts itself. Indeed, it reports through the mouth of Dr. L. Cornelissen that "since non-symptomatic people are not tested, there are no problems". This is false information because asymptomatic people are tested well in Belgium and en masse. We have been testing them since the beginning, and it was publicly said by the authorities that they would stop testing during the November 2020 vacations. We officially resumed these tests at the end of November. La Libre Belgique as well as other newspapers) announced these important official decisions by important articles [see Edition of Oct. 19]. 2020, title: Turning back the clock: people without symptoms will no longer be tested]. The resumption on November 23 was announced everywhere [voir site de la RTBF en date du 14 Nov]. In this article, it does talk about asymptomatic people who have had contact and I quote [" And then, that we can track contacts and trace back the chains of asymptomatic people. "]. The chains of asymptomatic! This is not a sexually transmitted disease, but a zoonosis! So the tracing does not give a correct picture of the dispersion of this virus (and an outdoor contact will be safe compared to a contact in a closed environment) but let's pass. Moreover, when the PCR tests were resumed on a large scale [see La Libre Édition of Nov. 25, 2020], Commissioner Corona himself said: "[...] rapid tests (he talks about PCR) are reliable in people who remain asymptomatic with a high viral load and are therefore contagious" (sic). What is the proportion of these people? In general, non-symptomatic individuals have low or no viral loads[note]. In addition, travelers (the vast majority of whom have no symptoms) and even parents of children who have been in contact with a case are tested all the time, so we test one patient plus 2 other people. Furthermore, when anyone can request a test after signing a Declaration of Honor that he/she has the symptoms of COVID, it becomes surreal. As the fact-checking journalist confuses the problem of the detection threshold (problem #1) with the problem of the persistence (presence) of the virus in our respiratory tract long after there is no longer a contagious risk (problem #2). Confusing these two different problems is precisely the cause of this misuse of PCRs. The Source also mentions another subject that I must develop: the asymptomatic I quote The Source: "An April 2020 study in the journal Nature even estimates that 44% of infections in households occur during the pre-contamination phase, before the first symptoms appear. A trend followed by the WHO, which states that "it is mainly just before infected people develop symptoms (i.e. two days before) and at the very beginning of the disease that they are the most contagious". I am going to surprise you, but I completely agree. Indeed, the vast majority of contaminations are made within the family bubbles and closed environments and not outside. We are dealing with pre-symptomatic potentials and PCR has its place. However, we should stop talking nonsense and making amalgams. The majority of people with COVID who are asymptomatic are in the rest of the population, not around the patients. There have been many studies on this subject which have not been able to show a risk of contagiousness. One of the largest studies ever conducted was in Wuhan, involving nearly 11 million people[note]. It shows - contrary to previous studies - that these asymptomatic people - even if they are PCR positive - emit little virus (which is logical because they are not sick and therefore do not cough!) and that their rate of contagiousness is almost zero. Why does this go unnoticed? The problems with PCRs that I explain in this article are not new and there are examples where PCRs failed[note]. The press (this does not concern La Libre belgique) reported that it was fake news so here is another much needed fact-check. In British Columbia, there was a pseudo-epidemic of SARS1 in 2003 measured by supposedly perfect PCR tests. In the end, this "epidemic" - which resulted in eight deaths, six of which were due to bacterial pneumonia - was due to another perfectly banal and benign corona. For the record, there are seven human coronaviruses (four that cause the common cold as well as SARS1, MERS, and SARS2). At the time, those in charge had the presence of mind to test the antibodies, which avoided panic and fear. In 2006 in New Hampshire (USA), an outbreak of pertussis(B. Pertussis) turned out to be a creation of PCR. This false alarm problem is known and was discussed in the Lancet in 2006[note]. If reporters were doing their job as inquiring minds, they wouldn't have to call and drink in either incorrect or outright untruthful words from some of my ex-colleagues. All they have to do is read Sciensano's notes - available online. It is amazing that Sciensano writes one thing and does its opposite. Lie or stupidity, the question remains as far as I am concerned, and I hope that many citizens will make the effort to ask themselves. This is controllable by anyone, does not require specialized knowledge and reveals the following facts: On page 10 of their SARS2 fact sheet, Sciensano writes in black and white that the "Viral RNA ≠ infection. I quote: "A test-based strategy is hindered by known prolonged shedding of viral RNA, which does not equate with infectiousness. The citation is given in full at[note].Contact tracing is mentioned as a positive return in only 1% of cases. 22 patients among the 2761 contacts linked to 100 proven cases. Who are we kidding here? 1% chance of getting sick if you are a contact?[note] And the surprises don't stop there. Sciensano mentions in his notes on PCR[note] that: Hamster infections are correlated with cell culture infections but not with PCR - and this doesn't shock anyone? Hamster or human, this demonstrates the limitations of correlation conclusions via PCR.In France, it was shown that PCRs above a Ct of 34 are not indicative of infection. "Patients with samples with Ct values ≥34 did not excrete infectious viral particles." So why does the RAG consider them cases? This begs the question.A Canadian study tells us that if the Ct > 24 on human samples, these samples were not infectious. Citation (given in the appendix in full) "Cell culture growth was significantly reduced when RT-PCR Ct values >24 (primers targeting the E gene"In Germany, the threshold of infection was shown to be above one million viruses per ml on human bronchial sputum samples. "German group concluded, based on the viral loads of nine hospitalized patients, that little risk of infectivity remained below a viral load of 100,000 viral RNA copies per ml sputum." Who are we kidding... On the one hand, Sciensano puts the right references with correct information on their website, and on the other hand, they completely ignore it and create and maintain a climate of panic fear to the decision makers and all the populations of the EU based on not correctly interpreted measurements. I don't know about you, dear readers, but all this shocks me deeply, and isn't it time that the Press finally does its job: Control the Power, read, understand, educate itself in order to inform. What is the solution? There should be a 'testing path' - an algorithm. I will limit myself to the basics - a real protocol/pathway will have to/will be established by experts and colleagues: 1. See patients in person, based on symptoms and clinic - and confirm the potential diagnosis of COVID by PCR. For this purpose, PCR will be very efficient. 2. For contacts - these are either pre-symptomatic if they eventually become ill, or those who will remain perfectly asymptomatic - focus mainlyon contacts in closed environments where contamination occurs (the famous bubbles, public transport, buildings with centralized ventilation... which are the best places for any virus to spread). The others do not. The mania for doing everything all the time is deleterious. 3. For the non-symptomatic - the entire population - PCR not being a suitable tool - antigenic tests perfectly calibratedto make the positive result coincide with the period of contagion. The false negative rate is defined by the chemical design of such tests - so it could be perfectly reliable. If there is any doubt, you should go see your family doctor and a PCR may follow. I also did not say that these tests were already calibrated, but that they should be and that it would not take much time. I put you a relevant reference and invite you to look carefully at the figure in the paper below. Only a test that is less sensitive than PCR could effectively match the period of contagion and identify the contagious. 4. Serological tests (which measure antibodies in the blood) should also be used. Because after more than 17 months, it is time to do a randomized serological study in correspondence with our population - as any crisis requires - because it will be the only reliable method to estimate the proportion of people infected but who remain carriers. - therefore to calculate a true IFR (Infection fatality rate). This would break the cycle of fear, and reassure the public instead of the CFR (case fatality rate) - which only measures our inability to handle COVID cases in a way that is not appropriate. This was the subject of many reports, here is one written by about 40 people under the leadership of the Hoover Institute at Stanford[note]. Moreover, this report was given by me to La Libre on two occasions. So I don't think it's intellectually honest or a service to the public to portray myself as a detractor of PCRs, having practiced non-stop between 1993 and 2014, in part on environmental germs... Why? The question is asked. kairospresse.be

@ThierryZeis - Zeis Thierry

@MartinZ_uncut https://t.co/lsKvBJeoMc

@MartinZ_uncut - Martin Zizi

Et je viens d'en remettre une couche AVEC les images cette fois-ci et des explications encore plus efficaces. PCR(1) et PCR(2) Svp faites tourner... Car... 1. La nouvelle collection automne-hiver 2023 arrive en magasins Ils sont en train de préparer la même chose avec le 'variant' que - cette fois-ci les "gens vont DEVOIR prendre au sérieux". la prochaine pandémie... selon Billy Boy G. iIs vont refaire le coup des masques et vaccins ARN pour cacher la casse vaccinale actuelle. Et l'ingrédient ESSENTIEL de la manipulation de masse est la PEUR. Et les PCR = la PEUR Si on dit demain, "Mme, Mr, nous nous étions emballés, SARS2 c'était pas aussi grave, mais comme on savait pas trop, nous avons fait ce qu'on a pu, ... pardon... mais ce nouveau virus est 50 fois plus dangereux que SARS. Heureusement que TOUT est en place, SVP écoutez-nous, protégez-vous, vaccinons les embryons, et les ovules, svp c'est très grave!!! Regardez la dispersion de ce virus nouveau, regardez le nombre de cas positifs - le résultats des PCR - que nous avons pu mettre en place dirait la crise SARS. Voyez - nous ne mentons pas" Pensez-vous que bcp ne suivraient pas une seconde fois? Puis ils diront encore: "N'ecoutez pas la DÉSINFORMATION des complotistes, d´extrême-droite, anti-LGBTq..., intolérants, et antivax... quand ils ne sont pas pro-russes" "Heureusement qu'à ce propos, nous n'avons mtn plus besoins de lockdowns stricts, vous pouvez vous déplacer dans un rayon de 5 km autour de chez vous dans nos "villes de 15 minutes". Check it ou - A Londres, c'était prévu, , les Blade Runners, ont arraché toutes les cameras prévues à cet effet (15 minutes-city!) 2. Vous croyez que je divague et qu'ils n'oseront pas? Des paris? En plus ce sera peut-être un germe relâché par le réchauffement climatique. Et là je vous rassure TOUS. Ces virus vieux de 10-20 millions d'années ne PEUVENT RIEN contre nous - l'espèce humaine et bcp de mammifères n'étaient pas là. Le Prof. Claverie en a étudié dans son labo en France - et ces morbillovirus et autres sont des virus qui ciblent les amibes ... (sorry encore raté! LOL) 3. Hunger games anyone? Je m'adresse aux plus jeunes... Arrêtez de prendre vos parents pour des techniquement-dépassés. Vous êtes nés avec un mobile dans la main, mais n'oubliez jamais que ce sont des gens - comme moi et vos parents - qui ont INVENTE ces technologies Sous le couvert de votre altruisme et vos qualités admirables, des vieux ploucs oligarchiques et nocifs vous ont vendu un futur que VOUS ne voulez pas. Commencez à en parler avec parents et amis.. sortez de cette torpeur COGNITIVE maintenant, avant qu'il ne soit trop tard. Cette techno ARN a encore 20 ans de R7D avant de pouvoir être utilisée - ne vous abîmez plus le corps - svp! Le futur du monde est à vous - et vous méritez mieux que des "hunger games" Et les Apps,... plus de cash bien sûr. Si vous n'êtes pas essentiel, ne vous inquiétez pas, on pensé au Revenu Garanti pour tous. on va vous payer pour que vous restiez à la maison, SAFE. DIRECTEMENT sur votre téléphone... mais le QR code doit être à jour. Voilà c'est dit!

@DjaonBea - ✨DJΛӨП BΣΛ✨ (🌿🌺🍀🌳)❤️CO2

@MartinZ_uncut https://t.co/tIK5g6RGZn

@ResilientsTv - Resilients.TV

1/ "Le vaccin Pfizer est contaminé" "Il ne contient pas que de l'ARNm" "Il contient des morceaux d'ADN" "Cet ADN pourrait causer des effets graves" "Il est possible qu'il s'intègre dans l'ADN des cellules" "C'est un risque très réel de cancer futur" @P_J_Buckhaults au @SCSenate

@ResilientsTv - Resilients.TV

2/ Témoignage de @P_J_Buckhaults devant le Sénat de la Caroline du Sud, ci-dessus un extrait en français autotraduit de qualité acceptable. L'entier de la vidéo en langue originale est ci-dessous: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEWHhrHiiTY

@ResilientsTv - Resilients.TV

3/ Un peu de contexte pour mieux comprendre l'implication de cette découverte de contaminants ADN dans les vaccins Pfizer (et Moderna): https://x.com/ResilientsTv/status/1672860643366432770?s=20

@ResilientsTv - Resilients.TV

4/ Un autre bon résumé rédigé par @P_J_Buckhaults récemment et publié sur twitter: https://x.com/ResilientsTv/status/1699128858685944121?s=20

@ResilientsTv - Resilients.TV

5/ On rappelle qu'il n'y a aucun doute sur la réalité de cette contamination, vérifiée par plusieurs équipes indépendantes, dont certaines sont des promoteurs de cette technologie: https://x.com/ResilientsTv/status/1697146476793651358?s=20

@ResilientsTv - Resilients.TV

6/ On rappelle que la méthode de production qui entraîne ce niveau de contamination plus élevé n'a pas été utilisée pour les fioles de l'essai clinique, uniquement pour la production de masse. On a injecté un produit différent de celui qui a été approuvé. https://x.com/ResilientsTv/status/1697150305819939220?s=20

@ResilientsTv - Resilients.TV

7/ On rappelle que le fabricant a choisi des méthodes de mesure de ces impuretés qui permettaient d'en minimiser l'importance: https://x.com/ResilientsTv/status/1697151629957509288?s=20

@ResilientsTv - Resilients.TV

8/ On rappelle que l'EMA avait conscience du problème mais n'en a pas pris la mesure: https://x.com/ResilientsTv/status/1697216251095916548?s=20

@ResilientsTv - Resilients.TV

9/ Même si, ce que nous souhaitons tous, les conséquences devaient être moins importantes que les risques potentiels soulevés par @P_J_Buckhaults, en temps normal et avec des médias fonctionnels, ce serait un scandale industriel majeur dont tout le monde parlerait.

@ResilientsTv - Resilients.TV

10/ Il faut aussi noter que le problème n'est pas tant le taux de contaminants ADN, qui est parfois plus haut, parfois plus bas que les plafonds réglementaires dans les échantillons testés, mais l'encapsulation dans des particules nano-lipidiques qui faciliteront son entrée.

@ResilientsTv - Resilients.TV

11/ Malgré plusieurs années passées sur twitter, je ne suis jamais complètement préparé pour faire face à la créativité (et à l'absurdité intégrale) du factchecking amateur. Bravo à notre lauréat du jour: https://x.com/Jean_Poldeux/status/1703715960400540062?s=20

@ResilientsTv - Resilients.TV

12/ Bravo à @HeyGen_Official pour la traduction par IA de l'anglais en français. Attention à quelques erreurs, dont "plasmidic" une ou deux fois traduit en "plasmatique" au lieu de "plasmidique".

@ResilientsTv - Resilients.TV

13/ Excellent résumé de la présentation complète rédigé par la non moins excellente @MaryanneDemasi «Je suis un peu inquiet de la présence de cet ADN dans le vaccin… L'ADN est un dispositif de stockage d'informations à longue durée de vie. C'est ce avec quoi vous êtes né, vous allez mourir et le transmettre à vos enfants. … Donc les altérations de l’ADN… eh bien, elles persistent », a déclaré @P_J_Buckhaults. https://maryannedemasi-substack-com.translate.goog/p/researchers-alarmed-to-find-dna-contamination?r=1gr4xq&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=fr&_x_tr_hl=en

Researchers “alarmed” to find DNA contamination in Pfizer covid-19 vaccine A researcher testifies before a South Carolina Senate hearing about the discovery of DNA contamination found in Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine maryannedemasi-substack-com.translate.goog

@bambkb - Kevin - WE THE PEOPLE❤️ - DAD🦁 🐉 🔥

🚨🚨🚨The PCR test is what caused the illusion of a pandemic - Do you know that Canadian provinces were using 40-45 cycles of amplification to create DELIBERATE false positive #Covid cases? Dr. Laura Braden : “High cycles of PCR testing was causing a lot of FALSE POSITIVES!! Those false positives were used to support the ‘asymptomatic spread’ of #Covid” “PCR detects NUCLEIC ACID and NOT disease!!! NEVER before in my training have we showed an animal to be sick from PCR testing!!” “A PCR test is NEVER used by itself to detect disease, you need to CONFIRM with a bacterial culture or a virus culture and that was NOT done during #Covid!!” “It has been determined CONCLUSIVELY over and over again that high cycles of PCR testing over 30 can detect very minor levels of viral RNA and does NOT INDICATE INFECTIVITY!!!” “They used PCR cycles at RIDICULOUSLY high levels!!! Across Canada 🇨🇦 provinces were routinely using 40-45 cycles, which is INCONSISTENT with the science based on the test!!!” The creator of the PCR test and Nobel prize winner, Dr. Kary Mullis said the exact same thing about his creation : “The PCR test should NEVER be used as a diagnostic tool, because it can NOT distinguish between LIVE and DEAD MATTER!!! Also, if you amplify the PCR TEST high enough, you can find almost anything you want in the body!!”🤔 Do you still believe that there was an actual pandemic? #PCRtest #Covid #Vaccine #CrimesAgainstHumanity

@MartinZ_uncut - Martin Zizi

Ce n'est pas simpliste il s'agit là d'un des mecanismes des effets II En tout il y a 5 mécanismes moléculaires qui se passent en parallèle, et selon les gens plus ou moins rapidement. Les 5 donnent un spectre large d'effets II. Et c'est cela qui dilue les infos pour le grand piubloic et "sauve" nos toxiques au top, car nous avons ces effets II différents et pourtant tous RAMENABLES à 5 mécanismes bien connus! - Vous comprenez alors qu'en fonction de la quantité d'ARN qui circule et la ou ces ARN vont, nous avons des attaques différentes - sur le foie, ls reins, le cour ou l'utérus par ex.. Appelons cela un PREMIER mécanisme - il s'agit de la bio distribution des ARN qui ne peut pas être contrôlée (nosu n'avons pas les etchnso pour pouvoir mai†riser cette biodistribution... - Un SECOND mécanisme - cette quantité d'ARN fixe qui doit donner une quantité de protéines spike FIXE. Cette quantité de spike par cellule est IMPOSSBILE à contrôler - nous n'avons pas les outils corrects pour ce faire in vivo! Cette absence de posologie est non seulement dangereuse mais ILLEGALE, car elle enfreint la notion même de médicament - et il ya 3 autres mécanismes que j'ai déjà décrit en détail mais je ne veux pas vous noyer... Bonne nuit

@EricArchambaul7 - ⚜ Eric Archambault ⚜

Le "vaccin" COVID-19 de Pfizer injecté dans des milliards de bras n'était pas le même que celui utilisé dans les essais cliniques de Pfizer. Il s'agissait d'un "appât et d'un échange". Les essais cliniques ont testé le "processus 1" tandis que le public a reçu le "processus 2". Et ce qu'on ne vous a jamais dit, c'est que le "Processus 2" n'a été testé que sur environ 252 personnes, au lieu de 40 000. Ils ne vous ont pas non plus dit que les flacons étaient contaminés par de l'ADN plasmidique. Une nouvelle étude menée par Kevin McKernan et ses collègues a révélé « la présence de milliards, voire de centaines de milliards de molécules d'ADN par dose dans ces vaccins. Grâce à la fluorométrie, tous les vaccins dépassent de 188 les directives relatives à l'ADN résiduel fixées par la FDA et l'OMS, soit 10ng/dose à 509 fois." En termes simples, cela ne représente pas 500 %, cela représente jusqu'à 500 fois la quantité d'ADN résiduel acceptable.

@I_Am_JohnCullen - John Cullen

The PCR test did TWO things: 1. Find SARS-COV2 often due to cycling at 40x or more 2. _____________________ with Dr Dave Collum, Professor of Organic Chemistry Cornell University https://t.co/MrYF3g6rVf

@bambkb - Kevin - WE THE PEOPLE❤️ - DAD🦁 🐉 🔥

🚨🚨🚨Creator of the PCR test, Kary Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993 for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique. Listen to him explain why you can NOT use the PCR TEST for diagnosis👇 : (1) “The PCR test can NOT distinguish between live and dead matter” (2) “If you amplify the PCR TEST high enough, you can find almost anything you want in the body” Do you guys know that over 30x cycles of amplification, the False positive rate for the PCR test is 90%+? In Canada 🇨🇦 they used 40 - 45x amplification. See my previous post with Dr. Braden Unfortunately, Kary Mullis died on August 7th, 2019 from Pneumonia or else he would’ve definitely reminded the world of these FACTS. #Vaccine #Covid

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://twitter.com/r_h_ebright/status/1729164212159824154?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… "Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State Thomas DiNanno tells [Sky News]…that when his team unearthed explosive evidence that pointed to a laboratory leak…, the intelligence community ran interference in support of a natural origin narrative." https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729168018763292778?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729167969534742873?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729167355098648987?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729324420622320082?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729309996591337972?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729308817584984345?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729329128690880596?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729312142879494212?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729338088911245679?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729322432891408531?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729167881777373569?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729343927344660868?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729312566239953140?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729309508219158746?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729309400148619375?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729309125472116878?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729310412578095602?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729311057519509963?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729310187012653224?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729167940287975863?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729308993607356568?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729309904702435644?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729342979910054375?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729325988176335278?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729309214131286030?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729325988176335278?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729167003418845329?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729328417479545131?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729336382592835689?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729167446370877872?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729313672324059374?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729328928719016252?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729312282541478102?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729333420160151996?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729355939214688755?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729326324379234644?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729309633842745689?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729310879529984416?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729329357955768803?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729329164577333641?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729314296969232712?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729321751727985061?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729167079838998667?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729168160191066410?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729329425798549590?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729356004482327015?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729333148692214124?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA… https://x.com/daoyu15/status/1729324235578077646?s=46&t=wRQSWp_1VffWmS2vKQwhSA…

@R_H_Ebright - Richard H. Ebright

"Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State Thomas DiNanno tells [Sky News]…that when his team unearthed explosive evidence that pointed to a laboratory leak…, the intelligence community ran interference in support of a natural origin narrative." https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/us-intelligence-official-linked-to-who-was-critical-in-downplaying-covid-lab-leak-theory-during-joe-bidens-90day-probe-into-virus-origins/news-story/70cec8fe1513491a421d45b12b45a8e7

Sky News Australia Sky News Australia skynews.com.au

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Details on the DOE Z division. Also, debunking Angie Rasmussen and ilk there again. Also None of their “data” are credible in any way.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And no. DEFUSE does in fact propose to insert FCSes (human-specific cleavage sites in human proteins) into SARSr-CoVs. Especially when there is a mismatch to either the S1-S2 or the S2’ cleavage site, both in S2. (Such as when QTQTNSRS show up in an study-relevant Asian Sarbecovirus in 2018, where no isolated or even studied ones have an non-HT(V/A)S(L/I)LRS sequence.) If there is an infected animal, more than one spillover would happen, especially Guangdong. Why it is VERO E6 that was Wuhan growing best inside? Why all later lineages grow less effectively in it? Just fuse in a cell line that have a correct serine protease pathway. CaLu-3 also uniquely have no growth advantage to any known VOCs compared to Wuhan. Include in passage, and PRRA is more stabilized than it can ever be mutated or deleted, Proline included. arxiv.org/abs/2104.01533 An infectious clone is designed to be rescued. archive.ph/EiCQW Well, MN611520–definitely not a bat CoV. And of course, motivated reasoning like markolin can not explain how the “perfectly natural and consistent with bat sex” CoVs MN611520 and HKU4-HZAU-1 ended up one in a location without a Merbecovirus natural host (cotton but not bats or camels) and another inside an infectious clone backbone. And of course, WIV1, WIV16, Rs4874 and RsSHC014 count up to 4 published live isolates not “only 3” claimed by Shi. That is published isolates only. zenodo.org/records/570270… RaTG13 don’t grow outside immortalized kidney cells. These are just too many inconsistencies and obvious lies regarding the number of WIV Or EHA viral sequences AND isolates in their public claims. Then, there is an attrition problem where the idea that “the FCS worked impossibly well than design can anticipate” was really based on observed functions that have no bearing to pandemic potential and only recently attributed to the “specific context of the FCS”, in reality they just nee to put ENaC FCS into a QTQTNS massively mismatched S, then grow it once in VERO cells. All changes to a sequence will have half advantage and half disadvantage in the organism, but here the specific advantage of P681 “specific sequence of the FCS” is only in VERO cells, and the disadvantage however given that all natural isolate Bat Sarbecoviruses are 614D, is the complete destruction of all animal reservoirs as the incredibly unstable D614+FCS Spike got torn apart by the antibodies that would form in the animal before the FCS can emerge. The reason why no FCS exist in wild Sarbecoviruses.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

01, 03 and 04, 06 are disproven by the presence of severe and https://ayjchan.medium.com/evidence-for-a-natural-origin-of-covid-19-no-longer-dispositive-after-scientific-peer-review-af95b52499e1 https://zenodo.org/record/7169296 conclusion-disproving ascertainment bias within the CCP data. As well as cherry-picking of early genome data. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362806429_Unwarranted_exclusion_of_intermediate_lineage_AB_SARS-CoV-2_genomes_is_inconsistent_with_the_two_spillover_hypothesis_of_the_origin_of_COVID-19 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109152915624650793 08 is disproven by the fact that there were no by-month data for Xiao Xiao et al, and there being no evidence of December 2019 animal sales that can be proven through an image that contained either features or metadata that permit them to be dated. 05 is simply wrong. Yunnan is the hotspot, Guangdong is linked to wildlife trade. Wuhan is neither. 09 is disproven as the specific pattern of RE sites are not directly linked to spillover probability and the probability that it is easy to clone with the standard BsaI/BsmBI through natural recombination is less than 1/32. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109255356915252021 03 is disproven since despite all the efforts, FCS continue to elude all efforts to find it. https://archive.ph/k7S6T https://archive.ph/Ga1iI https://archive.ph/vUy8n 07 is disproven by Marburg virus and also RSV. Especially RSV, which originated in polio vaccine research. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108661483685033341 https://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2398/rr/599724 As for 10, the actual graph seen—show humans and largemouse bass not raccoon dogs. Humans and several livestock species in the “志翔冻品商行” near the toilets are the only species with any mutual information at all, highly consistent with boot and suit contamination. All metric positive correlation is observed only in humans and the entirely non-susceptible livestock species sold near the toilets. Worobey failed to address the fact that “the neighborhood of Huanan market” was used during the early case collection process—he opted to remove directly linked cases but none of the critical annex D5 cases that were collected from “the neighborhood of Huanan market”. Exactly 32 of these dots exists, = 59-27. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109228312723838390 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109443089504009640 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109148677382700486 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108825678909519515 These were cases that were collected because of their geographical proximity—collect if lived in the neighborhood, regardless of hospital. Collect from other hospitals only if exposed to market. Collect from hospitals near the market. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109386394452941367 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108830214433800007 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109169722840473497

Evidence for a natural origin of Covid-19 no longer dispositive after scientific peer review Declaration of competing interests: The author of this article has co-authored a book, VIRAL: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19, with science writer Matt Ridley. The updated paperback of VIRAL… ayjchan.medium.com

Zoonosis at the Huanan Seafood Market: A Critique Here we review data supporting a zoonosis hypothesis at the Huanan Seafood Market (HSM). We undertake statistical analysis of case locations and wildlife stall locations. We additionally analyze environmental sampling and review the likelyhood of susceptible animals being present in Wuhan, and only Wuhan of all locations in China. We find insufficient data to support a zoonosis hypothesis and instead conclude that the most likely scenario is that an infected person brought SARS-CoV-2 to the HSM, sparking a superspreader event. zenodo.org

ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable researchgate.net

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://zenodo.org/record/7005332 https://gab.com…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://zenodo.org/record/7005332 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108825099943844332 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108725195810150843 How could you claim “two spillovers” for SARS-CoV-2 if https://archive.ph/JVFuc positions 8782 and 28144 were found to be so unstable that they were observed to mutate within the same human host? And how could “multiple polytomies” indicate “double zoonosis” when it literally appear in every superspreading cluster and major variant of SARS-CoV-2 today? https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109016556387587166 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109179292343046033 Your simulation is wrong if what you claim to be extremely unlikely, happens all the time. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108956120173554636 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108974982120327267 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108983088984087090 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108941081553382213 It just happened that the phylogenetic tree topology of SARS-CoV-2 once you begin to look past 14/02/2020, resemble perfectly that of measles. Another virus with superspreading, one that appears only in humans. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109025416744564920 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108860074766577121 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108922841820898119 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108763931290402313 Here is why you get the polytomy at lineage B. (28144T and 8782C confers greater disease severity and higher transmissibility, which is also why lineage A went extinct) https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108996982333862686 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108869387343860968 (Also hint: http://nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26884-7 https://archive.ph/ejdiJ one of the earliest superspreading events of lineage B after the Huanan seafood market superspreading event originated from an infected brain—such compartments accelerate viral evolution and skews the lineage B MRCA backward as the result). Also, quasispecies should not be ignored when it comes to the modeling of phylogenetics and phylodynamics of RNA viruses. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108861410320430025 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108864606801240300' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'When a synthetic recombinant genome for a coronav…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'When a synthetic recombinant genome for a coronavirus is constructed, fragments are selected from relevant natural bat isolates with a requirement that the type IIS restriction pattern using the planned enzymes on the resulting assembly should enable easy cloning and efficient manipulation—a less than 1 in 100 chance for this to happen randomly by chance for recombination outside the S1 region of the genome, and completely irrelevant to spillover. When a natural virus spills over, there is very little effect (within 1 order of magnitude) on the chance that some specific strain would end up becoming the pandemic strain for recombination ancestry outside the S1 region. There is no requirement that a strain that spills over must be a strain that is easy to clone by the 2 most popular type IIS restriction enzymes that were used in CoV genome assemblies, and the chance given natural spillover of an ancestry that had an efficient type IIS RGS system without modification is the same chance as finding one such strain in nature just by 1 single random sampling—so far no specimen from Asia satisfy this on their individual genomes. Again, which sequence on the ReCCA graph were not sampled from nature? Unfortunately, the so-called “natural recombination ancestry” argument may well just be one of the many ways workable coronavirus genomes are “recovered” from a set of otherwise unisolated samples. Whatever you reconstruct out of natural isolates for a clone, it must be easy to clone. It can be from one of the rare samples you find with an easy-to-clone pattern, or it could be one of the combinations of various contigs from sequencing a pooled sample. It could also be a chimeric genome constructed using fragments selected from related wild isolates with a requirement that the result is easy to clone. When a strain spills over naturally, there is no requirement that it must be easy to clone—restriction enzymes work on DNA not on RNA, and there is no reason why the specific combination with an easy to clone site pattern must be selected other than the posterior claim “it happened” (ReCCA construction used SARS-CoV-2 genome as reference). This is a circular argument as the claim that “the SARS-CoV-2 genome with its unusual combination of type IIS sites is the result of a natural spillover” assumed P(spillover|strain have good site combination)>=0.5 while P(strain have good site combination)<<0.5 with the only justification “we observe that the SARS-CoV-2 genome is easy to clone and can be constructed using a combination of fragments from some 8+ different “bat virus strains”” only able to justify this implied probability assumption with the assumption “SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a natural spillover”, a hypothesis that is being tested in the type IIS RE site analysis paper in stead of an underlying assumption. In conclusion, while a ReCCA with an easy to clone type IIS site combination with the go-to enzymes used for assemblies of this length is a possible combination of the bat coronavirus sequences known from sampling, there is no justification for this hypothetical and still unsampled ReCCA to be the only possible combination where a spillover is possible or that a spillover strain will have a probability that it will be easy to clone being >0.5 while the chance of finding such a strain from a random sampling from the wild being only about ~0.01.' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'archive from @daoyu15 about the FCS, Marburg viru…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'archive from @daoyu15 about the FCS, Marburg virus and the initial case density in Wuhan (once the restriction on diagnosis toward Huanan market contacts were lifted; from Weibo case alarms.) https://archive.ph/12GHD' gab.com

Re: Polio eradication: a complex end game bmj.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/W2Rjj https://archive.ph/87AzE…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/W2Rjj https://archive.ph/87AzE https://archive.ph/dmOXT “ As @Daoyu15 pointed out, one reason for the clustering of early cases around the Huanan wet market without a direct link to it was that authorities were actively trying to identify cases in that area.” (Cases are collected if they have worked at or visited the Huanan market or lived nearby regardless of which hospital they were admitted to, or if they were admitted to one of the “several hospitals (near Huanan market)”) @Tony_vanDongen https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109169722840473497 "the neighborhood of Huanan market" was used as a criterion for "continued epidemiological surveillance" happening all the way until ~04-05/01/2020. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108724146438967181 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108825678909519515 And the “initial cases” are also ascertained only through a historical bias which is that the Wuhan municipal health committee and CDC looked only at the Huanan market when monitoring EID cases. The “initial reports” were recognized only by the market cases within them. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108939607348559500 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109400102483795216 As for what happened “after 03/01/2020”? 1: compiling case reports and validating them (at the JinYinTan hospital) takes time. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108731797608502118 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109169722840473497 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109909275555101121 2: “试行诊疗方案” and “入排标准”. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108742419028347251 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109382280015707894 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108724146438967181' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/1087397635596456…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108739763559645668 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108723816541534100 The Hankou station was the #3 highest location on social media check-in in Wuhan, making up 8% all such check-ins. It is within Worobey’s 1% KDE contour. As it also serves as the first location connecting the international and air traffic from the Tianhe international airport with the bus, metro traffic within Wuhan and the train traffic to other locations in Hubei (and to an extent other locations in China too, especially with busier times of air travel), it serves as the distribution point of all traffic not only through itself but also through the Tianhe international airport, centering the epidemiological contribution of the two facilities combined—with a combined social media check-in number of 37185 (it have to handle all the traffic from people who checks in at both the Hankou station itself and the Tianhe airport) and being a public transport hub that sees people from all across the line 2 of the Wuhan metro, it become the #1 highest contributor to “case spreading nearby” in any epidemic in Wuhan, and almost the guaranteed first superspreading location for those that started abroad, or starting anywhere on line 2. (You need To first go through line 2, before changing to line 7 or line 4 if you want to reach the Wuchang or Wuhan railway station, if you start from the Tianhe airport or the WIV (Wuchang headquarters)……) https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/probe-wuhan-metro-line-2-spread-pandemic Include the effect of annex D5, and you have the reason why the “market unlinked” case “epicenter” is closer to the market to the “market linked” case epicenter. Train stations are liminal spaces. When you ask a case/person as where he/she worked at or visited recently, specific public transportation stations (especially the metro station part of the Hankou railway station, the busiest metro station on line 2 with average daily throughput (in and out of the metro station) of 135000+ persons daily + 85000+ persons daily going through the rails in the train station) would hardly come up as significant or be reported from memory. The same effect also breaks up any clusters of infectious disease that spreads from them, as even very large superspreading clusters within such a station would be mostly among strangers (not connected either by work or by home) and they would show no epidemiological link to each other at hospital admission part from geographical proximity from each other on the order of 1-2km. Recognition of an outbreak especially given how EID surveillance operates in China and the fact that it happened during the flu season in Wuhan (too much background signal to distinguish EID without consulting epidemiology) would only happen once the infection have spread to the nearest (and the only) wet market (with a stable, mostly elder population in close contact at work that is conductive to both the efficient spread and recognition of an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, especially without a specific test) that was put under EID surveillance in Wuhan. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108939607348559500 While it is statistically very likely that households near a major transport hub will be visited through that transport hub (creates an “unconnected case”, only ones that would show up on search would be the ones in the “neighborhood of Huanan market” or in the cluster that is likely to visit “several hospitals(near Huanan market)” if they weren’t indirectly connected to the market by contact with a market case), any specific person living or working in any specific landmark near them is still only going to visit his/her own or family household, which is most likely several kilometers away from the landmark and will not be significantly overpresented in the vicinity of the landmark. Consequently, the “epicenter” of market-linked cases is further away from that of market-unlinked cases. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108923557475080584 “While other biases are certainly at work in the contour maps, the absence of any mention of it while referencing the social media check-in data from Sina Visitor System amounts to a certain cherry-picking of the data to fit a certain narrative.”' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/1087504705358358…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108750470535835849 https://archive.ph/XtLXy https://archive.ph/MCqMS https://archive.ph/dmOXT https://archive.ph/lOYDr https://archive.ph/bXHLT https://archive.ph/p3dbM https://archive.ph/t502Z https://archive.ph/5f0O3 https://archive.ph/VXtu9 https://web.archive.org/web/20220312073852/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/covid-19-coronavirus-wuhan-doctor-tells-what-it-was-really-like/6Q23B4ISGLPT7U7QC34G4VDAA4/ https://archive.ph/8thla https://archive.ph/9znGJ https://archive.ph/6LuXg You know your data have a serious problem of bias when the supposed primary sources of infection (cases that are directly linked to the Huanan market) ended up having a center of distribution further away (less centered around) (which also indicate that the radial isotropic spread condition is already broken, even for cases that were directly linked to the Huanan market) from the Huanan market under a KDE analysis compared to the supposed secondary infections (cases that are not directly linked to the Huanan market). https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108713658029563999 This is very clearly the effect of a sampling effort that focused on “several hospitals (close to Huanan market), Huanan market and Neighborhood of Huanan market”.—cases were collected if they have been exposed to or lived near the market regardless of which hospital they were admitted to, and if they were admitted to one of the “several hospitals (close to Huanan market)”. (Annex D5) https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108731797608502118 Add in cases that were hospitalized and reported from at or after 03/01/2020, under the “试行诊疗方案” and the “入排标准” which included cases that have contacted, visited, lived with, studied with, accompanied or visited the same hospital ward as a case that was directly linked to the Huanan market (cases that are indirectly linked to the Huanan market), and you end up with the entire WHO report “2019 cases” dataset. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108750470535835849 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108750094802767000 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108758479291053016 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108726114014659302 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108722307673771849' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: '“So there are documented issues with their statis…' Flavinkins on Gab: '“So there are documented issues with their statistical analysis, but I don't think you even need to go that deep. The diagnostic criteria for early cases sought a market link in the beginning (they assumed zoonosis), which left crippling ascertainment bias in base data.” https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109382280015707894 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109222936375023885' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/dmOXT https://gab.com/Flavinki…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/dmOXT https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108747087048451126 (You can find exactly 32 yellow spots “unlinked cases” in the 25% KDE contour of the WHO unlinked data……) https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108731797608502118 (note: may contain cases admitted to the Houhu ward of the Wuhan central hospital even if them having a later date of hospitalization)' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: '“1\ Perfectly explained by a bias towards cases n…' Flavinkins on Gab: '“1\ Perfectly explained by a bias towards cases near HSM Cases are allowed frm further away if they have a link, explaining why linked cases are further away. How does one explain this without a ascertainment bias? 1st gen unlinked cases would have to be infected by linked cases 2\ Those districts comprise pretty much all the dense area of Wuhan, no? 3\ The authors elsewhere confounded diagnostic critera with suspicion criteria for the huang lancet papet. There is simply no reporting of the criteria for suspicion in the paper, but it presumably follows what was documented by the WHO report, which includes market proximity” https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109228312723838390 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108726114014659302 @EmaNymton90 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108724146438967181 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108825678909519515 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108742419028347251 It should also be noticed that the JinYinTan hospital that was in the Lancet report did not admit the cases themselves—in stead suspected cases were first searched out from the “various healthcare institutions in Wuhan”(e.g. the Inpatient records of healthcare institutions), first for cases linked to the Huanan market city-wide beginning in 30/12/2019, then for cases that lived in the neighborhood of the Huanan market or have been admitted to a hospital near the Huanan market beginning in 31/12/2019. Suspected cases were first transferred to the JinYinTan hospital, before they were “diagnosed” according to the Lancet report criterion and then end up in the Lancet report. These 59 “transferred” (59 diagnosed/41 confirmed) cases are the 59/41 cases that were in the WMHC early reports. The rest of the cases would be from the backfilling period (e.g. hospitalized “hospital admission” at of after 03/01/2020, corresponding to the cases in the 174 cases dataset with a date of onset at or after 24/12/2019) of the standards between 03/01/2020 and 18/01/2020 and were ascertained almost exclusively by a direct or indirect connection to the Huanan market, according to the “试行诊疗方案” and “入排标准”. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108825678909519515 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108731797608502118 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108724146438967181 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108742419028347251 As for any cases outside that initial market-centered 174, they just refuses to include them into the WHO report and cover them up in stead, even if they were eventually found after 15/02/2020. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108876830805701129 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109058474962594334 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108826503882566575 Hint: 59-27=? Also, they did not perform any backfilling efforts after that. They even rolled back their own backfilling efforts in prior publications when arriving at the “174 cases”. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109296343974418128' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109205261283826972 ReCCA is tautological and fictitious. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109863181504837302 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109465063042828622 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109255356915252021 BtSY2 is sequenced in 2018. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109399710986742685 BANAL is in the hands of the DOD in 2017. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109340247585238829 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109800300869616862 The only thing in the market that meaningfully focus the abundance of SARS-CoV-2 is “closest to the toilets”. As all non-human “susceptible species” failed to correlate positively with SARS-CoV-2 consistently or with significant mutual information. With no actual evidence of natural infection in any of the so-called “susceptible species” at all. Contamination artifacts from samplers, and not actual animals, Or even vendors, created all of the “positive environmental samples” in the market. A fact which fraudulently bleaching the toilets before sampling can not hide, And which they failed to realize or create the required secondary spillover outbreaks in other locations Which all zoonoses have.

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/1089460581208001…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108946058120800199 How would you go onto constructing a synthetic consensus backbone that would be 1: guaranteed to be rescuable. 2: easy to manipulate as fragments. 3: easy to manipulate even after being ligated? You would need to choose fragments with type IIS restriction sites such that 1: each individual type IIS site must have a precedent in its presence of absence in the wild in at least 1 Sarbecovirus (distance doesn’t matter here. Can be as distant as BM48-31. Abundance matters statistically (rarer individual sites are less likely to show up at spillover) but does not matter if you are making a clone. As long as you find your desired presence/absence of a site at a specific location in even just one genome, you can use it and be confident that it won’t break your consensus genome. This is governed by both the availability of individual side precedence in sampled genomes and by the location of the site, whatever that doesn’t break the genome and is optimal for cloning gets chosen) to ensure that highly conserved RNA structural motifs aren’t disrupted. 2: there must be no BsaI sites between two BsmBI sites and no BsmBI sites between two BsaI sites to minimize the need of double digestion. 3: the number of overly small fragments should be minimized while no overly large fragments should be present at all. That is, the Standard Deviation (S.D.) Of the length of the fragments shouldn’t be too high. 4: the number of fragments should be kept to as low as possible with the restriction that you can easily manipulate each individual fragment within a M13/pUC vector backbone, as an excess number of fragments are more difficult to keep track of or manipulate. The type IIS restriction sites in the SARS-CoV-2 genome matches all the requirements above. Other genomes in its clade (or even any that is found in Asia)? Not that much. Unfortunately since clonability does not translate to spillover potential (without a lab), the fact that easily clonable Sarbecovirus genomes are rare in general also translates into the possibility that one that ended up spilling over just happen to be one that is easily clonable as SARS-CoV-2, being low. Since the fragments are what that is being chosen for the consensus genome, site selection influences ReCCA especially for the segments that were located near restriction sites—the segments surrounding them are what that were originally chosen in the consensus construct, where one of the requirements used is that the pattern of type IIS sites within the selected set of fragments should make the final genome assembled from them easy to clone. Finally, how could all the non-SARS-CoV-2 genomes you use in the ReCCA graph have a BsaI site in the first position of the F3 fragment (this site is highly conserved in Sarbecoviruses found in Asia) , but the final ReCCA, supposedly generated from related sequences sampled in the wild, not having that site? Either the ReCCA algorithm itself have considered these sites as part of the synonymous sites that was used to infer the “highly conserved segments”, and included SARS-CoV-2 itself into the analysis (making the algorithm tautological), or it is the result of the consensus-generation process where the choice of segments and sites to be used for the consensus included an requirement for the ease of cloning and manipulation for the final genome—something that would matter if you are synthesizing and rescuing it in the lab, not so much for anything that “spills over from the wild”. https://archive.ph/VypuD' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'More importantly, when considering the current RG…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'More importantly, when considering the current RGS systems, it turned out that none of the supposed ReCCA components are compatible with the cloning scheme that somehow were identical in their RE site order and REase use between U.S. and Chinese publications—the 2 BsaI sites within the ORF1a strongly interferes with the F3 fragment of the cloning scheme and when these sites are absent in a few select genomes, interfering sites pops up elsewhere in the genome that nevertheless still make the systems unworkable. The SARS-CoV-2 genome is the only one of which both the conventional and the no seems type IIS cloning methods would work with BsaI/BsmBI for the assembly of the genome—allowing both the easy assembly and ease for revision of the genome in all labs that were involved in the DEFUSE program.' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'In fact, how the ReCCA algorithm functions (it pi…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'In fact, how the ReCCA algorithm functions (it picks the closest sequence to the SARS-CoV-2 branch On “phylogenetic trees constructed on each (very short) segment of the genome”) mean that it is impossible to reconstruct an ReCCA without inputing the SARS-CoV-2 genome into the algorithm (as the reference genome to be aligned against) and thus biasing the result catastrophically—to the point that it is impossible to distinguish this process from what that would be used during the construction of an consensus genome for an infectious clone (fragments are picked with a requirement that the sites on the selected fragments lead to a genome that can be easily synthesized and constructed), and removes any statistical power of “ReCCA” to argue that the specific type IIS restriction pattern of SARS-CoV-2 to be the only possible combination of sites that is “evolutionarily likely”. It once again, failed to provide any biological reason why a specific, <1-in-100, easy-to-clone pattern being any more likely to end up being the spillover strain (that must not use the SARS-CoV-2 genome itself as the reference when such probability is assessed) compared to the >99-in-100 other possible combinations outside the S1 With the “ReCCA components” (where none were easy to clone by themselves) that are not easy to clone, in a non-circular manner. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109288626916761348' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'When a synthetic recombinant genome for a coronav…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'When a synthetic recombinant genome for a coronavirus is constructed, fragments are selected from relevant natural bat isolates with a requirement that the type IIS restriction pattern using the planned enzymes on the resulting assembly should enable easy cloning and efficient manipulation—a less than 1 in 100 chance for this to happen randomly by chance for recombination outside the S1 region of the genome, and completely irrelevant to spillover. When a natural virus spills over, there is very little effect (within 1 order of magnitude) on the chance that some specific strain would end up becoming the pandemic strain for recombination ancestry outside the S1 region. There is no requirement that a strain that spills over must be a strain that is easy to clone by the 2 most popular type IIS restriction enzymes that were used in CoV genome assemblies, and the chance given natural spillover of an ancestry that had an efficient type IIS RGS system without modification is the same chance as finding one such strain in nature just by 1 single random sampling—so far no specimen from Asia satisfy this on their individual genomes. Again, which sequence on the ReCCA graph were not sampled from nature? Unfortunately, the so-called “natural recombination ancestry” argument may well just be one of the many ways workable coronavirus genomes are “recovered” from a set of otherwise unisolated samples. Whatever you reconstruct out of natural isolates for a clone, it must be easy to clone. It can be from one of the rare samples you find with an easy-to-clone pattern, or it could be one of the combinations of various contigs from sequencing a pooled sample. It could also be a chimeric genome constructed using fragments selected from related wild isolates with a requirement that the result is easy to clone. When a strain spills over naturally, there is no requirement that it must be easy to clone—restriction enzymes work on DNA not on RNA, and there is no reason why the specific combination with an easy to clone site pattern must be selected other than the posterior claim “it happened” (ReCCA construction used SARS-CoV-2 genome as reference). This is a circular argument as the claim that “the SARS-CoV-2 genome with its unusual combination of type IIS sites is the result of a natural spillover” assumed P(spillover|strain have good site combination)>=0.5 while P(strain have good site combination)<<0.5 with the only justification “we observe that the SARS-CoV-2 genome is easy to clone and can be constructed using a combination of fragments from some 8+ different “bat virus strains”” only able to justify this implied probability assumption with the assumption “SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a natural spillover”, a hypothesis that is being tested in the type IIS RE site analysis paper in stead of an underlying assumption. In conclusion, while a ReCCA with an easy to clone type IIS site combination with the go-to enzymes used for assemblies of this length is a possible combination of the bat coronavirus sequences known from sampling, there is no justification for this hypothetical and still unsampled ReCCA to be the only possible combination where a spillover is possible or that a spillover strain will have a probability that it will be easy to clone being >0.5 while the chance of finding such a strain from a random sampling from the wild being only about ~0.01.' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'Additional sample formats, such as “bat coronavir…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'Additional sample formats, such as “bat coronavirus isolate NNNNNN” are found in 2015 samples, whereas the 2016 sequences (the last sequences to be deposited into GenBank from known bat coronavirus searching papers in China/CAS) contained within their authors “Edward C Holmes”. This may hint on the role of E.Holmes on the handling of bat Coronavirus sample sequencing for samples collected “between 2015-2019”. Sequences MH315932-MH315944 have formats “XxNNNNNN”, however these contained samples from as early as 2013, making it difficult to ascertain as where these samples came from. However, these numbers (and the “Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats and the Origin of Human SARS Coronavirus” paper, with E.Holmes in the GenBank records) contained the only deposited CAS samples known to be collected in 2016, which could be taken as evidence of E.Holmes and WIV collaboration for sampling efforts and sequence/sample sharing, in the 2015-2019 period. A collaboration (sample/sequence sharing) between Guangdong and Wuhan institutions through E.Holmes https://zenodo.org/record/6849652#.Y38toiW8klT , can not be ruled out. The original GenBank deposition date of 2018 seems to coincide with the supposed sampling date of “BtSY2”. We now know that some of the samples taken in 2018 under E.Holmes contained RBD sequences related to the Omicron strain of SARS-CoV-2. The question becomes: Why you are taking samples from bats (dissected rectum), without performing some kind of tests immediately after sampling, as early as in 2015-2018, given that an ethics approval for the destructive sampling of wild animals in China required some kind of academic program to be first sent for approval, which have to include the detail of the exact experiments that requires the dissection of the bats and collection of the rectum samples. If any kind of testing/screening/experimentation were done initially on the samples (immediate experimental plan would have to be provided for the sampling proposal to be justified and approved—and “for storage, until some technology that doesn’t yet exist until late 2021” isn’t one of them), what were the results? Why, despite sampling of bats by EHA/CAS and expeditions into Yunnan/Mojiang mine continued all the way until 2019, the last such sequences deposited from China was sampled in 2016? If “This research, including the procedures and protocols of specimen collection and processing, 262 was reviewed and approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Yunnan Institute of 263 Endemic Diseases Control and Prevention. (No. 20160002).”, why weren’t the results immediately made available to the public as the samples were collected and processed over the course of 4 years? RNA samples are after all, very fragile and does not tolerate long-term storage very well. When were these actually sequenced? (I see 15 different sequencing machines in the FCIDs, with FCIDs ranging from H2 to H7, HG to HY, and sequencing on the same machines hundreds of runs apart. This could indicate sequencing done immediately after sampling) And if these were sequenced before the pandemic, who had access to the sequences? Were these really “newly discovered” viruses, or just sequences that were put into embargo in the “great silence” of CAS accession numbers between 2016-2019, only recently released? (Should these samples be sequenced pre-pandemic, near their collection date in 2018, this could be corresponding to phase 1(QS0) of DEFUSE. After sequences generated as early as in mid-2018, there would be more than 1 year to work with the cloning and culture experiments.) The machines found in https://github.com/Augustpan/Individual-Bat-Virome/blob/main/raw_data/lane_id_table.csv Are: A01426 A00821 A00920 A00270 A00877 A00289 A00881 A00783 A00253 A00917 A01045 A00808 A00459 A01415 A01050 The samples with BtSY2 are: S18CXBatR24 @A00917:648:H3Y25DSX2:4 S18CXBatR29 @A00783:739:H3V32DSX2:3 Both appeared to be on the earliest run on that particular machine, where the run contained no sample from 2019, and where the flow cell ID were from an early era (H3). Archive for read mappings: https://archive.ph/CuzzR Archive for lane IDs: https://archive.ph/IKxD1' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'To see more about the DOD-sponsored Institut Past…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'To see more about the DOD-sponsored Institut Pasteur sampling of the BANAL caves in 2017 and the censorship of even the already-sequenced batflies library https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109150240613656613 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109139121799069783 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108782000872829271 http://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108745003276913992 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108938621623162894 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108961381086722860 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108808844066927838 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109198525541365424 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109222447665307488 PREDICT-2 and EHA activity in SE. Asia including Southern Laos https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109079936391006382 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109079963106312117 Past lab escapes from IP france https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108929427082821215 And on the type IIS REase found in IP cambodge https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109215673255176764 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109216529429569399' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: '@Graviola_Finland @EIGARBARINO https://archive.m…' Flavinkins on Gab: '@Graviola_Finland @EIGARBARINO https://archive.md/8rlbT FULL TRANSLATED TEXT of the briefing of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on the analysis of documents related to military biological activities of the United States, made on January 30, 2023 with the supporting documentation that it provided. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108782801366501491 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108908816879287433 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108808844066927838 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108808523459345532 It confirms that sampling and researching effort for S.E. Asia is in deed being conducted in these labs. Anomalies regarding the Caspian sea in 2019: https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108949034317465342 EHA activity in the Caspian sea region, up to 2019: https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108782587895528182 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109139121799069783 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109529211058973737 DOD, IP laos and batflies🦇🪰: https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108961381086722860 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108938621623162894 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108782000872829271 https://archive.md/JZkwi EHA, Laos and PREDICT-2: https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109158749548555994 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109079936391006382 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109079963106312117 https://archive.md/hMp7x 🦇🧪🥣？ https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109150240613656613 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109198525541365424 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109222447665307488 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109728264957247673 https://archive.ph/3fFfn https://archive.md/T6sN5 (No wildlife trade route linking Wuhan to Laos…… But plenty of sampling route linking Laos to labs both in Wuhan and on the East Coast……)' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-18/us-suspends-wuhan-institute-funds-over-covid-stonewalling

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Except that 1: ZC45 and HKU3 are not SARS-CoV-1 or SARS-CoV-2. And 2: the raccoon dogs are locally wild-caught in Wuhan, tested and negative and 3: the animal-specific viruses are in perfect positive correlation with the animals, the SARS-CoV-2 is in consistent correlation with significant mutual information only with Homo Sapiens. And 4: the FCS itself optimized to cell cultures, HAE/VERO and CaLu-3, mutated in live hosts.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Because Homo Sapiens is still the only species that they can get infected at all, if you zoom in and correlate between animals and viruses, You get animal-specific viruses being correlated strongly positively to the animals, and SARS-CoV-2 being positively correlated consistently or with significant mutual information only with Homo Sapiens.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

archive.md/yyX0Z archive.md/iw1Pz archive.md/4rVph archive.md/DChUL None of the “susceptible species” found in the market had a single report of natural infections by SARS-CoV-2, anywhere in the world. Closest and second closest stall to the toilets=👢👖🥼contamination have the highest frequency of happening among sampling. Neither civets nor raccoon dogs are susceptible at all to natural infections with SARS-CoV-2 with zero reported cases anywhere in the world. None of the “susceptible species” found in those “wildlife stalls” have been reported anywhere in the world neither China nor Europe Japan Vietnam of an natural infection by either SARS-CoV-2 or even a relative of it. Nor bamboo rat, hedgehogs or porcupines. No Guangdong spillovers directly rule out infected animals in the wildlife trade—specific supply from Yunnan to Wuhan can not support an economically viable farm because the extremely low consumption rates in Wuhan. archive.md/e3615 archive.md/vWjZl Homo Sapiens is the only species that remain consistent and significant positive correlationship within those “wildlife stalls”. https://archive.md/gvHfw https://archive.md/LJzSO https://archive.md/4cCHG https://archive.md/gkquN And the real determinant and the primary confounding factor for “which stall have the most positive samples out of all samples https://archive.md/JSQvc https://archive.md/csYBM Is “closest to the toilets”, also “closest to the entrance to the market” for the wildlife stalls. https://archive.md/vlAgp https://archive.md/mwT8i This is because all of the positive results from the “stalls” were caused by contamination caused by the samplers either smeared out from the toilets or brought in from the outside. This is also the reason why nearly all of them were found below step height, the height below which accidental trampling and kicking are highly likely. https://archive.md/FskYn https://archive.md/lI04H All that were left were either directly from the PPE of the samplers themselves https://archive.md/rj1pV https://archive.md/VNr75 Or are located right where contamination either on the surface (near walls or doors to be rubbed against, give PCR+) or on the sample tubes (awkward, crammed location making it difficult to not touch the lip of the sample tube onto sampler suits, give PCR-) are likely. These locations are also the locations that are most likely being sprayed (below step height) and the max normal operational height (below waist height for devices recorded on photo) by a sprayer or other dispensing device equipped by a “hazmat suited worker” that entered from the main entrance and was seen fiddling around with the environmental surfaces in 02/01/2020–without collecting a single environmental sample despite operating equipments in a way that look like virology work from afar. As for any direct vendor-handled surfaces, the RNAse 7 activity (skin defense ribonuclease, attack membrane-bound pathogens especially with an incomplete glycan shield) inside these samples are so strong that all SARS-CoV-2 RNA is completely destroyed within a single day between collection to sample processing. https://archive.md/2PM9Y https://archive.md/RirQ7 https://archive.md/NeybM https://archive.md/BWZJL https://archive.md/CTP3i https://archive.md/ETjzS The possibility of the same infected sampler that dropped the contaminated PPE in 31/12/2019 then contaminated all of the wildlife stall samples whenever he/she enters through the toilet area for that sample run, can not be discounted as none of these subsequent runs contained a lineage read.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

They are also compatible with a scenario that the same culture that was used in the initial planting work was eventually used to adulterate A20 when demanded by the CCP after learning about the lineage A issue. https://archive.md/LJzSO https://archive.md/4cCHG The first set of samples https://archive.md/gkquN contained human residues inside that became the only species with consistent positive correlation or one with significant mutual information with the SARS-CoV-2 reads in the market, then with the demand to blame snakes and to make sure humans don’t make its way into the samples, they stained the mid-phase samples with obvious amplicon artifacts and “tested” the rest with the highly cross-reactive PREDICT ORF1ab primers to manufacture “positivity” which none contained a real read of SARS-CoV-2. Finally The very last positive wildlife stall samples https://archive.md/13bdP, taken after the cleaning of the toilet area https://archive.md/rSaO9 , contained no mammalian species other than Homo Sapiens, which represents the “pure” form of the contamination within the wildlife stalls that is brought into the market by a sampler. They now use a mixture of animals to add to their to-be-tampered-with sample, derived from an assemblage of frozen products taken from the market so that they can say that the positive human/virus correlation, persisting even into these samples, are caused by “differential preservation”—Unfortunately the animal mix did not contain any mammals, meaning that they in stead become direct evidence that lab based cultures of SARS-CoV-2 (infections and culture supernatants give mainly the virions and a genomic profile for the viral RNA, culture lysates gives the intracellular transcriptomic profile for the viral RNA and host Mitochondrial DNA that is seen in these final “storehouse” samples.)

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://web.archive.org/web/20231213033617/https://en.rattibha.com/thread/1714233859276149199 https://archive.md/73xfX Once inside “wildlife stall A”, The only correlation crashed to Homo Sapiens. Others crashed to zero one metric or another. https://archive.md/8nN3k Same as in the positive samples. Ask “which species shed the SARS-CoV-2 where it is found” yield “Homo sapiens”. The animals correlated with their native viruses, and not SARS-CoV-2. https://archive.md/BrQy7 https://archive.md/eoaMn

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

The “all samples” merely asks “which species is sold most uniquely in the stall closest to the toilets” with much of the animals being on the ground, entirely wrong sections, https://archive.md/eoaMn and a heavily confounded distribution pattern centered around the toilets same as W4-26-28 in Jan 01. https://archive.md/FskYn https://archive.md/gvHfw Also, Raccoon dogs are in fact, never found infected in nature at all, neither China nor Europe. archive.md/g2L31 archive.md/OIHeo Sampler contamination and cross-contamination. archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/VNr75 Never an infected vendor or animal. In fact, the samples in the market follows the rule which a positive sample archive.md/CTP3i archive.md/ETjzS archive.md/BWZJL must be contacted by samplers.🥼👖👢=positive. archive.md/NeybM archive.md/2PM9Y archive.md/RirQ7 And not frequently handled by vendors.🥩🥬🍄🛁📻☎️📦🧺=negative. Another oddity, is that for the entirety of the market, none of the personal items of vendors and none of the frequently directly handled objects from boxes to baskets to cashiers, were positive. This is because SARS-CoV-2 RNA specifically is extremely unstable when on surfaces that are highly touched by a human—D614 especially because the Spike were too sparse to form a shield defending against invading RNAse 7. archive.md/LJzSO In fact, all of the positive samples in that “wildlife stall A” and the majority of the positive samples in the market is below step height—they are contaminated by the toilets and archive.md/4cCHG archive.md/FskYn is the reason why the stall with the most positive samples out of all samples is the stall closest to the toilets. In both Jan 01 and Jan 12. The superfluous nature of SARS-CoV-2 is therefore evident—not shielded inside solid tissues because all of it is shed by humans, and with an incomplete glycan shield, any that landed where human skin contact frequently (vendor items like cashiers, knives and chopping boards, baskets, boxes, water cup = least stable like bangladesh banknotes, not frequently touched locations like bases of machines or non-door-knob locations of cages, loading surfaces of grounds, scales or carts = more stable like sewage. Sampler PPE like gloves or shoe covers=most stable, and the main vectors in spread contamination to the objects and sample tubes.) got destroyed by RNAse 7. No positive above waist height, because these locations are where archive.md/FskYn samplers can exercise more care and it is less likely especially for untrained private contractors or volunteers briefed only once to avoid contaminating (enough room to avoid touching the surface or sample tubes, high enough so samplers can see to avoid rubbing with their suits. Below waist height on the other hand, not even professionals can avoid kicking or trampling due to lack of line of sight, and rubbing of the suits onto the surfaces are inevitable. Crammed locations where samplers need to support their own weight with their hands, breaks even the most professional of techniques and lead to high chance of sample tubes lips being contaminated.). 👢on 🛒🏔👣=PCR+/NGS+, 🥼on🧪=PCR-/NGS+ aligning over the primers and negative before and after. archive.md/tlfNr archive.md/GvRcD https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-885194/v1/78e0e6ce-4a76-48de-9f5c-76bab452bbe6.pdf?c=1665607885

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

The effect of spreading contamination out of the toilets and the main entrance of the market is evident not only in that both Jan 01 and Jan 12 have the stall with most positive samples out of all samples being the stall closest to the toilets, but also evident in the form of multiple samples from nearby stalls with only human DNA, no human cases and positive samples. They represent the purest form of sampler-linked contamination. https://archive.md/gvHfw The only thing governing the probability for positivity of the environmental samples is “closest to the toilets” and “closest to the main entrance of the market”. And bleaching it before sampling https://archive.md/rSaO9, just archive.md/13bdP lead to samples with only human DNA and no other mammals at all in the last samples hyper specifically taken from the “wildlife stalls”. All they managed to get in an effort to verify the ORF1ab primer-overlapping and Jan01-negative/PCR-negative contaminated sample tube are amplicon artifacts, false positives without reads, cultures of the virus from in-lab contamination and not a single positive of any kind on the site for Q37 any more.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-885194/v1/78e0e6ce-4a76-48de-9f5c-76bab452bbe6.pdf?c=1665607885 Unlike animals including livestock, humans are neither sold nor butchered at the market. Their CoVs degraded catastrophically after 01/01/2020 and completely after 12/01/2020 leaving only artifacts behind. archive.md/13bdP archive.md/FskYn archive.md/gvHfw archive.md/4cCHG Animals that are sold and butchered at the market have their CoVs remain stable and are the only CoVs left detectable in February 2020. Bane of the Zoonati: W4-26-28. Especially W4-28 which don’t have human cases inside. Only 1 out of the 5 samples have any wildlife reads at all. Closest to the toilets. Trample contamination clearly evident. Guess which species never have a single sample which it is not present? Homo Sapiens. In both Jan 01 and Jan 12 the stall with most positive samples out of all samples are the stall that is closest to the toilets in the market. Guess why. Guess why they never hint on Pearson correlation or the positive samples at all? The formulation of the problem “which species shed the SARS-CoV-2” gives an easy verification for species correlation by looking in samples where you actually see the SARS-CoV-2. This process also normalizes out any spatial confounding factors especially when confounded by pathological spatial distribution of the samples (all PCR+ samples in one stall closest to the toilets), where “which species is sold uniquely in a stall” guarantee by lottery fallacy a random species (each stall have one to two species that are uniquely sold inside and have low prevalence in the overall market), but actually entering the stall or the samples where you see the SARS-CoV-2 result in a collapse of correlation where no species except Homo Sapiens landed on the same sections of the ground as SARS-CoV-2. And of course, despite also being enteric like animal CoVs, SARS-CoV-2 failed to persist in the market, indicating it being not inside solid tissues like the animal CoVs, and therefore, not able to withstand either RNAse 7 degredation or cleaning agent application like animal CoVs could. Despite evident strong fecal and rectal shedding, persistence was not guaranteed for SARS-CoV-2 because it is not found in butchered animal tissue, which have safely and durably protected all animal viruses in the market all the way down to the end of February 2020. In addition to the observation where nearly all positive samples are found below step height and none of them being found above waist height, where incontrovertible proof of boot and suit contamination exist in the form of positive samples with neither human cases nor wildlife DNA, (which even followed the expected pattern as boots first bring the virus inside from the main entrance, then get additionally contaminated by wildlife DNA from the W6 junction) The stark contrast between highly persistent animal CoVs and SARS-CoV-2 which degraded to nothing but artifacts within mere 12 days, clearly indicate that the SARS-CoV-2 in the market is not shed by animals.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Because SARS-CoV-2 is not found in any animals which would be butchered and their tissues and guts and noses split open and spilled onto the market surfaces, the human respiratory and enteric shedding that deposited the SARS-CoV-2 into the toilets archive.md/gvHfw and then smeared onto the market stalls, can not shield the virus from being destroyed either by RNAse 7 activty or cleaning of the market. archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/4cCHG Consequently, only SARS-CoV-2 degraded over time in the market, nearly completely degraded in Jan 12 and completely degraded afterward leaving nothing other than amplicon artifacts and obviously in-lab cell culture lysate adulteration with no susceptible animals inside and with the intracellular human mitochondrial and viral Transcriptomes still intact archive.md/13bdP (they decay to only MtDNA and viral gRNA within two days ex-vivo unless in an -80C lab freezer—environmental surfaces like the market or even significant storage time after leaving the growth environment in working conditions can definitively not provide such conditions e.g. all the samples before them). archive.md/YGDiK Animal CoVs on the orher hand, persisted, with reads consistent with real, artifact-free genomes, and with no significant concentration changes that can indixate degredation, in Jan 01, Jan 12, Jan 26-27 Drains (the only SARS-CoV-2 read at that point was found in a sewage well on the opposite end as the wildlife stall that is connected to the municipal sewage system but not the wildlife stalls) archive.md/8nN3k and all the samples afterward, including samples taken after 15/02/2020. No indication of significant degradation or quality change of animal viruses and animal CoVs are observed in any sampling date indicating that they last at least 3 months and most likely longer, unlike human-sourced SARS-CoV-2 that last no longer than 15 days without sterile conditions. And unfortunately bleaching the toilets https://archive.md/rSaO9 https://archive.md/nAqKp even amplifies this problem—wildlife CoVs persisted, and no SARS-CoV-2 except adulterated using an laboratory culture so fresh that even the human Mt transcriptome (don’t last in the environment for 2 days or longer) and SARS-CoV-2 intracellular transcriptome (don’t last in the environment for a week or longer) are left inside.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Unfortunately, all that existed for Q61 and Q70 are the result of cross-contamination from Q64 and Q68/Q69, All of which are on the ground and archive.md/YGDiK are the result of either lower level boot and foot contamination x.com/daoyu15/status… x.com/daoyu15/status… Same as Q64/Q68/Q69 (stepped on>kicked for contamination). x.com/daoyu15/status… All that archive.md/73xfX archive.md/8nN3k archive.md/FskYn archive.md/gvHfw exist for Q37 is the contamination of a sample tube by the gloves and suits of the samplers. The swab is clean, PCR-. The tube lip is contaminated, NGS+ with alignment over the CCDC SARS-CoV-2 ORF1ab primer pair. archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/4cCHG PCR+/NGS+ mean the virus is present in the location. PCR+/NGS- or NGS(artifacts) mean you are using the incorrect primers (all incidents happened with the PREDICT ORF1ab only primers). archive.md/rj1pV PCR-/NGS+, especially when archive.md/csYBM the primers are aligned over by NGS reads, indicate that the samples have been catastrophically contaminated as NGS is a more complicated process that are far more prone to contamination compared to PCR. archive.md/13bdP The stall for Q37 is negative at Jan 01. They then went on sampling the same stall including the “freezer” twice afterward, attempting to verify the “sample” they considered most promising. Bringing in artifacts elsewhere and samples without a read (the only sample with a real SARS-CoV-2 read at all gathered using the PREDICT ORF1ab only primer pair was a sewage well connected to the municipal sewage system on the exact opposite to the “wildlife corner”.), but never SARS-CoV-2 reads any more. This fact is also reinforced with the intriguing observation where Q37 is found to be in the same correlational series between SARS-CoV-2 and Homo Sapiens as other Q* samples. Attempts at sampling the archive.md/FskYn archive.md/gvHfw archive.md/4cCHG archive.md/csYBM archive.md/rj1pV “storehouse” just ended up with a total catastrophe—archive.md/13bdP the sampling team brought in in-lab culture contaminants, not even aged for more than a day, into the sampling sites again when they suited up in their lab and entered the location. Impossibly fresh intracellular Homo Sapiens and SARS-CoV-2 transcriptomes, neither capable of lasting for more than two days ex-vivo in that condition, ended up contaminating the samples and without a single read of a susceptible animal inside those “samples”. Sampler contamination and cross-contamination. archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/VNr75 Never an infected vendor or animal. In fact, the samples in the market follows the rule which a positive sample archive.md/CTP3i archive.md/ETjzS archive.md/BWZJL must be contacted by samplers.🥼👖👢=positive. archive.md/NeybM archive.md/2PM9Y archive.md/RirQ7 And not frequently handled by vendors.🥩🥬🍄🛁📻☎️📦🧺=negative. archive.md/HlJ9o archive.md/nAqKp archive.md/rSaO9 They also put bleach onto the toilets and the mahjong room before sampling them. This is a clear move to cover up. archive.md/csYBM And no the “stall” W5-NA was sampled on the inside 27/01/2020, negative. (Not even animal CoVs were there) The toilets is the real contamination source. archive.md/C5oal archive.md/RSsS7 and yes only Homo Sapiens positively correlated with SARS-CoV-2 consistently in all metrics, or formed any kind of line or grouping pattern at all that allow the abundance of one to be estimated at above-random success rate and precision using the other (e.g. have any significant mutual information with SARS-CoV-2). archive.md/0O2TN archive.md/GjlEx

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

If you examine the inside of “wildlife stall A”, then all you see is boot prints and suit marks. None of it is animals. All metrics now favor Homo Sapiens as the most likely source of the SARS-CoV-2 sequences there. The wildlife stalls all sold susceptible animals. They only sampled wildlife stalls in Jan 12. Then positives are found closest to the toilets because that is where contaminated suits and boots most likely rub trample and kick. No different from W4-28 and W4-26-28, really. Not forming a line on the correlation diagram=no mutual information=spurious. That is why it dissolved completely when asking “which species shed the SARS-CoV-2” in slices where the analyte concentrations aren’t 0. That is also why they fraudulently bleached the toilets before sampling them.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And this is how you ID a spurious result. If the correlational diagram show a neat line indicating an consistent increase in the count of one candidate factor as the target analyte increased, it indicate that the target analyte is probably caused by the candidate factor with a consistently raising minimum of the factor per analyte suggesting that all of it is brought in alongside this candidate. If the correlation diagram show an randomized pattern or even a line of negative slope, especially when nearly all of the target analyte is found in one place, then it is probably that it is just the one place have one or few potential candidates that are less abundant elsewhere, which with the 25+ candidates in the market sample correlation analysis guarantee 1-2 for every stall (and most of which are on the ground just like anything trampled from the toilets, with entirely different reasons). If you can not use the concentration of the target analyte to reliably predict the concentration of the candidate, or come up with an result that the more target analyte there is the less candidate there is where the target is found, e.g. an absence of or negative mutual information, then it is most likely spurious and extremely unlikely that candidate yielded or is brought alongside the target analyte. Causation are bijective. Confounders are injective. Spurious correlations are correlated only in some metrics and slices but not all. Inconsistency between different slices and metrics indicate an lack of true causation and likely confounder that makes false positive in some but negative in the other. A consistent positive correlation in almost all metrics and no negative correlation in any metric, Like Homo Sapiens, indicate that there is true causation that some disruption may have occurred. Species that have “positive” correlation only in some metrics out of a single slice, (not even all the slices examined for that date), but negative or zero in all the other metrics and slices with the mutual information metric yielding negative and zero only regardless of slice, like oriental rat snake or malayan porcupine, are spatially confounded—they are “the most unique species found in the 1 stall at that slice that was closest to the toilets”, and since every stall have one such species, they represent false discovery by lottery fallacy, and fails when any other slices are used. They also failed to form a line on the correlation plot which indicate that there is no causation and the animal did not shed the virus where it was found.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

archive.md/csYBM And no the “stall” W5-NA was sampled on the inside 27/01/2020, negative. (Not even animal CoVs were there) The toilets is the real contamination source. archive.md/C5oal archive.md/RSsS7 and yes only Homo Sapiens positively correlated with SARS-CoV-2 consistently in all metrics, or formed any kind of line or grouping pattern at all that allow the abundance of one to be estimated at above-random success rate and precision using the other (e.g. have any significant mutual information with SARS-CoV-2). archive.md/0O2TN archive.md/GjlEx This result is consistent with the theil-sen estimator, which explicitly measures mutual information through the use of all slopes in the data points, which measures the predictive power of the other data points and one metric of one data points to the other metric of the data point. You can easily distinguish between common tertiary cause (confounded) from true causation by looking with increasingly finer grain of resolution, especially where the data points aren’t 0. Unlike spurious correlations from Confounding factors which ends at the resolution where the factor acts on, True causation stay correlated in every resolution and in any set of data points especially where the data values aren’t 0. In fact, confounding factors often crash in correlation quite early before that. “Do pirates get less prevalent the hotter it is when normalized agains temporal trends, where many things have correlation with time”? Is the same as “Do SARS-CoV-2 correlate with animals at all when normalized against confounding pathological distribution of insufficient spatial spread, which each stall including one closest to the toilets have several separate unique species?

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

The “perfect synergy” is a lie.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And it really only need “VERO cells and HAE cultures” to adapt to this.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

What those analyzers think: “many different precise and specific pieces recombine into SARS-CoV-2”. Reality: an unpublished but readily sampled SARS-CoV-2 progenitor spread fragments over time into multiple locations. Some end up in the published samples. Assumption of recombinant origin is almost always because of a lack of published samples sufficiently close, especially with multiple of samples of comparable distance. One specific contig is fished out of the assembly graph from a bucket of reads on the criterion that it meet the RE site requirement, before being used for cloning. Natural recombination will not pick that specific contig over any other possible assembly graphs for spillover. What they claim: “Only QTQTNS + PRRA would work!” Reality: they test an appropriate human FCS on all manner of Spikes, especially when they see an S1-S2 site “cleavage sites in S2” (that are structurally homologous to 757/900 for HKU1 “other coronaviruses”) with the example of “667/792 for SARS” that have deviated from the established consensus of spillover-capable SARSr-CoVs up to the point if DEFUSE. And it just happened that the closest human FCS to the first mismatched S1-S2 they see is the hENaC FCS, introduced by adding “ARRA” to “RSVAS”. Several versions tested and one ended up working. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109205261283826972 ReCCA is tautological and fictitious. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109863181504837302 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109465063042828622 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109255356915252021 BtSY2 is sequenced in 2018. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109399710986742685 BANAL is in the hands of the DOD in 2017. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109340247585238829 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109800300869616862

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/1089460581208001…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108946058120800199 How would you go onto constructing a synthetic consensus backbone that would be 1: guaranteed to be rescuable. 2: easy to manipulate as fragments. 3: easy to manipulate even after being ligated? You would need to choose fragments with type IIS restriction sites such that 1: each individual type IIS site must have a precedent in its presence of absence in the wild in at least 1 Sarbecovirus (distance doesn’t matter here. Can be as distant as BM48-31. Abundance matters statistically (rarer individual sites are less likely to show up at spillover) but does not matter if you are making a clone. As long as you find your desired presence/absence of a site at a specific location in even just one genome, you can use it and be confident that it won’t break your consensus genome. This is governed by both the availability of individual side precedence in sampled genomes and by the location of the site, whatever that doesn’t break the genome and is optimal for cloning gets chosen) to ensure that highly conserved RNA structural motifs aren’t disrupted. 2: there must be no BsaI sites between two BsmBI sites and no BsmBI sites between two BsaI sites to minimize the need of double digestion. 3: the number of overly small fragments should be minimized while no overly large fragments should be present at all. That is, the Standard Deviation (S.D.) Of the length of the fragments shouldn’t be too high. 4: the number of fragments should be kept to as low as possible with the restriction that you can easily manipulate each individual fragment within a M13/pUC vector backbone, as an excess number of fragments are more difficult to keep track of or manipulate. The type IIS restriction sites in the SARS-CoV-2 genome matches all the requirements above. Other genomes in its clade (or even any that is found in Asia)? Not that much. Unfortunately since clonability does not translate to spillover potential (without a lab), the fact that easily clonable Sarbecovirus genomes are rare in general also translates into the possibility that one that ended up spilling over just happen to be one that is easily clonable as SARS-CoV-2, being low. Since the fragments are what that is being chosen for the consensus genome, site selection influences ReCCA especially for the segments that were located near restriction sites—the segments surrounding them are what that were originally chosen in the consensus construct, where one of the requirements used is that the pattern of type IIS sites within the selected set of fragments should make the final genome assembled from them easy to clone. Finally, how could all the non-SARS-CoV-2 genomes you use in the ReCCA graph have a BsaI site in the first position of the F3 fragment (this site is highly conserved in Sarbecoviruses found in Asia) , but the final ReCCA, supposedly generated from related sequences sampled in the wild, not having that site? Either the ReCCA algorithm itself have considered these sites as part of the synonymous sites that was used to infer the “highly conserved segments”, and included SARS-CoV-2 itself into the analysis (making the algorithm tautological), or it is the result of the consensus-generation process where the choice of segments and sites to be used for the consensus included an requirement for the ease of cloning and manipulation for the final genome—something that would matter if you are synthesizing and rescuing it in the lab, not so much for anything that “spills over from the wild”. https://archive.ph/VypuD' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'More importantly, when considering the current RG…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'More importantly, when considering the current RGS systems, it turned out that none of the supposed ReCCA components are compatible with the cloning scheme that somehow were identical in their RE site order and REase use between U.S. and Chinese publications—the 2 BsaI sites within the ORF1a strongly interferes with the F3 fragment of the cloning scheme and when these sites are absent in a few select genomes, interfering sites pops up elsewhere in the genome that nevertheless still make the systems unworkable. The SARS-CoV-2 genome is the only one of which both the conventional and the no seems type IIS cloning methods would work with BsaI/BsmBI for the assembly of the genome—allowing both the easy assembly and ease for revision of the genome in all labs that were involved in the DEFUSE program.' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'In fact, how the ReCCA algorithm functions (it pi…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'In fact, how the ReCCA algorithm functions (it picks the closest sequence to the SARS-CoV-2 branch On “phylogenetic trees constructed on each (very short) segment of the genome”) mean that it is impossible to reconstruct an ReCCA without inputing the SARS-CoV-2 genome into the algorithm (as the reference genome to be aligned against) and thus biasing the result catastrophically—to the point that it is impossible to distinguish this process from what that would be used during the construction of an consensus genome for an infectious clone (fragments are picked with a requirement that the sites on the selected fragments lead to a genome that can be easily synthesized and constructed), and removes any statistical power of “ReCCA” to argue that the specific type IIS restriction pattern of SARS-CoV-2 to be the only possible combination of sites that is “evolutionarily likely”. It once again, failed to provide any biological reason why a specific, <1-in-100, easy-to-clone pattern being any more likely to end up being the spillover strain (that must not use the SARS-CoV-2 genome itself as the reference when such probability is assessed) compared to the >99-in-100 other possible combinations outside the S1 With the “ReCCA components” (where none were easy to clone by themselves) that are not easy to clone, in a non-circular manner. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109288626916761348' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'When a synthetic recombinant genome for a coronav…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'When a synthetic recombinant genome for a coronavirus is constructed, fragments are selected from relevant natural bat isolates with a requirement that the type IIS restriction pattern using the planned enzymes on the resulting assembly should enable easy cloning and efficient manipulation—a less than 1 in 100 chance for this to happen randomly by chance for recombination outside the S1 region of the genome, and completely irrelevant to spillover. When a natural virus spills over, there is very little effect (within 1 order of magnitude) on the chance that some specific strain would end up becoming the pandemic strain for recombination ancestry outside the S1 region. There is no requirement that a strain that spills over must be a strain that is easy to clone by the 2 most popular type IIS restriction enzymes that were used in CoV genome assemblies, and the chance given natural spillover of an ancestry that had an efficient type IIS RGS system without modification is the same chance as finding one such strain in nature just by 1 single random sampling—so far no specimen from Asia satisfy this on their individual genomes. Again, which sequence on the ReCCA graph were not sampled from nature? Unfortunately, the so-called “natural recombination ancestry” argument may well just be one of the many ways workable coronavirus genomes are “recovered” from a set of otherwise unisolated samples. Whatever you reconstruct out of natural isolates for a clone, it must be easy to clone. It can be from one of the rare samples you find with an easy-to-clone pattern, or it could be one of the combinations of various contigs from sequencing a pooled sample. It could also be a chimeric genome constructed using fragments selected from related wild isolates with a requirement that the result is easy to clone. When a strain spills over naturally, there is no requirement that it must be easy to clone—restriction enzymes work on DNA not on RNA, and there is no reason why the specific combination with an easy to clone site pattern must be selected other than the posterior claim “it happened” (ReCCA construction used SARS-CoV-2 genome as reference). This is a circular argument as the claim that “the SARS-CoV-2 genome with its unusual combination of type IIS sites is the result of a natural spillover” assumed P(spillover|strain have good site combination)>=0.5 while P(strain have good site combination)<<0.5 with the only justification “we observe that the SARS-CoV-2 genome is easy to clone and can be constructed using a combination of fragments from some 8+ different “bat virus strains”” only able to justify this implied probability assumption with the assumption “SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a natural spillover”, a hypothesis that is being tested in the type IIS RE site analysis paper in stead of an underlying assumption. In conclusion, while a ReCCA with an easy to clone type IIS site combination with the go-to enzymes used for assemblies of this length is a possible combination of the bat coronavirus sequences known from sampling, there is no justification for this hypothetical and still unsampled ReCCA to be the only possible combination where a spillover is possible or that a spillover strain will have a probability that it will be easy to clone being >0.5 while the chance of finding such a strain from a random sampling from the wild being only about ~0.01.' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'Additional sample formats, such as “bat coronavir…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'Additional sample formats, such as “bat coronavirus isolate NNNNNN” are found in 2015 samples, whereas the 2016 sequences (the last sequences to be deposited into GenBank from known bat coronavirus searching papers in China/CAS) contained within their authors “Edward C Holmes”. This may hint on the role of E.Holmes on the handling of bat Coronavirus sample sequencing for samples collected “between 2015-2019”. Sequences MH315932-MH315944 have formats “XxNNNNNN”, however these contained samples from as early as 2013, making it difficult to ascertain as where these samples came from. However, these numbers (and the “Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats and the Origin of Human SARS Coronavirus” paper, with E.Holmes in the GenBank records) contained the only deposited CAS samples known to be collected in 2016, which could be taken as evidence of E.Holmes and WIV collaboration for sampling efforts and sequence/sample sharing, in the 2015-2019 period. A collaboration (sample/sequence sharing) between Guangdong and Wuhan institutions through E.Holmes https://zenodo.org/record/6849652#.Y38toiW8klT , can not be ruled out. The original GenBank deposition date of 2018 seems to coincide with the supposed sampling date of “BtSY2”. We now know that some of the samples taken in 2018 under E.Holmes contained RBD sequences related to the Omicron strain of SARS-CoV-2. The question becomes: Why you are taking samples from bats (dissected rectum), without performing some kind of tests immediately after sampling, as early as in 2015-2018, given that an ethics approval for the destructive sampling of wild animals in China required some kind of academic program to be first sent for approval, which have to include the detail of the exact experiments that requires the dissection of the bats and collection of the rectum samples. If any kind of testing/screening/experimentation were done initially on the samples (immediate experimental plan would have to be provided for the sampling proposal to be justified and approved—and “for storage, until some technology that doesn’t yet exist until late 2021” isn’t one of them), what were the results? Why, despite sampling of bats by EHA/CAS and expeditions into Yunnan/Mojiang mine continued all the way until 2019, the last such sequences deposited from China was sampled in 2016? If “This research, including the procedures and protocols of specimen collection and processing, 262 was reviewed and approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Yunnan Institute of 263 Endemic Diseases Control and Prevention. (No. 20160002).”, why weren’t the results immediately made available to the public as the samples were collected and processed over the course of 4 years? RNA samples are after all, very fragile and does not tolerate long-term storage very well. When were these actually sequenced? (I see 15 different sequencing machines in the FCIDs, with FCIDs ranging from H2 to H7, HG to HY, and sequencing on the same machines hundreds of runs apart. This could indicate sequencing done immediately after sampling) And if these were sequenced before the pandemic, who had access to the sequences? Were these really “newly discovered” viruses, or just sequences that were put into embargo in the “great silence” of CAS accession numbers between 2016-2019, only recently released? (Should these samples be sequenced pre-pandemic, near their collection date in 2018, this could be corresponding to phase 1(QS0) of DEFUSE. After sequences generated as early as in mid-2018, there would be more than 1 year to work with the cloning and culture experiments.) The machines found in https://github.com/Augustpan/Individual-Bat-Virome/blob/main/raw_data/lane_id_table.csv Are: A01426 A00821 A00920 A00270 A00877 A00289 A00881 A00783 A00253 A00917 A01045 A00808 A00459 A01415 A01050 The samples with BtSY2 are: S18CXBatR24 @A00917:648:H3Y25DSX2:4 S18CXBatR29 @A00783:739:H3V32DSX2:3 Both appeared to be on the earliest run on that particular machine, where the run contained no sample from 2019, and where the flow cell ID were from an early era (H3). Archive for read mappings: https://archive.ph/CuzzR Archive for lane IDs: https://archive.ph/IKxD1' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'To see more about the DOD-sponsored Institut Past…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'To see more about the DOD-sponsored Institut Pasteur sampling of the BANAL caves in 2017 and the censorship of even the already-sequenced batflies library https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109150240613656613 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109139121799069783 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108782000872829271 http://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108745003276913992 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108938621623162894 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108961381086722860 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108808844066927838 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109198525541365424 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109222447665307488 PREDICT-2 and EHA activity in SE. Asia including Southern Laos https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109079936391006382 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109079963106312117 Past lab escapes from IP france https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108929427082821215 And on the type IIS REase found in IP cambodge https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109215673255176764 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109216529429569399' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: '@Graviola_Finland @EIGARBARINO https://archive.m…' Flavinkins on Gab: '@Graviola_Finland @EIGARBARINO https://archive.md/8rlbT FULL TRANSLATED TEXT of the briefing of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on the analysis of documents related to military biological activities of the United States, made on January 30, 2023 with the supporting documentation that it provided. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108782801366501491 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108908816879287433 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108808844066927838 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108808523459345532 It confirms that sampling and researching effort for S.E. Asia is in deed being conducted in these labs. Anomalies regarding the Caspian sea in 2019: https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108949034317465342 EHA activity in the Caspian sea region, up to 2019: https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108782587895528182 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109139121799069783 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109529211058973737 DOD, IP laos and batflies🦇🪰: https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108961381086722860 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108938621623162894 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108782000872829271 https://archive.md/JZkwi EHA, Laos and PREDICT-2: https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109158749548555994 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109079936391006382 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109079963106312117 https://archive.md/hMp7x 🦇🧪🥣？ https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109150240613656613 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109198525541365424 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109222447665307488 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109728264957247673 https://archive.ph/3fFfn https://archive.md/T6sN5 (No wildlife trade route linking Wuhan to Laos…… But plenty of sampling route linking Laos to labs both in Wuhan and on the East Coast……)' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Remember that time you say it must be S2’?

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

It is not just that SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan grows best in VERO cells out of all variants.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Some earliest patients harbored inside their QS specific S1-S2 deletions that can form only in VERO E6. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109640519028841414

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JVI.00790-20…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JVI.00790-20 This is not the only cell passage specific deletion that would end up in some of the very earliest patients. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/73/2/e437/5869859 DelQTQTN, a variant that emerges during VERO cell passage, is found specifically within at least 3 patients arriving from Wuhan in Guangdong, and variations at the “upstream probe binding site” (where closest related QTQTNS-bearing genomes contained only one transition at this probe, insufficient to prevent its binding), which also emerges at cell culture passage of SARS-CoV-2 in VERO cells, are found within patient samples taken from the Central Theater Command Hospital in Wuhan, alongside with variants that had deletions in the SPRRARS site, del-mut-1. DelQTQTN(which is specifically found within the patient samples and where the deletion is exactly 1AA longer than those claimed to be in RmYN02/RacCS203/Banal-247) and variations in the upstream probe binding sites are unique to VERO cell cultured strains of SARS-CoV-2. Their presence within the earliest patient samples within China implies that a VERO cultured stock was the proximal inoculum of many of the earliest patients within China. This directly point toward the proximal origin of the Chinese outbreak being associated with virology research and culturing of viruses.' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

archive.md/HlJ9o https://archive.md/rSaO9 https://archive.md/13bdP https://archive.md/nAqKp They also put bleach onto the toilets and the mahjong room before sampling them. This is a clear move to cover up. https://archive.md/rj1pV https://archive.md/FskYn archive.md/csYBM And no the “stall” W5-NA was sampled on the inside 27/01/2020, negative. The toilets is the real contamination source. https://archive.md/LJzSO https://archive.md/4cCHG archive.md/C5oal archive.md/RSsS7 and yes only Homo Sapiens positively correlated with SARS-CoV-2 consistently in all metrics, or formed any kind of line or grouping pattern at all that allow the abundance of one to be estimated at above-random success rate and precision using the other (e.g. have any significant mutual information with SARS-CoV-2). archive.md/0O2TN archive.md/GjlEx What they tried to hide with this: The fact that “closest to the toilets” is the only factor that governs where you are going to see positive samples the most in the market—there is no difference between W4-28 and W4-26-28 in 01/01/2020 and W6-29-33 in 12/01/2020 in term of where the virus came from and why they have the highest positive sample count out of all sample counts in their respective sampling runs. Sampler contamination and cross-contamination. archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/VNr75 Never an infected vendor or animal. In fact, the samples in the market follows the rule which a positive sample archive.md/CTP3i archive.md/ETjzS archive.md/BWZJL must be contacted by samplers.🥼👖👢=positive. archive.md/NeybM archive.md/2PM9Y archive.md/RirQ7 And not frequently handled by vendors.🥩🥬🍄🛁📻☎️📦🧺=negative.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Unfortunately, none of the “drain” samples contained actual SARS-CoV-2 reads. They have animal CoVs, demonstrating that the SARS-CoV-2 in the market isn’t present in animal tissues and does not last past 12/01/2020 as legitimate reads, and that are also happens to be exceptionally cross-reactive to the ORF1ab only tests used.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Cold hard reality: there is nothing special to W6-29-33 compared to W4-26-28. Closest to the toilets is what that govern where the virus would be found. Fact: w6-29-33 and the market supply chain did not get shut down at all. The former operated as “金秀山家禽批发商行” up to the end of 2021 and the latter operate still to supply other markets in Hubei, archive.md/yyX0Z archive.md/iw1Pz archive.md/4rVph archive.md/DChUL evidenced by the fact that these suppliers including the exact animals sold were readily sampled in Jan-feb 2020. This included also specific sampling of several species inside the stall itself, also negative. Their animals tested negative and no outbreaks happened. They represent the full inventory of raccoon dogs and siberian weasels in the market. The Hubei supply farms then represent the full inventory of many other species. The only Yunnan supplied animals all landed on the wrong stalls, testing negative even when sampled as is in the market. archive.md/e3615 archive.md/vWjZl

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

This is the reality: VERO cell adaptation is max in Wuhan compared to bat or VOCs.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And this picture is worth a thousand words—“VERO cells and HAE cultures” adapt the virus like this exactly.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And also fact: you really can not 1: ignore the 50+ strains of bat SARSr-CoVs identified by the EHA, still not published—anything sufficiently close won’t be “mosaic recombinant”. And 2: the China claim that there were no cases before the market got completely self-debunked when they then went on saying that 67 samples in an 2021 Wuhan of >4% seroprevalence “tested all negative”. Numerous anomalies leaked in regard to early detections that is incompatible with a market origin. Sinterklaas/Faucier: Wei Jingsheng: WHU student reports: First public Wechat Spike in “SARS”: Wuhan lab banned from being mentioned the first official declaration(nobody is allowed to doubt the constructed official narrative): Callahan: Murdered Zhou Yusen with body bags found outside the WIV: It is impossible to have 67 wuhan residents sampled in 2021 to test all negative for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Blatant ben HU lie on “not working with SARSr-CoVs” Still operating illegal labs in the U.S. They screwed up with the military games it seems. And it is not unusual to see samples in China being sequenced only months to years after initial collection and culturing. Hong kong suspend Wuhan mail over Nov-Dec 2019. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108890415550666278 Chinese communities in Italy show evidence of prior immunity. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108952233844548674 Mean time of earlier SARS-CoV-2 related discoveries=mid November 2019. Clinics—even in mid December 2019 in central Wuhan—got 10 times more cases than usual in mid November and only worsens through December and January. https://archive.md/VXtu9 Cases begun to take off and it have reached “more than 600 a day” just before the start of 2020 that they completed all of their preparation job and got all their PPE they can get before 01/01/2020. Then ascertained cases alone flooded the hospital just about 10/01/2020. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109248812361151175 https://archive.md/VXtu9 Here is evidence that widespread silent outbreak have already happened inside Wuhan before it reached the HSM, with the Tongji and Union hospitals already seeing novel coronavirus inside the Wuhan CBD in 6-8 Dec 2019. Of course this is again never official. Why trust only the official cases data with a known bias and severe censorship? https://archive.md/UIBkB

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/teJqh Archive from @florin_unc…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/teJqh Archive from @florin_uncovers More and more: Hong kong mail suspended all express mail services to Wuhan in 15/11/2019 due to “air transportation arrangements” This is then brought out by a news article in 02/01/2020 denoting “multiple cases of unknown pneumonia in Wuhan” (and the first patient returning from Wuhan after the first official reports from the city). https://web.archive.org/web/20200913130923/https://topick.hket.com/article/2532398/香港郵政：往武漢特快專遞航班去年11月16日起取消%E3%80%80故暫停服務 https://archive.ph/dsJ15 https://archive.ph/6LuXg https://archive.ph/Vt4mQ What this may have resembled? Also Wuhan doctors. https://archive.ph/VXtu9 https://web.archive.org/web/20220312073852/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/covid-19-coronavirus-wuhan-doctor-tells-what-it-was-really-like/6Q23B4ISGLPT7U7QC34G4VDAA4/' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: '@Biorealism “During an extraordinary period in De…' Flavinkins on Gab: '@Biorealism “During an extraordinary period in December, it was necessary to place deceased individuals outside of the designated morgue, in a secure room, for a short period of time,” it read. “The Ottawa Hospital has converted spaces, formerly used for autopsies, within the morgue to manage unexpected surges in demand. Conference rooms and ward beds are not used for housing deceased individuals,” the statement continued.“ https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ottawa-hospital-denies-bodies-were-left-in-conference-rooms-as-morgues-overflow-1.4756984 https://web.archive.org/web/20200108025449/https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/ottawa-hospital-denies-bodies-were-left-in-conference-rooms-as-morgues-overflow-1.4756984 If you are to check the date for this, the announcement was in January 2020. https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-021-00986-9 Note that there were no introductions from China traced for the later (recognized) Montreal and Quebec outbreaks. What could these excess bodies be? https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/12/e1004/6012472 Table 1 in this paper should be considered important.' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/yu2Jg Now, see this. Remember …' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/yu2Jg Now, see this. Remember that “中部战区总医院”? “ 2019年12月31日，武汉市卫健委首次公开发布通报，确认多例肺炎病例。 　　与此同时，中部战区总医院发热门诊人数陡增，最高时一天超过600人。江晓静、王琼书、刘孟丽等一批中部战区总医院专家，感觉到病情凶险。 　　作为全军急性呼吸道传染病病原监测参比实验室，中部战区总医院负压实验室是驻汉部队唯一带有负压功能的实验室。从2015年起，为监测流感、呼吸道腺体和其他传染病，他们每年冬春季都会紧密监测发热患者情况，并进行跟踪和采样。 　　但今年的数据变化太快太突然，没有任何征兆。 　　经中部战区总医院感染科、疾控科等科室专家和医护人员共同讨论研究，提议马上启动《呼吸道传染病防控方案》。中部战区总医院党委专题召开分析会，形成共识。 　　医院成立领导小组，主官亲自挂帅；抽调精兵强将，核心部门全员参与；对发热门诊、传染科等关键环节开展防护培训，采取隔离措施，提高防护等级；加紧储备口罩、防护服、隔离衣等防护器材，紧急采购30个正压呼吸器和60个备用滤芯。同时，向驻汉驻鄂部队进行传染病防护提醒。 　　今年元旦，中部战区总医院进入临战状态。 　　1月4日，医院调整扩大发热门诊，全院提高一级防护等级。 　　1月6日，开始收治第一例患者。几天后，传染科床位告急。 　　1月15日，医院决定火速扩建传染病区。 　　1月16日，向武汉市卫健委送检第一例样本病例。 　　1月17日，抢建的传染2病区、3病区开放。 　　1月19日，医院提升疫情防控指挥等级，成立一线指挥部，党委成员集体住进办公楼；机关各部门重新进行人员编组和任务分工；专家组、医疗组、保障组以及各预备队抽组完毕；全院进行传染病防治专业培训考核。” Then “新冠肺炎被纳入乙类传染病、采取甲类措施严格管理。而中部战区总医院发热门诊从一开始就采取了高一级的防护措施，严格按照甲类传染病进行处置和管理。 　　随后，疑似病例数、确诊病例数、死亡病例数不断攀升，治愈人数却始终显示着“0”。” Keep in mind, the listing of “Novel coronavirus infected pneumonia(NCIP)” as a “class B infectious disease” is in 20/01/2020. Standard 1, from 15-17/01/2020, and the “试行诊疗方案” before it, require “unsuccessful antibiotics treatment” and “unsuccessful treatment using a panel of “standard antibiotics”” for cases that didn’t have exposure history to the Huanan market. This mean that most if not all the cases that can be ascertained as being “NCIP” or “VPUE” by the standards at that time have to be in the severe non-self-limiting group. 06/01/2020 is exactly 3 days after they begin case ascertainment according to the “试行诊疗方案” they received in 03/01/2020, through the use and monitoring of antibiotics treatment on fever patients. Just after “a few days” (“3-5 days”) of they begin to ascertain cases for isolation, “the infectious disease wards begin to run out of beds”. So many fever patients floods the hospital that they begin to “expand the fever clinics” at 04/01/2020. And what caused them to begin “今年元旦，中部战区总医院进入临战状态”? “Enter battle stations at 01/01/2020”? “On December 31, 2019, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission issued a public notice for the first time, confirming a number of pneumonia cases. 　　At the same time, the number of fever outpatients in the General Hospital of the Central Theater has increased sharply, with more than 600 people a day at its peak.A group of experts from the General Hospital of the Central Theater, including Jiang Xiaojing, Wang Qiongshu, and Liu Mengli, felt that their condition was dangerous. 　　As a reference laboratory for the monitoring of the pathogen of acute respiratory infectious diseases throughout the army, the negative pressure laboratory of the Central Theater General Hospital is the only laboratory with negative pressure function of the troops stationed in Han.Since 2015, in order to monitor influenza, respiratory glands and other infectious diseases, they have closely monitored patients with fever every winter and spring, and followed up and sampled them. 　　But this year's data changes too quickly and suddenly, without any signs.” Indicated by the ENA reservation dates, this begun at least on 10/12/2019. Out of all the cases that they accept into their isolation wards, “suspected cases, confirmed cases and deaths keeps raising up, but “recovered cases” remained 0”. All isolation ward/infectious disease ward cases were ascertained according to the standards that were then official in Wuhan. Self-limiting cases were excluded. This is also how WH01-WH04 were sent to the BGI. Samples were saved from all fever and respiratory cases admitted to the hospital, and when they received a command for “continued epidemiological investigation in several hospitals (near Huanan market), Huanan market and the neighborhood of Huanan market” in 31/12/2019, 4 cases from the hospital that satisfied the “from or near the market” criterion were selected, and samples sent for analysis at availability (when BALF sampling from bronchoscopy is performed). Only WH01 with a sample that is available in 26/12/2019 would be reported to the WMHC and enter the WHO dataset, as the military commanded General Hospital of the Central War Zone seems to be only disclosing case data to other institutions after they have a result on the cases first (where the first case ascertained with the “试行诊疗方案”, sometimes in 06/01/2020, only had the sample sent to and reported to the WMHC in 16/01/2020.). WH03 reported in Zhongnan. Confusion on the identity and nature of WH01-WH04 would continue even until today. https://zenodo.org/record/4119263/#.Y1yAtCW8klQ At its peak, the General Hospital of the Central War Zone were receiving 600 cases a day from its fever clinics—more than twice the total reported cases by onset (CDC) at the time when so many cases were flooding the fever clinics that they have to “expand the fever clinics in 04/01/2020”. This is consistent with the eyewitness report on dozens of times 🚑, at least 2 from Jiangxia (remember only 1 dot on the WHO map was from Jiangxia) rushing across the ShiPaiLing road leading to the “中部战区总医院” in 31/12/2019.' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

The only thing governing the probability for positivity of the environmental samples is “closest to the toilets” and “closest to the main entrance of the market”. archive.md/yyX0Z archive.md/iw1Pz archive.md/4rVph archive.md/DChUL Also here is a result on the raccoon dogs and the inability for the species to become infected in nature. archive.md/n9o0f All non-human mammals archive.md/7doR8 archive.md/0A24q at most landed on different sections of the ground and correlation fails upon entry to that “raccoon dog stall”. archive.md/Ttn5P archive.md/JSQvc Coincidence caused by pathological spatial distribution on the most uniquely found species in the stall closest to the toilets archive.md/gvHfw have high R^2–all landed on different sections of the ground and fails upon entry into the stall. archive.md/0A24q True causation remain positively correlated when looking at the positive samples or when you enter the site of the pathological spatial distribution. archive.md/csYBM Also, in order to test positive in Gao et al, a sample archive.md/CTP3i archive.md/ETjzS archive.md/BWZJL must be contacted by a sampler. 🥼👖👢=positive. archive.md/NeybM archive.md/2PM9Y archive.md/RirQ7 Must not be frequently handled by a vendor. 🥩🥬🍄🛁📻☎️📦🧺=negative. There is a reason why the theil-sen correlation, a quantifier of mutual information, show Homo Sapiens as max correlated wherever any species in the “susceptible mammals” category (wildlife and humans) show correlation at all.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And of course, Polymerase stuttering is exclusive to Influenza and other negative ssRNA/DNA viruses (requires an “unzipping last” transcription mode which the nascent transcript is unbound from the template immediately after synthesis) and in fact, the S1-S2 is a cold spot of recombination because CoV template switching depends on TRS-B binding to Nsp7 and not by “stem loops”.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Reverse transcriptases are critical in understanding the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 genomic insert evolution. “How many billion hosts are needed for the GISAID sequences to appear? (2 billion) what kind of methodology they were sequenced with (because multiplex PCR+bad primer batch=additional sequences end up being inside the amplicons especially same supplier of primers used), and how many hosts a wildlife farm is able to harbor at maximum? (Less than 2 or other markets that the farms have to supply to because of the low animal counts in Huanan would be infected and have primary outbreaks) What happened to those “lineages”? (They disappeared upon the exhaustion of the specific primer batch they were sequenced from, and never continue circulation within sequences for more than ~2 weeks)” . It is something that they can not answer. no proline no VERO growth Destroyed in VOC evolution and no glycans to be seen https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/111398506038803573 The proline is required for efficient growth in VERO cell cultures and all live hosts despise it. With nearly a billion sequences available now all manner of sequencing error and biomaterial manufacture errors can happen. That is why none of the pandemic era inserts in covid lasted for more than the length of time which a batch of primers ordered from a company usually last in the testing and sequencing labs. If you look for dirt this big a base number and the high random and systematic error rates would guarantee something you will see. Also the “potentially real inserts” are all from within the SARS-CoV-2 genome. No CGG-CGG pair anywhere within the genomes of the closest relatives of SARS-CoV-2.

Flavinkins on Gab: 'Alpha, Delta, both have less VERO E6 than Wuhan/D…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'Alpha, Delta, both have less VERO E6 than Wuhan/D614G. Omicron, also. It is also the least VERO-growing lineage. http://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-022-01802-5 http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04266-9 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004221015595 This is NOT something you expect from a wildlife virus. They shouldn’t be adapted best to lab cell lines right out of the box. All adaptation trajectories (both from live mice, humans and the modified modern research cell lines) lead away from VERO E6 when an small carnivore/bat zoonosis scenario should simultaneously increase all primate tropism as the virus evolve in humans. It should raise, and not drop, VERO E6 tropism.' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239183/ All 3 Lines of PO argument have been debunked. There is no evidence of O-linked glycans in the actual SARS-CoV-2 spike for cells that are relevant to real live hosts or immune systems. https://zenodo.org/record/6849652#.ZKUlyCV6slT And RmYn02 having 2AA shorter than normal not 3AA longer. vixra.org/abs/2010.0164 All RmYN02 “proves” is the motivated reasoning of the final PO public arguments. Even the authors themselves do not believe their arguments point strongly toward anything.

Deducing the N- and O-glycosylation profile of the spike protein of novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 The current emergence of the novel coronavirus pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) demands the development of new therapeutic strategies to prevent rapid progress of mortalities. The coronavirus spike (S) protein, ... ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Pan-SL-CoV/GD sequences may be from contamination. ABSTRACT Recently, There were much hype about an alleged SARS-like coronavirus being found in samples of Malayan pangolins (Manis Javanica) possessing nearly identical RBD to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Prominent journals cite the alleged discovery to claim that pangolins may be one of a possible intermediate host for the zoonotic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to humans. Here, we report that all databases used to support such a claim, upon which metagenomic analysis was possible, contained unexpected reads and was in serious risk of contamination. Here we also report that the presence of unexpected reads are directly related to the presence of coronavirus reads. Finally, we deduced the actual causative agent of the death of the pangolins sampled in GuangDong 2019 where the claim of coronavirus detections was made. zenodo.org

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And of which all that existed were just viruses that were smeared out of the toilets and shed by researchers, and which nearly all positive samples are below step height, no positive samples are above waist height and that none of the highly touched locations are positive. Humans=shed in the toilets and feces are stuck all over the boots and suits and shoes and clothes of the samplers and vendors alike. Suit-stained walls doors and legs of desks (but not tops of tables), boot-kicked machines, cages, carts, scales and of course the ground itself which is the dominant sample type for positive samples. And suit-stained sample tubes where the swab is clean but the lip isn’t (causing PCR-/NGS+). In fact all animals that can be infected at all shed in their feces for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Yes. SARS-CoV-2 have enteric tropism and shed RNA in feces for both animals and humans. You know that transfer contamination is the dominant if not the only mechanism for market environmental samples when there are also samples that are +ve in both PCR and NGS, but linked neither to human cases nor to wild animals. Even the presence of materials from different origin within the samples are consistent with transfer contamination with a pathway that first go through the toilets and then go through the W6 junction, getting SARS-CoV-2 on the former and wildlife material (on only a fraction of the boots) on the latter, independently. More samples with neither cases nor wildlife DNA are found south of the W6 junction than north of it, but such samples also exist north of the W6 junction. This is consistent with the virus being brought in from the entrance/toilets, contaminating stalls where there is also a focus to stalls with human cases. When boots stepped through the W6 junction, some of the boots also have wildlife DNA stuck to them, bringing it alongside when sites north of the W6 junctions were kicked or trampled. but not all of them were and there exist also incontrovertible proof of samples with neither human cases nor wildlife DNA found also here. Good and specific PCR primers, like Jan 01/Jan12 ORF1ab+N, and you should have PCR+ before NGS+. Bad and cross-reactive PCR primers like an ORF1ab only primer, and you are going to have PCR+ anytime you see material from the same family you are trying to test on (Embecoviruses cross reacted with their ORF1ab primers—and these animal CoVs are the only real grounded CoV consistent with samples of the expected age at sequencing found here in the specified time). However, PCR-/NGS+ is something that should never happen nomatter which primer pair you use (cross-reactive or specific) when your NGS result place clustered reads right beside the primer pair.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Since C-C say you need to @stevenemassey use qPCR to properly get the viral counts, let’s see…… Q61/Q70=PCR-. (And located uncomfortably close to PCR+ samples rendering them prone to contamination on NGS.) Q37=PCR- AND orphan sample negative whole stall before and negative exact site after. And primers aligned over by NGS. All are false positive samples. All does not prove virus is there with that metric. The virus is in the human+ and animal-poor Q64/Q68/Q69. What they wanted you to believe: Aerosols are blocked by walls and can not spread from toilets and wildlife stalls. Reality: Activity of samplers and vendors alike, especially their shoes and boots and the gloves of the samplers, caused the contamination to be spread out from the toilets. What they wanted you to believe: there are additional PCR+ samples. Reality: these are a different kind of PCR than what Jan 01 and Jan 12 used. It lacked lacked the universally present N primer pair in the specific PCR primers (the Jan 01 and Jan 12 used specific ORF1ab and N primers in the same reaction to generate 1 single Ct value) which indicate it being an non-specific (surveillance primers in PREDICT target only the ORF1ab/RdRp region due to its conservation, and have degeneracy.) test that cross react with all members of the Coronaviridae family. Artifacts ensues, if not “no reads at all”. Neither PCR+/NGS- nor PCR-/NGS+ can be trusted as genuinely positive, due to the extreme proneness to contamination in the NGS pipeline and the probability of cross-reactivity in some PCR tests. archive.md/2PM9Y archive.md/RirQ7 archive.md/CTP3i archive.md/NeybM archive.md/ETjzS archive.md/BWZJL https://pdfhost.io/v/~IGA2bONb_closest_to_the_toilets https://pdfhost.io/v/dUbkceTFh_anticorrelation_is_not_an_artifact And the reason why the samples in the market follow the rule which a positive sample archive.md/CTP3i archive.md/ETjzS archive.md/BWZJL must be contacted by samplers.🥼👖👢=positive. archive.md/NeybM archive.md/2PM9Y archive.md/RirQ7 And not frequently handled by vendors.🥩🥬🍄🛁📻☎️📦🧺=negative; Is the same reason why you only get animal viruses but not SARS-CoV-2 legitimate reads past 12/01/2020. https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-885194/v1/78e0e6ce-4a76-48de-9f5c-76bab452bbe6.pdf?c=1665607885 Not found inside actual animal tissues because the animals are not infected, isolated SARS-CoV-2 virions are exceptionally sensitive toward destruction by RNAse 7 found on human skin, and they all got completely destroyed before the samples can even reach the testing lab if it contained material from a highly touched surface. Surfaces that see any hand contact at all in a hospital room just vaporized when the patient leaves, leaving only the floor behind which survive even terminal clean. Likewise, the skin surfaces of caretakers are free of RNA even when their stool become positive. Objects that always have either walking patient or HCWs touch like door handles keyboards or toilet seats have low prevalence even when the patient is inside the room, and objects which for a large fraction is touched only by gloved caregivers (bed rails) and objects that are strictly not allowed touching without a glove (ventilator buttons) when a patient is active, have the most SARS-CoV-2 RNA on them, where ventilator buttons which have 0% skin contact have much greater prevalence than bed rails which skin contact is absent in ICUs (where the positives came from) but present in normal wards. Similarly, heavily handled surfaces like old banknotes Are found to completely destroy SARS-CoV-2 RNA as little as 10 hours after deposition/material mixing to the same environment. Less handling and slightly longer life. Contrast clean surfaces like fresh PPE which the RNA remain stable for a month.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-885194/v1/78e0e6ce-4a76-48de-9f5c-76bab452bbe6.pdf?c=1665607885 in fact the nature of SARS-CoV-2 here being superfluous contamination that have an origin in human secretions and cell culture supernatants brought into the stalls by the samplers and on boots, shoes and suits is obvious here. Independent sampling indicate that only the animal viruses highly correlated with the animals were left in February. The SARS-CoV-2? Superfluous, in human metabolic products and secretions, and not in butchered tissues. They are cleaned off and degraded efficiently. The animal native viruses are inside the tissues and are highly persistent—class of contaminant type different and SARS-CoV-2 is in the class that is inconsistent with the behavior when pitched against cleaning than animal CoVs (which unlike SARS-CoV-2, the animal viruses including CoVs persisted in tissue fragments of animals generated from butchering and animals banging against cages for more than one month, whereas all the “SARS-CoV-2” after 12/01/2020 are either amplicon artifacts, PREDICT primer false positivities (no reads at all), or evidently freshly prepared cell cultures which even the fragile mitochondrial transcripts of the Homo Sapiens and intracellular viral transcripts of the SARS-CoV-2 have been preserved (they decay within a day after loss of cell viability https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC369693/) and where no non-human mammals at all were present. (Clearly a recent cell culture added into these “storehouse” samples). https://archive.md/13bdP archive.md/FskYn archive.md/gvHfw archive.md/4cCHG archive.md/csYBM archive.md/rj1pV archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/4cCHG boot on surface = NGS+/PCR+, suit on sample tube = PCR-/NGS+ as it indicate contamination occurred after PCR and before NGS especially when with alignment over the ORF1ab primer, and that the location then got a total negativity same stall before and same site afterward. Closer to the toilets, more likely of direct stall entry after market entry by the sampler, more samples become contaminated. Earlier the time of first sampling, the more virus in the contamination source at the entrance with less disturbance, and more virus is found in a sample that is taken from such a stall. And yes. One of the earliest unknown activity done by the WCDC including “taking environmental samples” and “cleaning” the market overnight in 31/12/2019. While the archive.md/iw1Pz animal samples have been disclosed in 01/2020 and all negative, the focus on early cases stalls in this run brought in the virus into the “live virus isolated” stalls that would be sampled in 01/01/2020.

Synthesis and turnover of mitochondrial ribonucleic acid in HeLa cells: the mature ribosomal and messenger ribonucleic acid species are metabolically unstable. The synthesis rates and half-lives of the individual mitochondrial ribosomal ribonucleic acid (RNA) and polyadenylic acid-containing RNA species in HeLa cells have been determined by analyzing their kinetics of labeling with [5-3H]-uridine and the changes ... ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Trickery like using unauthorized sprayers to either put virus onto the stall (guess why all positive samples are below waist height? Yes. Sprayers are all aimed down by design and droppers can only be pointed downward when being used) immediately before sampling (resulting in NGS datasets containing transcriptomes of cells and virus that were far too fresh to be as old as a month and a half since the market is closed, if they have waited 11 days between putting the virus in and taking the samples that would have been able to weasel their way through) or that you put some additional Amplicons from another experiment-in-validation (keep in mind that the ORF1ab only primer pair as used in the “ORF1ab” PCR is distinct from the “ORF1ab/N” primer pair used before, as PCR kits of single Ct values are based on pre-mixed primer/probes that can not be separated for independent use, let alone “running out for just one primer”.) prior to running PCR in a sample (you get what you put in at NGS—amplicon only and other things that can react to the degenerate ‘ORF1ab’ primers but is not SARS-CoV-2 that are generated in your source experiment, but not legitimate SARS-CoV-2 reads) simply result in artifacts that clearly show evidence of sample manipulation within the resulting “data”. As the WCDC itself was also tasked to generate proof of whatever the most popular theory on zoonosis in that time, at first they attempted to just put human SARS-CoV-2 cultures into the wildlife stalls before a species is specified, yielding samples that correlated only With Homo Sapiens in a consistent manner or with significant mutual information. Then the primary suspect becomes “snakes” in that now debunked-by-ACE2 “codon usage” paper, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmv.25682 And they were tasked to find a way to either remove or justify the human reads inevitably introduced with the virus. First they used their PREDICT primer pair (+SYBR green), which cross reacted but did not yield NGS SARS-CoV-2 reads. Then they tried putting one of their early WIP RdRp+multiple site amplification (one of the many different trials for suitable primer locations on the viral genome for distinguishing amplification prior to final probe design, already very close to their current N/E sites) experiments into the newly made “snake stall” samples, which supposedly exclude Human (some still snuck in alongside). The result are reads that are obvious artifacts that can not convince even untrained critics. Attempting to then justify the human reads if they can’t remove it, they went to the snake stall again and now took cultured virus straight from their incubators, mix it with “snake” meat samples impounded from earlier samplings (contained mixture of meats often sold as snake, but no mammals of any kind at all) thoroughly, put the result into the “storehouse” and immediately took swabs. Because of the immediacy of the action, the results are far too fresh by transcriptome to have been possibly deposited at or before 01/01/2020. (RdRp-based “ORF1ab primers” especially if there are other tests that are in development such as the “RdRp/N/E” tests are notorious for their cross-reactivity especially before the conditions are fully dialed in—the intermediate stage “ORF1ab only” primer https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-885194/v1/78e0e6ce-4a76-48de-9f5c-76bab452bbe6.pdf?c=1665607885 also happens to be the primer used in the time when the animal CoVs are being identified in the market but not SARS-CoV-2 in their amplicons. The RdRp/N/E tests later generates 3 separate Ct values, indicating each test used 3 reactions likely validated separately, even on different sets of samples—https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/AU/en/technical-documents/protocol/genomics/qpcr/sybr-green-qpcr even primer dimers would react and that the command “take one amplified experiment each and put it into the environmental samples before PCR” would lead to legitimate read-free “ghost” reactivity, especially for experiments and primers that were still in early evaluation at that time. Same for contamination out of it.)

Universal SYBR Green qPCR Protocol Our SYBR Green qPCR Protocol is a method designed to detect accurate quantification of gene expression and RT-PCR reactions sigmaaldrich.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

(Note that samplers if they just came out of a lab doing specific PCR test development, viral amplicons and other complicated and not-all-in-1 experiments that involved the amplification of SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses, these can also drive contamination of the surfaces by the amplicons without deliberacy. Same if the workers have just attended to cell cultures in the lab—February Wuhan is actually among the time when PPE supplies especially the isolation suits and gloves/boot covers are in such a short supply that many disease control and hospital workers could only use one suit for an entire day—without being able to replace it even between tasks. You can expect that alongside sampling that got focused because of the snake theory, such compromising action to pull clearly artefactual intermediate-in-lab material out and into the environmental samples especially taken at the same day. Plus PREDICT primer cross-reactivity which this particular pair was used from 0127 to 0219.)

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@stevenemassey No. There is really no SARS-CoV-2 RBD in Wuhan.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

“Perfect synergy” that no live hosts wanted to keep. Proline: destroyed in all VOCs. Did not stop or prevent further animal infections with all the ones found infected before still commonly infected (no species were sold in Huanan). QTQTNS: became QTQTKS. Did not stop animal infections either, expands tropism in stead. The only things they are good in are in VERO/HAE and CaLu-3 cells.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@stevenemassey It looks like raccoon dogs and civets are both entirely uninfected. Oops.

@RetractionWatch - Retraction Watch

“Criticism of statistical analysis on the origin of Corona.” https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/medizin-ernaehrung/wo-der-corona-ursprung-wirklich-lag-fruehere-analysen-in-kritik-geraten-19476294.html

Wo der Corona-Ursprung wirklich lag: Frühere Analysen in Kritik geraten Vor zwei Jahren schien die Frage, wo das Corona-Virus seinen Ursprung hatte, weitgehend geklärt. Statistiker kritisieren nun frühere... faz.net

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@stevenemassey In fact, the entire “market centered” Chinese “early cases” data is tampered with and fraudulent.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@stevenemassey HKU3 and ZC45 are not SARS1 or SARS2, nor were the “hubei civets” with Spike proteins nested well inside the Beijing strains of SARS1 a valid progenitor—it is a spillback infection. Nothing more.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@stevenemassey

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@stevenemassey And unfortunately, the “Hubei civets” are simply just spillbacks. And also, once again, ZC45r-CoVs=/=SC2r-CoVs.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And even worse, the expected systematic social and populational biases from a survey of residences was too ignored within the China WHO “dataset”. An “meter precise” centering toward the market is exceptionally improbable from residences because they are too unevenly distributed around the market, biased populationally too toward the Wuhan CBD, meaning that even those infected near or are gathered from nearby the market should not have created an perfect centering of their KDE in a residence-free location of within 50m radius exactly above the market itself. To have this level of centering mean tampering with the “data” further, which leads to the majority of the “bullseye” cluster are not found on residential areas and that many of the “case residences” lands on water, which residences can not exist on without being washed away. Guess again why China never allowed any of the early case line list data or raw data of any kind to anyone? (And guess why they never dared to say where the first case they ever admitted or any cases at all lived at any later)?

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Not even rumors indicated any person at all in the wildlife industry in China being sick or getting infected, not even rumors indicated direct participation with the wildlife trade (purchasing, vending, dealing, transporting, farming, butchering, cooking or eating) by any of the known official or unofficial early cases. The only ever results from these wildlife trade participants indicate perfect condition of health and no evidence of infection at all among the customers or neighbors of any of them. Not even the market cases themselves—none of them reported direct participation of the wildlife trade. And unfortunately, The only thing governing the probability for positivity of the environmental samples is “closest to the toilets” and “closest to the main entrance of the market”. In fact, the samples in the market follows the rule which a positive sample archive.md/CTP3i archive.md/ETjzS archive.md/BWZJL must be contacted by samplers.🥼👖👢=positive. archive.md/NeybM archive.md/2PM9Y archive.md/RirQ7 And not frequently handled by vendors.🥩🥬🍄🛁📻☎️📦🧺=negative. archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/4cCHG boot on surface = NGS+/PCR+, suit on sample tube = PCR-/NGS+ as it indicate contamination occurred after PCR and before NGS with alignment over the ORF1ab primer. Closer to the toilets, more likely of direct stall entry after market entry by the sampler, more samples become contaminated. Earlier the time of first sampling, the more virus in the contamination source at the entrance with less disturbance, and more virus is found in a sample that is taken from such a stall. And yes. One of the earliest unknown activity done by the WCDC including “taking environmental samples” and “cleaning” the market overnight in 31/12/2019. While the archive.md/iw1Pz animal samples have been disclosed in 01/2020 and all negative, the focus on early cases stalls in this run brought in the virus into the “live virus isolated” stalls that would be sampled in 01/01/2020. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/10/6/03-0852_article On the contrast, 5 independent cases with close contact to the avenues of wildlife trade for SARS-CoV-1 have happened in 5 cities in 4 in Guangdong and 1 in Guangxi, over the same 2-months timeframe. Two of them were market workers on two independent markets which civets were sold, three of them were direct participants of the wildlife trade: two of them were civet butchers, and one a driver for wildlife dealers. All of these cases have yielded continued transmission from them. In the contrast, 0 of the early cases for SARS-CoV-2 worked in or have a history of direct participation with the wildlife industry. archive.md/yyX0Z archive.md/iw1Pz archive.md/4rVph archive.md/DChUL Exactly 0 raccoon dogs or any of the so-called “susceptible species” were found infected anywhere in the world, not even by a relative of SARS-CoV-2.

Epidemiologic Clues to SARS Origin in China SARS Origin in China wwwnc.cdc.gov

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Again, asking: why they have to ban the Wuhan P4 lab from mentioning in 31/12/2019, before any theories can even be made? (Also notice that the first market case neither worked with the wildlife trade, nor did she even play mahjong like the later cases did when the linked cases were first gathered by a citywide command for them over 30-31/12/2019. Once again indicating that the market outbreak was likely first brought in from the outside, then superspread at the toilets and mahjong rooms later.)

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Why Daszak’s name ended up in the GenBank file of a—Laotian CoV, which they claim to have never sampled especially alongside Shi as well? “ID’ing 50+ novel strains”. There is Inconsistency piled upon inconsistency in Chinese publications as well as “data”. And he just held onto his secrets for 9.5 hours and also, notably, failed to produce a counterargument, after 9 and half hours. The ODNI broke the law and their “report” is full of elementary mistakes. More hidden experiments.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Also, the only bat cave that was banned from public access—were Mojiang and Shitou. It happens only at and serves only to obscure the actual inventory under their control in the sampling and testing sites of the WIV. And they Did not “Stop all bat sampling”. There is clearly evidence that they are perfectly capable of hiding their work, none of the claimed official audits to the lab was ever published or even disseminated among the authorities in China, And the reason why they used GISAID here, is that https://archive.md/0aHWr https://archive.md/Myt4u there is no proper versioning or custody of “data” on GISAID. https://archive.md/52DyQ https://archive.md/B0xlW @DiLiMengYAN1 And no trails that can be FOIA’ed and bust their “data” like on NCBI. And no possibility that inconvenient lab-incriminating data can be leaked or FOIA’ed like csabai et al. Still no official response from the CCP.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

“They would close the lab and raze it to the ground”: That is admission of guilt, not cover-up. What they actually did: forged the environmental samples by spraying the wildlife stalls with the virus in Jan 02. Erased the superspreading site of the toilets in Feb 13. Refused to swab anywhere in Wuhan outside the market or its immediate vicinities, not even other corners of the market. Shoved all the cases with original residence in Wuchang into the market. No government-funded lab have been shut down after a leak, even when outbreak and outrage ensued. The interest in keeping the labs active and operational is that of national security, keeping the biodefense industry stable and up-to-date. They are never shut down, only repaired usually with as little disruption or outside visibility as possible. (WIV had an 2 year batCoV research publication hiatus, despite attempt to keep mitigation efforts secret). No civilian interests can interrupt the operation of these labs. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Farmers+demand+a+Pirbright+shutdown%3b+%27A+private+company+would+have...-a0168453941 Not shutting down after leak is also one of the decisions that well, even democracies, does. and Yes. Pirbright is back at FMDV again after the leak. “Does this look like what a lab would do after leak causing hundreds of millions of pounds of damage”? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_United_Kingdom_foot-and-mouth_outbreak Fact: Pirbright was not shut down after FMDV leak infecting 4 farms nearby. They repaired their drain pipes and continued operation, not even interfering academic publication patterns. Ironically, cow farms were shut down and beef trade was closed during the outbreak. This resulted in an epidemic lasting 5 months in cows that lead to at least two major cullings and severe disruption to the livestock trade from the U.K. That is, the reaction look like what they claim a zoonosis would look like, not what they declare what the WIV would do when such a shut-down would certainly directly admit guilt and spell doom to both the institute and its operators. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/science/beijing-lab-mishap-infected-scientist-with-covid19/news-story/9b0cb0ed84df21d25da11b698be3611a Fact 2: there is no shut-down reported at all in the IVDC either after the 2004 leak of SARS or the 2020 leak of Covid. Not even a burp of interruption. Fact 3: the WIV went on hiatus to the bat CoV isolation tests over 2020-2023. When the sverdlovsk anthrax leak happened, they blamed the animal farms and markets nearby and did not officially shut down the facility. The construction of another anthrax facility nearby was considered potential indication of a shut-down, which is on par with the WIV hiatus. After a timescale similar to the WIV hiatus, the new facility was opened for inspection which no anthrax was found, meaning that they fixed sverdlovsk and went on, just like the WIV (chen WEI……). In facts, there have not been a single record of an lab leak or LAI in a research facility that resulted in the (especially permanent, as what they claimed would happen) shut down of the facility (despite hundreds of known incidents in record), even when significant epidemic have occurred from the event. (Ebola21, FMDV07, H1N177, Anthrax82 which no official shutdown was known).

Farmers demand a Pirbright shutdown; 'A private company would have closed'. - Free Online Library Free Online Library: Farmers demand a Pirbright shutdown; 'A private company would have closed'.(News) by "The Journal (Newcastle, England)"; Business Business, international News, opinion and commentary Agricultural industry thefreelibrary.com

2007 united kingdom foot-and-mouth outbreak - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

there is a long history of the WIV lying to the point of base rate neglect when being asked anything about potential LAI. The “dinner of staff” too, where they neglected the base rate which is Wuhan medical institutions are already in panic and the general public is already taking precaution, as h2h is announced in 15-16/01/2020 to the point that even the invited international collaborator have hinted Shi to wash hands, that she unexpectedly did not given her expertise and knowledge on the public info about SARS-CoV-2 in general Wuhan public in this time. She pretended to not know the need to take precautions when she was expected to do so, just like when she sabotaged the test to make 67 general 2021 Wuhan public serological samples test all negative when there should be positives given the seroprevalence in Wuhan at that time. researchgate.net/publication/35… It is just as impossible To have 67 community members to test all negative in Wuhan in 01/2021 as to have 593 people to test all negative with any sensitive test available in April-June 2023. gab.com/Flavinkins/pos… And this same behavior of issuing a test that will not turn positive on a human also happened to the mojiang miners. Where their own early serological test results were contradicted. archive.md/Pc6gp archive.md/zUD1F And ben HU lied about working with live virus which are so easy to debunk just by a simple google search. His own grant notice required live virus work in 2019.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Importantly, none of the species in that “stall” were truly susceptible and 0 individuals of any of the species have been observed with an infection with a relative of SARS-CoV-2 in the wild. “Susceptible species” is nothing but a myth and this reflect well by the fact that None of the “susceptible species” were actually in positive correlation at all with the SARS-CoV-2 reads once you enter that “stall”—it is confounded by the toilets and all it had in it is sampler contamination, just like the outside of stall W4-26-28. archive.md/gvHfw archive.md/csYBM archive.md/vlAgp archive.md/DChUL archive.md/4rVph archive.md/yyX0Z Despite surveillance in Europe and Japan, there were zero evidence of natural infections in a raccoon dog anywhere in the world. archive.md/iw1Pz All upstream suppliers are traced and were negative. In fact, none of the “susceptible species” have evidence of even a single individual being infected by SARS-CoV-2 or its relatives anywhere in the world. archive.md/VNr75 archive.md/rj1pV All 3 lineage A samples have direct link to the WCDC. The stall of A20 have owners that Wore slippers and handle fish with bare hands. They don’t wear gloves and shoe covers can’t be worn over slippers. This sample is contamination caused by the WCDC itself and there is no case from the market that is lineage A. This same infected sampler, that the WCDC would even admit, would then go on sampling the wildlife stalls in Jan 12 and rub his contaminants all over the surfaces on the closest stall to the toilets and sample tubes. This then drive confirmation bias on snakes which lead to more sampling and more contamination, all contained nothing but artifacts and never on the original site of the contaminated sample tube again, eventually leading to samples with only human DNA and no other mammals at all inside. Zero attempts have been made to gather evidence at the WIV. https://pdfhost.io/v/kZ1ilPCFa_The_real_problem_is_that_there_was_literally_zero_attempts_at_gathering_any_evidence_at_the_WIV Or anywhere else. https://pdfhost.io/v/dUbkceTFh_anticorrelation_is_not_an_artifact And the anticorrelation with raccoon dogs aren’t “an artifact”. The “all samples” correlations are artifacts of pathological spatial distribution from confounding factors that extracted the species found in the least number of overall stalls that happened to include the stall closest to the toilets and entrance into the market during the sampling run. https://pdfhost.io/v/~IGA2bONb_closest_to_the_toilets This mean that all correlations other than humans failed when the analysis is to be done in a way which the pathological spatial distribution is mitigated in any way. archive.md/MtkL3 All species other than humans at most landed on entirely different sections of the ground and set of items than the SARS-CoV-2 reads, and only humans are found on the same sections of ground and set of items in the form of sampler-linked contaminants. This is evident when the correlation is performed with only samples where SARS-CoV-2 is found, which effectively queries “which species shed the SARS-CoV-2 sequences in samples where it was found” as opposed to “which set of species most uniquely represents the spatial features of the single stall closest to the toilets”. Hedgehogs have proven non-susceptible ACE2. Oh. On the entire “early cases map”: @CharlesRixey The entirety of that “map” was created using concocted and fake “data” spoon-fed by China that wasn’t available to the public even this date. archive.md/5sdkR archive.md/1pcCU archive.md/N0hib archive.is/Kyr1z archive.md/VXtu9

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@AntGDuarte And here is a hint: despite being found all over the stalls and were also the objects most handled by the human cases, even in stalls with human cases and where there were no wildlife DNA in the positive samples from the stall, no boxes or baskets in the market have tested positive. The same for cashiers, keyboards, monitors, water cups or any objects that are frequently handled by direct touch by a vendor on the surface where the swab will be taken from. They can never test positive because of the insanely high content of RNAse 7 and other defensive nucleases on human skin destroys SARS-CoV-2 virion RNA within the period which the samples are stored inside liquid medium before being tested (which is particularly effective when the RNA is found in loose virions or human metabolic secrations and not shielded inside solid animal tissues), and vaporizes archive.md/RirQ7 archive.md/CTP3i archive.md/NeybM archive.md/2PM9Y any virion-free RNA the instant it enters medium contaminated by it. The WCDC and the Hubei CDC stores all of the human samples and backups of research cultures of pathogenic microbes in Wuhan, as this is their legally delegated duty (the “各级疾控部门” are termed “保藏机构” for “病原性微生物” under Chinese law governing the use of cultures and samples of human and animal pathogenic microbial samples, and samples that were suspected to have the possibility of containing such microorganisms. These are also the only locations which first round samples arriving in Wuhan are allowed to go for pre-screening prior to entry into the other labs in Wuhan, “检测机构”. ) and that labs in China are not allowed to store such cultures except several select state key laboratories. Since 2014, the only EID surveillance target in Wuhan is the HSM which all other sites are kept blind so that they can blame Huanan in case the research labs suffer an accident. Almost the soon as experimentation begun in the WCDC at the first detection of an infection from that program (Chen/WIV), the prior culture samples that was identified to match (via preliminary testing, including RdRp and antigens which are targeted by the Military test kits used in Wuhan) ended up causing an employee infection. Creating all 3 lineage A cases afterward. The employee infection would end up being detected because the CDC have to use a kit that work on real patients unlike the WIV, and got whistleblown into the WHO report under the pretext of an again never-specified “family cluster transmission”. So bad that you can’t actually compare Serological tests that were conducted between distinct times and groups of people for the test itself because doing so violated the statistical homogeny criterion for test efficacy evaluation—the same as comparing 🍎 with 🍊.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Reality 1: many different supply chain exist from Yunnan to Guangdong and Hubei is just infected in SARS1 by human cases. Reality 2: The actual count for animals farmed in China vs sold in Wuhan likewise indicate that Wuhan sell only a negligible fraction of all animal sales in China Especially when compared to Guangdong.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/world/asia/china-world-health-organization-coronavirus.html They systematically moved more than 3000 cases from the lab to the market and gave “cases data” that they wanted to push for market as first outbreak site to distance from the labs. https://archive.md/rYvu3 https://archive.md/UFrSv https://archive.md/nevZy https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370635299_Greater_than_the_Sum_of_its_Parts_-_Aggregated_Wuhan_COVID-19_case_data_points_to_the_wrong_side_of_the_Yangtze_River_-_Rixey_-_20230509 Such an result of having unlinked cases closer to the market than linked cases is not expected even under the null hypothesis of market origin, which we should see unlinked cases secondary to and cluster around the linked cases, and not the market itself. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370635299_Greater_than_the_Sum_of_its_Parts_-_Aggregated_Wuhan_COVID-19_case_data_points_to_the_wrong_side_of_the_Yangtze_River_-_Rixey_-_20230509 Not only there were an complete absence of verifiability in Chinese cases, there is direct non-circumstantial evidence that they moved up to 3000 cases from Wuchang to Huanan. In fact, it is totally not normal to have unlinked cases closer to the market than linked cases—the only way this can happen is with ascertainment bias. Only near the market gets ascertained if not directly linked to it. Base rate neglect. They did the exact same thing when claiming that all 67 “pre-Huanan checkable cases” were “serologically negative”. Again, the social media associated here say “before Jan 18, 2020”. Included all Dec cases. https://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/9/6/402 Before they begun enforcing their claim of “100/174 centered around the market” and starting to tamper with data to make the claim, https://ghrp.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41256-021-00200-8 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7149375/ 135/92 and 115/82 cases already got into in early peer-reviewed papers that went missing in the WHO report. Past media reports archive.md/Ea0Kw archive.md/1x658 also contradict WHO in key early cases’ residences, including the earliest case they admit in the WHO report. archive.md/5sdkR archive.md/1pcCU archive.md/N0hib archive.md/VXtu9 archive.is/Kyr1z https://archive.org/details/mace-e-pai-covid-19-analysis-redacted/page/8/mode/1up And you know that they hate this information when it was censored. The MACE-EPAI document here is not searchable on google. Up to one third of all cases were either removed completely or moved toward the market in the “dataset”. archive.md/zUD1F archive.md/Pc6gp https://archive.is/p3K3Z Including the very first case they ever admitted officially. And outright removed 4 times more cases than official. Unlinked cases supposedly secondary to linked cases should cluster around them, not the market itself. archive.md/GvRcD archive.md/ZgVzp Wuhan authorities after that archive.md/OIGPz 2014 incident now targeted only the Huanan market when looking for EID outbreaks—and nowhere else. archive.md/1x658 They tampered with the early cases data archive.md/Ea0Kw To make it look like it “started at the market” when in reality the first case they ever admitted lived right next to the WIV BSL-4. archive.md/5sdkR severe discrepancy happening December 2019 and January 2020 indicate tampering with case counts. archive.md/1pcCU This is indicative of catastrophic ascertainment bias was going on. None of China’s “early cases” dataset is credible. https://archive.md/ET1GA https://archive.md/Ea0Kw https://archive.md/1x658 The tampering of early case residence data is systematic and extensive. It is the reason why they refused to provide this data in any detail at all.

On W.H.O. Trip, China Refused to Hand Over Important Data (Published 2021) The information could be key to determining how and when the outbreak started, and to learning how to prevent future pandemics. nytimes.com

ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable researchgate.net

ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable researchgate.net

Exploring Urban Spatial Features of COVID-19 Transmission in Wuhan Based on Social Media Data During the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, there was a short run of medical resources, and Sina Weibo, a social media platform in China, built a channel for novel coronavirus pneumonia patients to seek help. Based on the geo-tagging Sina Weibo data from February 3rd to 12th, 2020, this paper analyzes the spatiotemporal distribution of COVID-19 cases in the main urban area of Wuhan and explores the urban spatial features of COVID-19 transmission in Wuhan. The results show that the elderly population accounts for more than half of the total number of Weibo help seekers, and a close correlation between them has also been found in terms of spatial distribution features, which confirms that the elderly population is the group of high-risk and high-prevalence in the COVID-19 outbreak, needing more attention of public health and epidemic prevention policies. On the other hand, the early transmission of COVID-19 in Wuhan could be divide into three phrases: Scattered infection, community spread, and full-scale outbreak. This paper can help to understand the spatial transmission of COVID-19 in Wuhan, so as to propose an effective public health preventive strategy for urban space optimization. mdpi.com

The comparison of epidemiological characteristics between confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases with COVID-19 during the early epidemic in Wuhan, China - Global Health Research and Policy To put COVID-19 patients into hospital timely, the clinical diagnosis had been implemented in Wuhan in the early epidemic. Here we compared the epidemiological characteristics of laboratory-confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases with COVID-19 in Wuhan. Demographics, case severity and outcomes of 29,886 confirmed cases and 21,960 clinically diagnosed cases reported between December 2019 and February 24, 2020, were compared. The risk factors were estimated, and the effective reproduction number (Rt) of SARS-CoV-2 was also calculated. The age and occupation distribution of confirmed cases and clinically diagnosed cases were consistent, and their sex ratio were 1.0 and 0.9, respectively. The epidemic curve of clinical diagnosis cases was similar to that of confirmed cases, and the city centers had more cumulative cases and higher incidence density than suburbs in both of two groups. The proportion of severe and critical cases (21.5 % vs. 14.0 %, P < 0.0001) and case fatality rates (5.2 % vs. 1.2 %, P < 0.0001) of confirmed cases were all higher than those of clinically diagnosed cases. Risk factors for death we observed in both of two groups were older age, male, severe or critical cases. Rt showed the same trend in two groups, it dropped below 1.0 on February 6 among confirmed cases, and February 8 among clinically diagnosed cases. The demographic characteristics and spatiotemporal distributions of confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases are roughly similar, but the disease severity and clinical outcome of clinically diagnosed cases are better than those of confirmed cases. In cases when detection kits are insufficient during the early epidemic, the implementation of clinical diagnosis is necessary and effective. ghrp.biomedcentral.com

Association of Public Health Interventions With the Epidemiology of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Wuhan, China Was there an association of public health interventions with improved control of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China?In this cohort study that included 32 583 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in Wuhan from December 8, 2019, through ... ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

MACE E PAI COVID 19 ANALYSIS Redacted : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive MACE E-PAI COVID-19 ANALYSIS archive.org

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Not only did The first every case they admitted live in Shidong right next to the BSL-4, and were moved toward the market in the WHO report in contradiction to all known media coverage, https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109256201942085712 the entirety of Wuchang district was wiped clean for every single WHO case that have onset before 27/12/2019–with up to 3000 cases moved to the market this way over the entire Wuhan outbreak. https://archive.md/1x658 and for central Wuchang near the labs and the densest inhabited regions inside the district, all cases were moved away in the WHO map. Unfortunately Rasmussen's work on the origins question rests heavily on what David Relman described as "hopelessly impoverished" early case data. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/02/27/little-known-scientific-team-behind-new-assessment-covid-19-origins/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/17/covid-early-cases-wuhan-china-mystery/ https://archive.md/ke1lp https://archive.md/RaYPC David Fisman: I think the most interesting thing this fellow says is that there are clearly tens of thousands of cases...That implies a much earlier introduction than would have occurred with a seafood market outbreak..." Also, Chen is not the only person infected in Shidong/Jiangxia and central Wuchang. Most were censored and only one of the two ambulances arriving in 31/12/2019 have been registered as a dot—likely because the origin wasn’t inside the Shidong prefecture/BSL-4 surroundings, and likely only because of being a close contact relative of Chen (contacting an known case). https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109256201942085712 All dots they moved this way (up to 1/3 of all cases) was sent to Jianghan, https://archive.md/p3K3Z https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370635299_Greater_than_the_Sum_of_its_Parts_-_Aggregated_Wuhan_COVID-19_case_data_points_to_the_wrong_side_of_the_Yangtze_River_-_Rixey_-_20230509 especially to the immediate surroundings of the market, to scapegoat it and end up causing the “unlinked cases” cluster to be closer to the market than the “linked cases” cluster, despite supposedly the linked cases should be the only source of initial human to human transmission seeding and therefore the unlinked cases should cluster near the linked cases and not the market itself. This kind of improbable-under-null-hypothesis behavior is all over Chinese “data”. archive.md/VNr75 archive.md/rj1pV They attempted to spray their culture into the wildlife stalls, which ended up Making Homo Sapiens the only species that is found in every sample with a viral read in the market (note the absence of lineage reads in the wildlife stalls), and archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/4cCHG archive.md/13bdP all of the subsequent efforts at creating positive samples where the CCP specified them to do (“Blame snakes!” Is the official voice in 02/2020) just brought in artifacts first, and then when all of the mammals have degraded away, pure cultures of SARS-CoV-2 intracellular transcriptomes in human cellular transcriptomes. In addition to the heavy censorship of case ascertainment effectively mean you have to either live near the market or have a direct or indirect link to be diagnosed at all, moving all Wuchang case residence dots and sending them to Jianghan archive.md/1x658 archive.md/Ea0Kw also caused the “unlinked” dots to cluster closer the the market than the “linked” dots—something that can not happen without data manipulation on a massive scale. https://archive.md/ET1GA Unlinked cases are supposed to be seeded only by the linked cases if they didn’t visit Huanan under the market origin assumption. They are supposed to cluster near the linked cases and NOT the market itself. The CCP failed in this elementary logical analysis and resulted in a “dataset” that is too perfect to be possibly real. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108830214433800007

Opinion | Wuhan’s early covid cases are a mystery. What is China hiding? The story of how the pandemic got started — and turned into a global catastrophe — remains a black box. It should not be. washingtonpost.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/1088805315972559…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108880531597255968 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109147956977669077 Also, remember accountant Chen? (Why his dot was moved to the WCH if he lives in Wuchang/Jiangxia?) it turned out that it was not only his dot that was not in the right place. Every dot within the 2km radius of the Wuchang railway station was moved or removed. This is within the area that is expected to have the infectious disease and respiratory cases ultimately serviced by the “中部战区总医院”. The hospital that sees large-scale respiratory case anomalies the first in Wuhan on official records, where the decision to “enter battle stations” on 01/01/2020 was made because of an “unexpected and fast-growing anomaly in the respiratory disease surveillance data” beginning at least as late as 31/12/2019. There were dots that were east of this area, and there were dots that were south of this area, in locations with lower population density compared to downtown Wuchang and further from the market. (2 ambulances from Jiangxia on 31/12/2019, but only 1 dot on the WHO map and he wasn’t accountant chen…… (likely ascertained by contacting a HSM case on public transport, “试行诊疗方案”) (accountant Chen got to the WCH in 27/12/2019)) Considering how cases that were admitted to the “中部战区总医院” weren’t directly reported except for WH01 in 14/01/2020, (Only 1 out of the 4 known sequenced cases here were directly reported. WH03 is reported after transfer to the Zhongnan hospital, one of the 2 initial market cases reported in the location. WH02 and WH04 were not in the NNDRS dataset and displayed as “unknown” in the WHO report) and how they then report seeing more fever cases in a single day than the entire CDC pre-04/01/2020 onset dataset (the point when they have to expand their fever clinics), it is quite likely that cases that initially broke out in Wuchang were muted by admission into a hospital that is placed under a command that doesn’t have to report on the NNDRS, and that any cases found in Downtown Wuchang had their “residential addresses” altered to place them as close to the Huanan market as possible and out of the Wuchang area. This would not be the first time when cases that came from an “inconvenient” location were hidden inside PLA-operated hospitals to prevent them from being counted. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109701931477090563 Why the WMHC rejected the WHO’s demand for line listings of the 174 “NNDRS cases” in annex E2? Also, one dot in Jiangxia is one of the two https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109048819612838694 ambulances that were seen in 31/12/2019 from Jiangxia. Only one become a dot (central Jiangxia as opposed to the Shidong prefecture). It is possible that this is Chen’s relative that “visited a local market”, meaning that this is a case that is ascertained by contact with an early case, and saved from removal because of post-27/12/2019 onset. No dot at all is inside the borders of the WuChang district, even when dots begin showing up east of it in less populated places further from the market. This is clearly artefactual, indicating attempt at breaking up the cluster in Wuchang.' gab.com

ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable researchgate.net

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/dmOXT https://gab.com/Flavinki…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/dmOXT https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108747087048451126 (You can find exactly 32 yellow spots “unlinked cases” in the 25% KDE contour of the WHO unlinked data……) https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108731797608502118 (note: may contain cases admitted to the Houhu ward of the Wuhan central hospital even if them having a later date of hospitalization)' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@AntGDuarte

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@AntGDuarte

@Florin_Uncovers - Florin

So the fraudulent coder in Pekar et al. '22 @niemasd ran Samson et al. '24 data and CONFIRMED their Aug-early Oct '19 tMRCA result!😅 Then he did what @michaelworobey & @jepekar did: discarded inconvenient data not realizing you also need animal sequences to model a bottleneck!🤡

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@AntGDuarte

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

CAS “pathogen host adaptation and immune intervention” is one of such major grants that they continued DEFUSE on.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Once again, 1: RaTG13 is not viable. https://zenodo.org/record/5702700#.ZJ2KiyV6slT https://zenodo.org/record/5778318#.ZJ5hyCV6slT 2: the real issue is that 1. WIV lies about everything serological. None of their “tests” were positive when politics require it to be negative. And 2. The missing sequences of Latinne et al is where you find what the WIV was working on. 7 SARSr and 54 total CoVs were missing entirely.

Anomalies in BatCoV/RaTG13 sequencing and provenance To this date, the most critical piece of evidence on the purposed “natural origin” theory of SARS-CoV-2, was the sequence known as RaTG13, allegedly collected from a single fecal sample from Rhinolophus Affinis. Understanding the provenance of RaTG13 is critical on the ongoing debate of the Origins of SARS-CoV-2. However, this sample is allegedly “used up” and therefore can no longer be accessed nor sequenced independently [1], and the only available data was the 3 related Genbank accessions: MN996532.1, SRX7724752 and SRX8357956. We report these datasets possessed multiple significant anomalies, and the provenence of the promised claims of RaTG13 or it’s role in proving a “probable bat origin”[2] of SARS-CoV-2 can not be satisfied nor possibly be confirmed. zenodo.org

The seminal paper from the Wuhan Institute of Virology claiming SARS-CoV-2 probably originated in bats appears to contain a contrived specimen, an incomplete and inaccurate genomic assembly, and the signature of laboratory-derived synthetic biology The bat coronavirus RaTG13 was purportedly identified in a bat “fecal” specimen that is probably not feces, has significant unresolved method-dependent genome sequence errors and an incomplete assembly with significant gaps, and has an anomalous base substitution pattern that has never been seen in nature but is routinely used in codon-optimized synthetic genome constructions performed in the laboratory. zenodo.org

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://archive.md/OIGPz The “Shunde problem” or “why it managed to infect Wuhan and only Wuhan”—is a problem which all market zoonosis or wildlife farm theories require extremely improbable and hard explanation to answer. Unfortunately the actual sales of wild animals in 2019 contained metadata-supported images or videos only in Guangdong and Guangxi, and not Wuhan. All observations of virologists working at the market without a published sample taken at that date should automatically be considered extremely suspicious. The most likely reason is that They were dropping in samples in stead of taking them, leading to the observation that only human have a consistent positive correlation or any significant mutual information with SARS-CoV-2 there. The reason why China intentionally hid nearly half of their flow cells is because they could use the reads inside to tamper with the “wildlife stall data” to meet the demand of the zoonati when given in 11/03/2023. They used it to scramble the host counts in all their “negative samples” when the correlational edge with Homo Sapiens were found to persist despite they removing the 300nt+ non-viral contigs and leading to an inverse correlation between the residual mitochondrial singletons * SARS-CoV-2 and the leftover contigs of other mammals as they were shredded by the common 43nt nuclear reads inside all mammalian genomes. Even before that, to prevent the obvious and embarrassing conclusion of “the SARS-CoV-2 is most likely smeared out of the toilets by the samplers” when both Jan 01 and Jan 12 have the stall with most positive samples turned out to be the one that is closest to the toilets and where the samplers entered and existed and a national plan was made to sample the toilets and public activity rooms in response, Wuhan ordered the bleaching and destruction of the toilet area before a sample can be taken from it. In fact, the civilian side of the national disease control apparatus was not even allowed to see the Q* samples in person or sequence them independently—They were not even allowed to verify any of the “qPCR results” and not even an Ct value would be “reported from the lab” which sent in the “sequencing results for Q* samples” directly. Eventually Xi ordered all Covid-relevant Departments to follow the same operational instructions over the end of February to the beginning of March 2020, the point of which an agreement was finally struck that they would work together to fabricate a “dataset” for animal origins, first as the primary (rewards were handed out to “find the animal origins of SARS-CoV-2” as late as 05/2020, alongside numerous NCBI data replacements and changes that happened over 02-04/2020 on all of the bat and pangolin datasets for “animal origins” leaving behind corresponding artifacts) and then as the fallback plan after 05-06/2020.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Deliberate “Spicing up” of samples by Wuhan. Note how not even informal sources out of China have published what samples were taken in 02/01/2020, or even acknowledged the performing of sampling work in 02/01/2020 (which the existence of intensive virology-related work at the market, particularly focusing “around W7” e.g. from w6 to w8, was known only by eyewitness account by outsiders but not any official or informal acknowledgment by the operators). (Unlike 31/12/2019 which the performing of sampling work was acknowledged by the WHO report and Jiangwei, which archive.md/yyX0Z archive.md/iw1Pz archive.md/4rVph archive.md/DChUL the explicit collection of animal samples at that point ended up as negative test results that were disclosed in private channels in January 2020.) And all those trampling by contaminated boots and rubbing by contaminated suits(potentially even contaminated gloves, which unlike bare vendor hands start sterile and RNAse-free, and touches mainly surfaces just above step height as aseptic techniques becomes progressively more difficult to uphold when virology operations are performed while bowing down) are going to cause extra contamination, out of the toilets and in from then outside, particularly on all places especially those that are heavily trampled, inside this area, that were not then cleaned prior to sampling later. Reason why the only consistent positive correlation or significant mutual information between SARS-CoV-2 and species is Homo Sapiens, Despite read filtering and data obfuscation especially at that time. (No independent validation, missing method details, sometimes not even Ct values were allowed to Gao et al, only what Wuhan claimed they did and produced exclusively in-silico)

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://archive.md/VXtu9 The actual R0 and serial interval is much, much lower and longer, contaminated by change of ascertainment criterion. Different strains spread differently. Coronaviruses superspread instantaneously and not spread continuously as HIV which FAVITES bases on. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108860074766577121 There is an inverse polytomy size to time in SARS-CoV-2. VOCs are bigger than B.1. B.1 is bigger than B. B bigger than A is expected. Unfortunately, B is in fact more transmissible and mutate faster than A…… (reason why A went extinct, and also skewed the tMRCA analysis) There is nonlinearity and an infected brain to boost. The entire assumption for pekar et al is wrong.

Flavinkins on Gab: '“ All I’m saying is that, for the sizes of the A …' Flavinkins on Gab: '“ All I’m saying is that, for the sizes of the A and B polytomies to be highly informative, I’d think one would need to make strong assumptions that suppress potential fluctuations in R0. So I don’t view this argument being very strong. I’m flying on intuition here, though.”@jbkinney “It would, and similar topologies exist (fig. below from Rambaut et al. 2020). But this is likely a moot point, as many other problematic assumptions affect the epidemic simulations and phylogenetic structures proposed by Pekar et al.”@AntGDuarte And the earliest transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is characterized by outbreak after outbreak—the majority of sampled cases came from superspreader events. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9128337/ The R0 of SARS-CoV-2 especially early on is extremely inhomogeneous—the location where an infected person becomes infectious, and the number of social contacts that happened within the infectious period, directly determines the R0. For home clusters the R0 is usually <3, where the endpoint of the transmission stops within the household (household interactions does not expand past the family itself in most households), whereas for superspreading events in crowded places the R0 could be anywhere from 40 to 100, even higher in some extreme cases like concerts, banquets or public transports. More recent examples: 2 superspreading events of Omicron BA.1 and BA.2. Cluster cases were once again substantially divergent from the rest of the world. The same topology is also observed in other, earlier superspreading clusters of Omicron BA.2.' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Not even rumors indicated any person at all in the wildlife industry in China being sick or getting infected, not even rumors indicated direct participation with the wildlife trade (purchasing, vending, dealing, transporting, farming, butchering, cooking or eating) by any of the known official or unofficial early cases. The only ever results from these wildlife trade participants indicate perfect condition of health and no evidence of infection at all among the customers or neighbors of any of them. Not even the market cases themselves—none of them reported direct participation of the wildlife trade. And unfortunately, The only thing governing the probability for positivity of the environmental samples is “closest to the toilets” and “closest to the main entrance of the market”. In fact, the samples in the market follows the rule which a positive sample archive.md/CTP3i archive.md/ETjzS archive.md/BWZJL must be contacted by samplers.🥼👖👢=positive. archive.md/NeybM archive.md/2PM9Y archive.md/RirQ7 And not frequently handled by vendors.🥩🥬🍄🛁📻☎️📦🧺=negative. archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/4cCHG boot on surface = NGS+/PCR+, suit on sample tube = PCR-/NGS+ as it indicate contamination occurred after PCR and before NGS with alignment over the ORF1ab primer. Closer to the toilets, more likely of direct stall entry after market entry by the sampler, more samples become contaminated. Earlier the time of first sampling, the more virus in the contamination source at the entrance with less disturbance, and more virus is found in a sample that is taken from such a stall. And yes. One of the earliest unknown activity done by the WCDC including “taking environmental samples” and “cleaning” the market overnight in 31/12/2019. While the archive.md/iw1Pz animal samples have been disclosed in 01/2020 and all negative, the focus on early cases stalls in this run brought in the virus into the “live virus isolated” stalls that would be sampled in 01/01/2020. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/10/6/03-0852_article On the contrast, 5 independent cases with close contact to the avenues of wildlife trade for SARS-CoV-1 have happened in 4 cities in Guangdong and 1 town in Guangxi (+1 city which contact is unknown), over the same 2-months timeframe. Two of them were market workers on two independent markets which civets were sold, three of them were direct participants of the wildlife trade: two of them were civet butchers, and one a driver for wildlife dealers. All of these cases have yielded continued transmission from them. In the contrast, 0 of the early cases for SARS-CoV-2 worked in or have a history of direct participation with the wildlife industry. archive.md/yyX0Z archive.md/iw1Pz archive.md/4rVph archive.md/DChUL Exactly 0 raccoon dogs or any of the so-called “susceptible species” were found infected anywhere in the world, not even by a relative of SARS-CoV-2. archive.md/GKdtc https://archive.md/e3615 https://archive.md/vWjZl https://archive.md/nyR0q China did not put any real ban or even influence on the wildlife trade at all especially Guangdong, before the beginning of 02/2020. The first market case is in 11/12/2019. In the ~2 month time window, all 5 of the “directly wildlife linked” index SARS1 patients have already been infected. And more than half of the 11 known index SARS1 patients, over 5 of the 9 index locations. Official denial of wildlife trade did not at all influenced the real trade that was happening, which in Guangdong also proceeded all the way to the Chinese new year of 2020, which is well into February. There is no evidence at all that there is a sufficiently timely ban of wildlife trade in China to stop all and every secondary spillovers especially Guangdong.

Epidemiologic Clues to SARS Origin in China SARS Origin in China wwwnc.cdc.gov

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@COVIDSelect All the so-called “synergy” of the Proline, the FCS, or even the N370 glycan removal, work only in VERO cells. Destruction happen when live host is used,

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

archive.md/DChUL archive.md/yyX0Z archive.md/4rVph archive.md/iw1Pz https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35298912/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35298912/ In fact, the raccoon dogs are locally wild-caught within Wuhan, that human Herpesvirus is identified indicating human contamination have occurred alongside the clearly unique human mitochondrial reads identified, and that there are zero mutual information in term of read abundances between SARS-CoV-2 and the animals. Only the human mitochondrial reads. Worse—all of the animal species correlated perfectly with their expected viruses, and the only species which SARS-CoV-2 is the perfectly correlated expected virus is “Toilets and Homo Sapiens”. In fact, The only thing governing the probability for positivity of the environmental samples, the so-called “spatial correlation”, is “closest to the toilets” and “closest to the main entrance of the market”. Spoilers: the actual stalls that sold animals from Yunnan are entirely uninfected. It is entirely expected with zero evidence of even a single SARS-CoV-2 case linked to any of the intermediate distribution sites and secondary destinations even in Hubei or wuhan of any of the animals that were supplied to the Huanan market, especially given that the each stall have at least 3 distinct live animal suppliers for “susceptible animals” and there are 17 stalls in Wuhan, and the total number of animals sold per week is only ~58 in total. 4 animals at most per shelf life per supplier is not going to eat up the single harvest output of any farm. It will spill into other cities. None observed.

Virome characterization of game animals in China reveals a spectrum of emerging pathogens - PubMed Game animals are wildlife species traded and consumed as food and are potential reservoirs for SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. We performed a meta-transcriptomic analysis of 1,941 game animals, representing 18 species and five mammalian orders, sampled across China. From this, we identified 102 mammalian-i … pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Issue: the drains don’t actually have SARS-CoV-2 reads inside. Only persistent, cross-reactive animal CoVs and potential trample marks. Putting bleach onto the toilets also doesn’t help at all.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Unlike animals including livestock, humans are neither sold nor butchered at the market. Their CoVs degraded catastrophically after 01/01/2020 and completely after 12/01/2020 leaving only artifacts behind. archive.md/13bdP archive.md/FskYn archive.md/gvHfw archive.md/4cCHG Animals that are sold and butchered at the market have their CoVs remain stable and are the only CoVs left detectable in February 2020. (note there is a continuous deposition of ratCoVs due to the rats that ran through the market nearly daily after closure (they begun to show only after 12/01/2020 when rats begun to severely infest the market). There is no possible deposition of SARS-CoV-2 or other animal CoVs by nonsampler sources after the closure of the market.(The animal CoVs that are not RatCoVs were found with consistent counts over Jan01, Jan12 and all later dates. SARS-CoV-2 rapidly decline from Jan 01 to Jan 12, then are completely gone leaving no reads that isn’t an obvious anatrifact later) This https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-885194/v1/78e0e6ce-4a76-48de-9f5c-76bab452bbe6.pdf?c=1665607885 further exemplified the fact that the SARS-CoV-2 found in the market here is superfluous contamination that is distinct from the animal viruses or CoVs. One fact among many that disagree with animal origin. https://t.co/VV9Gzg7JKi? And spoilers: none of the “susceptible species in W6-29-33” (wild species that is found there and have not been rejected as unlikely susceptible experimentally) garnered a positive theil-sen estimator result in any of the slices examined. This is in addition to the fact that meaningful correlation especially ones with significant mutual information was found to animals only with animal-specific viruses, and SARS-CoV-2 to only Homo Sapiens. Why ignore the toilets again and again? W4-26-28, especially W4-28 where only 1 out of the 2/2 human cases-free positive sample have anh wildlife DNA, have the exact same cause for maximal positivity in Jan 01 as W6-29-33 in Jan 12: closest to the toilets. @jbloom_lab If you think 20 ILI samples per month can isolate the one covid case in a sea of 8000+ flu cases every two weeks. Or that pre-screened pack tube blood verified at banking to be IgM free can detect the ~100 SARS-CoV-2 IgM+ cases expected in November 2019.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Were any corner of the WIV or even the Hankou station itself ever sampled? And well—Yunnan and Guangxi animal stalls were—Completely uninfected. https://archive.md/p3K3Z And Up to one third of all cases were moved from the lab to the market. Dazhong stopped its wildlife sales in 2014. Negative. The Yunnan and Guangxi animals are sold in W9-34-36 and W8-36-38. Negative. In deed, this is a spurious result—just like how entering the stall which you find the SARS-CoV-2 and the correlation crashed with the porcupines but kept that with the humans, theil-sen correlation give no mutual information at all to those pocrupines except a negative one with samples where SARS-CoV-2 is found. And of course, if you think that someone sick in November 2019 would not be able to meet in 15/12/2019 when the max length for sickness is merely 15 days for younger people…… Any susceptible species with significant mutual information at all and Homo Sapiens have the max mutual information. Animal CoVs are consistent in all dates not just Jan 01 and Jan 12 including after Jan 12. SARS-CoV-2 reduces rapidly in concentration from Jan 01 to Jan 12, and disappeared after Jan 12. Not inside sold animal tissues=rapidly degraded by RNAse 7. They scrambled all mutual information in 26/03/2023. Transfer contamination from the sampler labs and the toilets account for all market samples. Not vendors or animals.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And of course, there isn’t really that an “connection” when you realized that all the “Hubei SARS” strains are in reality just HKU3 and ZC45 none with even the right RdRp or RBD, and thus the raccoon dogs, the very raccoon dogs that were being shipped to the HSM for sale, are just as expected, entirely negative at testing.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Initially, the toilets and the sampler pants and boots smeared the contamination out into the stalls, leading to the first set of samples which the stall with most positives samples out of all samples being always the stall that is closest to the toilets. At this time, they have also attempted to spray the stall with animals and virus as in Jan 02, when an army of hazmat suited workers performed virology work which no official or unofficial accounts for performing the work as sampling in that date was known, were identified by eyewitness records. Because the animals are all museum specimens that were far too dry to properly resuspend, the first attempt at faking “animal origin” ended up with A total absence of any consistent positive correlation or significant mutual information at all Between SARS-CoV-2 and all species other than Homo Sapiens. You can easily distinguish between common tertiary cause (confounded) from true causation by looking with increasingly finer grain of resolution, especially where the data points aren’t 0. Unlike spurious correlations from Confounding factors which ends at the resolution where the factor acts on, True causation stay correlated in every resolution and in any set of data points especially where the data values aren’t 0. In fact, confounding factors often crash in correlation quite early before that. The PREDICT ORF1ab only (RdRp) primer was used in stead of the initial “ORF1ab/N” primer set, between 27/01/2020 and 15/02/2020. https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-885194/v1/78e0e6ce-4a76-48de-9f5c-76bab452bbe6.pdf?c=1665607885 The resampling of the wildlife stalls in the beginning of February 2020, within the same period, resulted in only animal-specific CoVs but no SARS-CoV-2 when amplicons generated with this primer pair were sequenced. archive.md/VNr75 archive.md/rj1pV archive.md/LJzSO archive.md/4cCHG Then, the leading hypothesis becomes snakes due to the “codon usage” paper, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmv.25682 and as usual, in the continued attempt of fabricating “evidence” for whatever leading hypothesis at this time, they tried multiple ways to eliminate the human correlation edge of their initial products and dramatically oversampled their “snake stall”. They first started using Oligonucleotides and amplification products from their developing “RdRp/N/E” assay, resulting in artifact-only NGS alignments and no reads at all as these products including primer dimers generated off the test being developed and other, failed PREDICT amplification experiments, contaminates the boots, Suits and gloves of the samplers in one run and all the sample tubes used in another, with PPE in Wuhan at that point so scarce that workers often have to use the same suit for the entire day between lab work and sampling. When the E and N amplicons are present in the amplification product used, they show as single-amplicon artifacts. They also attempted verify their Q37, which the snake stall tested negative in Jan 01, but all results are failures. Facing the issue with either cross react or primer dimer and get nothing, or viral amplicon and get only amplicons with their “adulterate with amplification products” attempt (the only drain with a real SARS-CoV-2 read is a municipal sewage well on the opposite corner than the wildlife stalls!); archive.md/13bdP They decided to take samples of fresher meat from the market (animal sampling have begun in this time) that included snakes but failed to include any mammals, blend it with cell cultures and spray it onto their final sampling site “storehouse”, hoping that this would equalize out any edge humans have in correlation. The cultures https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC369693/ ended up far too fresh for the purported deposition date of pre-Jan01, and when the snakes are debunked, confirmed to be pure artifacts.

Synthesis and turnover of mitochondrial ribonucleic acid in HeLa cells: the mature ribosomal and messenger ribonucleic acid species are metabolically unstable. The synthesis rates and half-lives of the individual mitochondrial ribosomal ribonucleic acid (RNA) and polyadenylic acid-containing RNA species in HeLa cells have been determined by analyzing their kinetics of labeling with [5-3H]-uridine and the changes ... ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And also, regarding that so-called “nature’s GOF laboratory” claim—to this date, zero Sarbecoviruses with an FCS have ever been identified. web.archive.org/web/2022101805… web.archive.org/web/2022090222… In natural settings, an animal will seroconvert before the FCS can emerge, which is extremely unstable especially in D614 inside seroconverted hosts. In fact, this prevented the FCS from emerging even inside the 2002-2003 SARS-CoV-1 in the exact same hosts that the zoonati claims to be “certainly the intermediate hosts for SARS-CoV-2”, speaks volume. They were also entirely incapable of emergence without engineering “push” as demonstrated by the near neighbors which all are FCS-free and spread just fine (even better than SARS-CoV-2) without it inside all manner of hosts. gab.com/Flavinkins/pos… In fact, the destruction of the Proline at 681 associated with VOC evolution in live hosts (human or animal hosts) simultaneously remove the virus’ ability to grow efficiently in laboratory cell lines: and the very weird and hard to explain lineages show evidence of reversion to culture adaptation. In the exact same time as illegal biolabs were found and when variants emerge without a traced location of origin or epidemiological link between cases. The Proline as it turned out is important for growth in VERO cells and variants that evolved in live hosts or with P681 mutated have defect in growth inside them. This mean that Wuhan is effectively the most VERO-suitable isolated variant over the course of the pandemic. gab.com/Flavinkins/pos… gab.com/Flavinkins/pos… https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108682807199122313 archive.md/az10E archive.md/TrTW5 @mbw61567742 some of the features like HV6970 also show evidence of VERO association (P2V/HL6970). Not something that you expect for ZW, as the actual host it adapted to is VERO E6. In fact, all VOCs grow less efficiently in VERO E6 compared to non-VOC/“WT”. The same in the non-D614G A.23.1 strain as well. A striking graph below. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/111398506038803573 Human or mice, the variants have less growth in VERO than Wuhan. Not something you expect for a virus that was not supposed to have seen a primate before the first human infection under the market theory. The FCS look exactly like a cell line adapted version after an insertion of the ENaC FCS as expected by DEFUSE during rescue and isolation—Both direct assembly and targeted RNA recombination are viable options for its insertion, and it is not unusual for a sample or a branch of its culture to be resequenced or deep sequenced months to years after sample collection and initial operations. The CGG-CGG is also not a coincidence—using it improve immunogenicity and allow efficient killed virus vaccine production and therefore adding a self leader failsafe for deployment, and manageability in case of unintentional release. Remember those HV6970/HL6970 (VERO adaptation of P2V).

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.00958-22…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.00958-22 It should be worth mentioning that unlike the N-linked glycome of other mammals, humans and cells of humans are unique in that they lacked either Neu5Gc or alpha-Gal. Bats contained the alpha-Gal epitope where other mammals contained both the Neu5Gc and the alpha-Gal epitope. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1931312820306806 An adaptation of Rhinolophid bats toward the loss of Neu5Gc synthesis (CMAH) is that they produce almost all alpha-Gal and almost no Neu5Ac on their glycocalyx. https://zenodo.org/record/5702700#.Ytew5BZ6slT Whatever HV6970 binds to, it likely abolished the ability of the S NTD to bind to alpha-Gal and favored Neu5Gc binding. Due to the anomalies found in BANaL-52 and RaTG13 (no bats in BANaL-52), and the observation that the SARS-CoV-2 S with HV6970 specifically showed greater tropism in VERO E6 cells compared to SARS-CoV S, in addition to human lung cells, and the fact that it is formed as HL6970 when GX/P2V is adapted in VERO E6, https://archive.ph/TrTW5 , and given that gaps are not counted toward identities when the SARS-CoV Urbani Spike was used as the reference for similarity alignment, the uniquely long NTD loops of the SARS-CoV-2 S and especially HV6970 should be considered a specific adaptation feature to Old-world non-human primate cells that contained Neu5Gc but not alpha-Gal. (As the NTD loop inserts are also deleted in VOCs, especially HV6970 indicating that it is not stable in humans (which don’t make either Neu5Gc or alpha-Gal) or any other species (other GX-CoVs don’t have HV6970/HL6970. Nor were GD-CoVs)). https://zenodo.org/record/6849652#.YteAXBZ6slR' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'Alpha, Delta, both have less VERO E6 than Wuhan/D…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'Alpha, Delta, both have less VERO E6 than Wuhan/D614G. Omicron, also. It is also the least VERO-growing lineage. http://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-022-01802-5 http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04266-9 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004221015595 This is NOT something you expect from a wildlife virus. They shouldn’t be adapted best to lab cell lines right out of the box. All adaptation trajectories (both from live mice, humans and the modified modern research cell lines) lead away from VERO E6 when an small carnivore/bat zoonosis scenario should simultaneously increase all primate tropism as the virus evolve in humans. It should raise, and not drop, VERO E6 tropism.' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

“Humanized mice will attenuate the FCS”=“humanized mice will generate the exact PRRAR site”. P681 and A372=VERO cells. And Q498=Mus Musculus germline immune system with human ACE2. Also reality: it was not “out of frame”. SARS-CoV-2 uniquely have two dS changes compared to all other QTQTNS genomes after the last Cysteine before the first S cleavage site. Shi put it in S2 And the Proline is so you can grow it into a stock in VERO E6 cells (VOCs or P681 mutants have growth defects in VERO cells) The PRRVR from mouse-passaged MERS-CoV.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

In fact, the Proline and the QTQTNS are really only stable in VERO and CaLu-3 (VERO/HAE) cells. In live hosts, P681 mutates to R681 or H681, and QTQTNS mutates to QTQTKS. There is no middle ground except if you still need to breed to stock quantity within VERO E6 cells.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Bonus: for VERO/HAE cultures, deletions of the S1-S2 forms an equilibrium with QTQTNSPRRARS in ratios from 5% to ~70%. These mutations are actually identified within the Wuhan patients themselves, obtained from clinical samples in stead of only after culture for the first patients. Such clean QTQTN or SPRRARS deletions are not found even in homology in natural SARSr-CoVs. You only get to an FCS and the Proline (in stead of R, H or A) stabilized within these liquid medium-immersed cell cultures, and only if you start with an synthetically inserted FCS such as with the hENaC, the closest “human-specific cleavage site” to the QTQTNSRSVAS which “clear mismatches occur” at the first of the two S2 cleavages site in the Spike.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109640519028841414 It is not just that SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan grows best in VERO cells out of all variants. Some earliest patients harbored inside their QS specific S1-S2 deletions that can form only in VERO E6. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109888056517115303 And These seems to be related to cell surface expression that have most relevance to Spike-nanoparticles for use in non-humans. They are not vaccines that can be used in humans due to the human signal peptide used and the pcDNA3.1 which contained undesirable proteins. They are also not pseudoviruses. They best fit the “Spike nanoparticles” specified in DEFUSE out of all. (As a plain binding study would not use a complicated transmembrane anchor, which interfered with pseudovirus assembly. Human tpA signal peptide and pcDNA3.1 mean the formulation is unsafe for humans, which should not happen for such clearly finished-for-mass-production-in-HEK293f nanoparticle (that also have envelopes) formulations unless it is intended only for non-humans (such as DEFUSE bats).) https://t.co/gpv4cXu1WP. https://archive.md/1C7om

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JVI.00790-20…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JVI.00790-20 This is not the only cell passage specific deletion that would end up in some of the very earliest patients. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/73/2/e437/5869859 DelQTQTN, a variant that emerges during VERO cell passage, is found specifically within at least 3 patients arriving from Wuhan in Guangdong, and variations at the “upstream probe binding site” (where closest related QTQTNS-bearing genomes contained only one transition at this probe, insufficient to prevent its binding), which also emerges at cell culture passage of SARS-CoV-2 in VERO cells, are found within patient samples taken from the Central Theater Command Hospital in Wuhan, alongside with variants that had deletions in the SPRRARS site, del-mut-1. DelQTQTN(which is specifically found within the patient samples and where the deletion is exactly 1AA longer than those claimed to be in RmYN02/RacCS203/Banal-247) and variations in the upstream probe binding sites are unique to VERO cell cultured strains of SARS-CoV-2. Their presence within the earliest patient samples within China implies that a VERO cultured stock was the proximal inoculum of many of the earliest patients within China. This directly point toward the proximal origin of the Chinese outbreak being associated with virology research and culturing of viruses.' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: '@Parsifaler https://anandamide.substack.com/p/cu…' Flavinkins on Gab: '@Parsifaler https://anandamide.substack.com/p/curious-kittens However, examining these sequences (that were found from the Pfizer vials) revealed that while there were plasmid backbones that were highly similar, they are not identical and there were key differences between these plasmids and those that have been found within these Pseudomonas assemblies. For one, None of these plasmids harbored a mammalian/eukaryotic promoter that is used to drive the expression of the Spike protein, which is expected as these are supposed to be used to generate mRNA for vaccine production. Secondly, A duplication is discovered within one of the Pseudomonas-related sequences, whereas a deletion is found in the other plasmid with the Spike protein, while substitutions within the backbone fragment are found within both of the P.aeruginosa-linked plasmid sequences. This indicates that, compared to these unknown primary backbone sequences, the P.aeruginosa assemblies were found to have undergone a substantial level of evolution that involved duplication, deletion, and substitutions within the backbone sequences for these plasmids--suggesting an ancient origin of the plasmids found within the Pseudomonas assemblies. Third, The C-terminal of the Spike protein inserts, when found, were found to be native--expected for an mRNA vaccine. One of the proteins found was an S1-only protein. The C-terminal membrane anchor coiled-coil sequence is not found in any of these plasmids. This rules out mRNA vaccination as the origin for these Pseudomonas-linked plasmid sequences. Finally, While many P.aeruginosa strains are resistant toward Neomycin and Kanamycin, Neo/Kan, not found within the chromosomes of these assemblies, does in fact additionally confer GmR (Gentamicin resistance) toward the P.aeroginosa strains. While it is possible that the plasmids may have derived from contamination within the BioProject, the supposed natural host for these plasmids, laboratory strains of E.coli, was nowhere to be seen within the BioProject PRJNA839565. The closest sequences found within the BioProject by BLAST just returned other strains of Pseudomonas, Sampled in China in 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/CP081287.1?report=genbank&log$=nucltop&blast_rank=1&RID=Z2K3722G01R https://archive.md/hm8zm https://archive.md/kkSkI https://archive.md/O9Kkr https://archive.md/LYema https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/JAMOHA010000033.1?report=genbank&log$=nucltop&blast_rank=1&RID=Z2M30VUK01R https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/JAMOGL010000063.1?report=genbank&log$=nucltop&blast_rank=2&RID=Z2M30VUK01R https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/JAMOGK010000062.1?report=genbank&log$=nucltop&blast_rank=3&RID=Z2M30VUK01R https://archive.md/GTo6k This also included contigs that have very low coverage, supposedly consistent with "contamination origin". This indicates that 1: the plasmids found have evolved substantially compared to their closest ancestors within the labs. 2: they are found in Pseudomonas spp., instead of laboratory origin E.coli. This is expected as mammalian expression vectors with the use of SV40 Ori and CMV promoter is conventionally maintained within the lab using AmpR, and one lab that deals with mammalian expression typically maintain their plasmids using only one antibiotic for convenience in the preparation of the medium necessary for culturing the bacterial host. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/JAMOGH010000091.1 https://archive.md/ERB08 While in the U.S., AmpR may have been avoided in vaccine preparation (mRNA production vectors instead of mammalian expression vectors) within the Moderna facilities, the same basic rule for non-bacterially-oriented vectors, one antibiotic resistance gene per lab, is maintained within these vaccine-derived Spike expression vectors (all vectors found within the vaccine vials used Neo/Kan and nothing else). This is distinct from that is seen in the Pseudomonas assemblies, where Eukaryotic-oriented Neo/Kan accompanied with AmpR in only one of the plasmid versions was found. This also indicates that both mutations (substitutions seen in the backbone), duplications/deletions, and recombinations have shaped the plasmid backbone found within these P.aeruginosa assemblies and that this did not happen within a lab (E.coli is not found within PRJNA839565).' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

In fact, the XRRXRX motif is considered a signature of cell culture adaptation, in stead of live host adaptation which the Heparan sulfate-binding motif is invariable broken. journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JV…

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Initially they do not have sufficient samples for an MRCA analysis, and that they were satisfied with only lineage B being available at the market. However, Eventually it was found out that lineage A is the more ancestral strain, and they have to make up a sample to put it into the market. https://archive.md/ANS4Q they came up with “A20”, inconsistent in both the ratio of 8782/28144 and in the ratio of reads vs Ct values with the other samples they claimed to show. The way they adulterated the post-26-03/2023 datasets is also one of the reason why the jbloom et al datasets gets humans as higher ranked in the alignments in the positive samples compared to all samples in both all sampling dates and Jan 12—They do it by dropping random human reads into the “negative samples” and scrambling the rest of the animal reads, all uploaded after 26/03/2023, resulting in an reduction of spread of correlation metrics over all species and correlatedness with humans for all samples compred positive samples only, not only in Jan 12 but for all sampling dates. In fact, all 3 samples that are different between 2021 and 2023 are also samples that have additional datasets uploaded in 26/03/2023 after an 03-10/03/2023 upload. Sample A20 have distinct host composition between the 03-10/03/2023 (without lineage reads) and 26/03/2023 upload, which is not expected from “viral amplicon sequencing” (with lineage A reads) which does not perturb the host reads if genuinely from the same sample. This is consistent with the general scrambling of host sequences within the “post-26/03/2023” samples, and showcases irreconcilable dishonesty within this sample set especially when sample B5, likely used as a standard, remain unchanged, creating an additional inconsistency in term of protocols—one set of numbers in 2021, one set of numbers in 03/03/2023, and a third set of numbers in 26/03/2023. Zero custody in the CCP’s grasp up to upload, change constantly per demand of the leading zoonosis theory—“change those ‘data’ on the fly, based on any reactions and feedback, make up your uploads to attempt pushing zoonosis as hard as possible”. This is also why the mutual information between SARS-CoV-2 and any species at all, especially all land-dwelling species, are completely destroyed upon inclusion of the 26/03/2023 upload date. These are the species that they seek to scramble reads in order to remove the correlational edge of Homo Sapiens that have remained despite their attempt at filtering their previous “data”. In Mar-Apr 2020, China officially blamed wild animals sold in the Huanan market. Publishing the “data” as currently seen to Holmes would be the best way to solidify this then-official opinion. If the “market environmental data” can be interpreted in any way to arrive at the C-C “conclusions”, ECH won’t be denied of it. Since he is denied, the most logical reason for the denial is that it does not originally support any of the C-C “conclusions”, and were tampered only recently to poison the scientific database and to provide a fallback for debate purposes. Only after evident in-vitro and in-silico tampering and subsequent approval by the CCP, would it be officially permitted—in fact, actively given to Holmes for “analysis”. Despite attempts at scrubbing all 300nt+ non-viral human Contigs from the “positive wildlife stall samples”, which have led to an inverse correlation between the 300nt+ contigs left inside these samples and the product of Homo Sapiens and SARS-CoV-2, mutual information and the ratio between the leftover human mitochondrial reads and SARS-CoV-2 have been preserved as the removal process preserved ratios, And you still end up with Homo Sapiens being the most mutually informant species for SARS-CoV-2 whenever significant mutual information is preserved at all within a slice of the “dataset”.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

In fact, there are even further inconsistencies in these so-called “data releases” which further indicate that there are both sufficient number of unaccounted flow cells to source all the reads necessary for scrambling the post-28/03/2023 “datasets” and that there are likely both selective representation of and cannibalization-and-redistribution of sample datasets, with once again a total absence of custody information or in deed, from what mix of material was the actual source libraries constructed from, suggested that the CCP used a strategy of “holding back as many reads as that would be needed to adjust the datasets to whatever direction to promote the arrival at a “likely zoonosis” conclusion so there is always a conclusion to jump to if the lab is indeflectably blamed” when posting the “dataset” or the associated publications—not even the number of samples per category could be matched to the percentages published. (see how the mutual information metric, e.g. the plausibility to use regression from the other points on the correlation graph to identify the location of a dot on the graph from only one axis of its coordinates e.g. the ability to predict the concentration of virus from species and vice versa, are completely crashed upon inclusion of the “26/03/2023” samples in both Jan 12 and all collection dates)

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://archive.md/VNr75 In fact, contrary to the claim that they are “near the market”, all 3 of the lineage A samples in Early Wuhan was actually found in tight and direct linkage with the WCDC much more than and as opposed to the Huanan market. One is A20, the WCDC sampler PPE which would be among the first sample to replace outright in stead of merely filtering and scrambling to minimize leak of lab-linked information. Exactly what to make it for best fit to the running theory, however, they stumbled and changed twice with feedback and changing demands, resulting in three distinct and dishonestly-inconsistent-with-each-other datasets and results. Another stayed in a Hotel, which is right next-door to the “new” WCDC site where samples and cultures would have been transported to and workers would move back and forth between when they have just finished setting up the new lab and have started experimentation which needed materials likely exist in both the old and the new site at the beginning of its operation. The third, “cluster 1”, is right on the route of this back and forth commutation and near the “old” WCDC site, “somewhere near the Xinhua hospital”. All have strong linkage to the WCDC and none documented credible linkage to transmission at the Huanan market. The WCDC and the Hubei CDC stores all of the human samples and backups of research cultures of pathogenic microbes in Wuhan, as this is their legally delegated duty (the “各级疾控部门” are termed “保藏机构” for “病原性微生物” under Chinese law governing the use of cultures and samples of human and animal pathogenic microbial samples, and samples that were suspected to have the possibility of containing such microorganisms. These are also the only locations which first round samples arriving in Wuhan are allowed to go for pre-screening prior to entry into the other labs in Wuhan, “检测机构”. ) and that labs in China are not allowed to store such cultures except several select state key laboratories. Since 2014, the only EID surveillance target in Wuhan is the HSM which all other sites are kept blind so that they can blame Huanan in case the research labs suffer an accident. It is likely that the WCDC (but not the Hubei CDC) would internally get the wind of an “SARSr-CoV” (with an antigen kit that were apparently available to many high-level hospitals in Wuhan) almost the soon their surveillance program is tripped in 20-22/12/2019 with their first hospital-visited market case. After an initial release from the WIV that caused Chen’s infection, and eventual transmission to the HSM via line 2 of the Wuhan metro, they mobilized the WCDC in 20-22/12/2019 to begin tapering with the environmental samples (largely based on the leading zoonosis theory proposed or identified at that time) and prepare for any needed scapegoat action. That mobilization ended up causing an infection of a WCDC worker with an aliquot of a sample containing WA1, A and B in the same quasispecies, which then go on infecting all of the earliest lineage A cases in Wuhan.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

The WHO report is found to have moved all https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109048819612838694 cases with onset before 27/12/2019 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370635299_Greater_than_the_Sum_of_its_Parts_-_Aggregated_Wuhan_COVID-19_case_data_points_to_the_wrong_side_of_the_Yangtze_River_-_Rixey_-_20230509 inside the district of Wuchang, and then all cases within the central Wuchang prefectures and those prefectures near the labs, to Jianghan. with calibration performed so that they would add up to a perfect “bullseye” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-china-idUSKBN2AD090 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/world/asia/china-world-health-organization-coronavirus.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/17/covid-early-cases-wuhan-china-mystery/ https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/china-refuses-to-give-who-raw-data-on-early-covid-19-cases-11613150580 of within 50m precision at the Huanan market, which would not be realistically possible given the expected social biases from uneven residential densities even in the neighborhood of the Huanan market. Cases *residences* were dropped into water and placed into non-residential areas as the result of this tampering, especially the former which, residences could not exist on since they would be washed away by the water. Obvious examples included accountant Chen, which they refused to mention where he lived at all since the WHO report alongside any specific single cases, and one of the two “江夏急救中心” ambulances seen blaring into Wuchang in 31/13/2019, where only one out of the two, one that likely did not live in Shidong, were counted as a dot in Jiangxia. They refused to give any line lists at all for a reason.

ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable researchgate.net

On W.H.O. Trip, China Refused to Hand Over Important Data (Published 2021) The information could be key to determining how and when the outbreak started, and to learning how to prevent future pandemics. nytimes.com

Opinion | Wuhan’s early covid cases are a mystery. What is China hiding? The story of how the pandemic got started — and turned into a global catastrophe — remains a black box. It should not be. washingtonpost.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Tampering with data, moving cases, contradicting own early media reports, this is the reality of that “market centered” early cases “dataset”. The “dataset” is as fake and as inconsistent as a $3 bill. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109256201942085712 They completely eliminated all cases that landed within the borders of the Wuchang district before 27/12/2019, to the point that they claim to see cases further east of but not within Wuchang. This is the cluster that they were hiding. Again, the early cases are WA1, which even when cluster, failed to meet the recognition requirements. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109248812361151175 The “中部战区总医院” reported that they were taking in 700+ cases in a single day at 31/12/2019 all in the fever clinics. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109400051863347812 Then there is a media coverage bias.

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/1088805315972559…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108880531597255968 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109147956977669077 Also, remember accountant Chen? (Why his dot was moved to the WCH if he lives in Wuchang/Jiangxia?) it turned out that it was not only his dot that was not in the right place. Every dot within the 2km radius of the Wuchang railway station was moved or removed. This is within the area that is expected to have the infectious disease and respiratory cases ultimately serviced by the “中部战区总医院”. The hospital that sees large-scale respiratory case anomalies the first in Wuhan on official records, where the decision to “enter battle stations” on 01/01/2020 was made because of an “unexpected and fast-growing anomaly in the respiratory disease surveillance data” beginning at least as late as 31/12/2019. There were dots that were east of this area, and there were dots that were south of this area, in locations with lower population density compared to downtown Wuchang and further from the market. (2 ambulances from Jiangxia on 31/12/2019, but only 1 dot on the WHO map and he wasn’t accountant chen…… (likely ascertained by contacting a HSM case on public transport, “试行诊疗方案”) (accountant Chen got to the WCH in 27/12/2019)) Considering how cases that were admitted to the “中部战区总医院” weren’t directly reported except for WH01 in 14/01/2020, (Only 1 out of the 4 known sequenced cases here were directly reported. WH03 is reported after transfer to the Zhongnan hospital, one of the 2 initial market cases reported in the location. WH02 and WH04 were not in the NNDRS dataset and displayed as “unknown” in the WHO report) and how they then report seeing more fever cases in a single day than the entire CDC pre-04/01/2020 onset dataset (the point when they have to expand their fever clinics), it is quite likely that cases that initially broke out in Wuchang were muted by admission into a hospital that is placed under a command that doesn’t have to report on the NNDRS, and that any cases found in Downtown Wuchang had their “residential addresses” altered to place them as close to the Huanan market as possible and out of the Wuchang area. This would not be the first time when cases that came from an “inconvenient” location were hidden inside PLA-operated hospitals to prevent them from being counted. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109701931477090563 Why the WMHC rejected the WHO’s demand for line listings of the 174 “NNDRS cases” in annex E2? Also, one dot in Jiangxia is one of the two https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109048819612838694 ambulances that were seen in 31/12/2019 from Jiangxia. Only one become a dot (central Jiangxia as opposed to the Shidong prefecture). It is possible that this is Chen’s relative that “visited a local market”, meaning that this is a case that is ascertained by contact with an early case, and saved from removal because of post-27/12/2019 onset. No dot at all is inside the borders of the WuChang district, even when dots begin showing up east of it in less populated places further from the market. This is clearly artefactual, indicating attempt at breaking up the cluster in Wuchang.' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/yu2Jg Now, see this. Remember …' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://archive.ph/yu2Jg Now, see this. Remember that “中部战区总医院”? “ 2019年12月31日，武汉市卫健委首次公开发布通报，确认多例肺炎病例。 　　与此同时，中部战区总医院发热门诊人数陡增，最高时一天超过600人。江晓静、王琼书、刘孟丽等一批中部战区总医院专家，感觉到病情凶险。 　　作为全军急性呼吸道传染病病原监测参比实验室，中部战区总医院负压实验室是驻汉部队唯一带有负压功能的实验室。从2015年起，为监测流感、呼吸道腺体和其他传染病，他们每年冬春季都会紧密监测发热患者情况，并进行跟踪和采样。 　　但今年的数据变化太快太突然，没有任何征兆。 　　经中部战区总医院感染科、疾控科等科室专家和医护人员共同讨论研究，提议马上启动《呼吸道传染病防控方案》。中部战区总医院党委专题召开分析会，形成共识。 　　医院成立领导小组，主官亲自挂帅；抽调精兵强将，核心部门全员参与；对发热门诊、传染科等关键环节开展防护培训，采取隔离措施，提高防护等级；加紧储备口罩、防护服、隔离衣等防护器材，紧急采购30个正压呼吸器和60个备用滤芯。同时，向驻汉驻鄂部队进行传染病防护提醒。 　　今年元旦，中部战区总医院进入临战状态。 　　1月4日，医院调整扩大发热门诊，全院提高一级防护等级。 　　1月6日，开始收治第一例患者。几天后，传染科床位告急。 　　1月15日，医院决定火速扩建传染病区。 　　1月16日，向武汉市卫健委送检第一例样本病例。 　　1月17日，抢建的传染2病区、3病区开放。 　　1月19日，医院提升疫情防控指挥等级，成立一线指挥部，党委成员集体住进办公楼；机关各部门重新进行人员编组和任务分工；专家组、医疗组、保障组以及各预备队抽组完毕；全院进行传染病防治专业培训考核。” Then “新冠肺炎被纳入乙类传染病、采取甲类措施严格管理。而中部战区总医院发热门诊从一开始就采取了高一级的防护措施，严格按照甲类传染病进行处置和管理。 　　随后，疑似病例数、确诊病例数、死亡病例数不断攀升，治愈人数却始终显示着“0”。” Keep in mind, the listing of “Novel coronavirus infected pneumonia(NCIP)” as a “class B infectious disease” is in 20/01/2020. Standard 1, from 15-17/01/2020, and the “试行诊疗方案” before it, require “unsuccessful antibiotics treatment” and “unsuccessful treatment using a panel of “standard antibiotics”” for cases that didn’t have exposure history to the Huanan market. This mean that most if not all the cases that can be ascertained as being “NCIP” or “VPUE” by the standards at that time have to be in the severe non-self-limiting group. 06/01/2020 is exactly 3 days after they begin case ascertainment according to the “试行诊疗方案” they received in 03/01/2020, through the use and monitoring of antibiotics treatment on fever patients. Just after “a few days” (“3-5 days”) of they begin to ascertain cases for isolation, “the infectious disease wards begin to run out of beds”. So many fever patients floods the hospital that they begin to “expand the fever clinics” at 04/01/2020. And what caused them to begin “今年元旦，中部战区总医院进入临战状态”? “Enter battle stations at 01/01/2020”? “On December 31, 2019, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission issued a public notice for the first time, confirming a number of pneumonia cases. 　　At the same time, the number of fever outpatients in the General Hospital of the Central Theater has increased sharply, with more than 600 people a day at its peak.A group of experts from the General Hospital of the Central Theater, including Jiang Xiaojing, Wang Qiongshu, and Liu Mengli, felt that their condition was dangerous. 　　As a reference laboratory for the monitoring of the pathogen of acute respiratory infectious diseases throughout the army, the negative pressure laboratory of the Central Theater General Hospital is the only laboratory with negative pressure function of the troops stationed in Han.Since 2015, in order to monitor influenza, respiratory glands and other infectious diseases, they have closely monitored patients with fever every winter and spring, and followed up and sampled them. 　　But this year's data changes too quickly and suddenly, without any signs.” Indicated by the ENA reservation dates, this begun at least on 10/12/2019. Out of all the cases that they accept into their isolation wards, “suspected cases, confirmed cases and deaths keeps raising up, but “recovered cases” remained 0”. All isolation ward/infectious disease ward cases were ascertained according to the standards that were then official in Wuhan. Self-limiting cases were excluded. This is also how WH01-WH04 were sent to the BGI. Samples were saved from all fever and respiratory cases admitted to the hospital, and when they received a command for “continued epidemiological investigation in several hospitals (near Huanan market), Huanan market and the neighborhood of Huanan market” in 31/12/2019, 4 cases from the hospital that satisfied the “from or near the market” criterion were selected, and samples sent for analysis at availability (when BALF sampling from bronchoscopy is performed). Only WH01 with a sample that is available in 26/12/2019 would be reported to the WMHC and enter the WHO dataset, as the military commanded General Hospital of the Central War Zone seems to be only disclosing case data to other institutions after they have a result on the cases first (where the first case ascertained with the “试行诊疗方案”, sometimes in 06/01/2020, only had the sample sent to and reported to the WMHC in 16/01/2020.). WH03 reported in Zhongnan. Confusion on the identity and nature of WH01-WH04 would continue even until today. https://zenodo.org/record/4119263/#.Y1yAtCW8klQ At its peak, the General Hospital of the Central War Zone were receiving 600 cases a day from its fever clinics—more than twice the total reported cases by onset (CDC) at the time when so many cases were flooding the fever clinics that they have to “expand the fever clinics in 04/01/2020”. This is consistent with the eyewitness report on dozens of times 🚑, at least 2 from Jiangxia (remember only 1 dot on the WHO map was from Jiangxia) rushing across the ShiPaiLing road leading to the “中部战区总医院” in 31/12/2019.' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'A media coverage bias also exists. The “story” of…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'A media coverage bias also exists. The “story” of the cluster 1 report was propped up by CCP state-owned media. This media coverage would only go to the doctor that reported the first officially recognized cases. Any other doctors that reported case clusters elsewhere in Wuhan, because they didn’t report a market case, and because the CDC recognized only the HPHICWM report (grouping it into the later VPUE category) only because of and after the HSM cases were being reported, and when the specific surveillance targeting the HSM at the WCH reported to them the genome of a SARSr-CoV (in 29/12/2019), they didn’t get recognized even if a similar report is given—brushed aside into the 92 CDC-searched and NNDRS-discard cases. No CCP media coverage would land on these doctors, and their story would remain buried just like the 92 cases (that may even included cases that they reported) discarded from the WHO report.' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Myanmar, Cambodia, which also, incidentally, was where China specifically sampled before. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7818139/ This also included human sampling as well, per “pathogen host adaptation and immune intervention”. Now where I find these specific human Mitochondrial haplotypes again? (Southeast Asia, not central China, +SARS-CoV-2, no FCS, exactly where the WIV and the WHU would sample humans and put the resulting cultures into the WCDC). Note how the China serological sampling is a specific sampling around bat caves which human cells-infecting CoVs have been specifically isolated before. Notice how low this number is compared to southeast Asia (Cambodia, Myanmar). Despite Shi and Daszak’s name on it, “no work was ever conducted in Laos” they claimed. How can the EHA be trusted?

Decoding the RNA viromes in rodent lungs provides new insight into the origin and evolutionary patterns of rodent-borne pathogens in Mainland Southeast Asia As the largest group of mammalian species, which are also widely distributed all over the world, rodents are the natural reservoirs for many diverse zoonotic viruses. A comprehensive understanding of the core virome of diverse rodents should therefore ... ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Not only Leaked SRA data included both the exact kind of viruses that they claim will not be present in the WIV—and the exact SARS-CoV-2, WA1, cultured in a CoV-specific tailored fusion cell line VERO-CHO never used in China and sequenced before even a sample of WA1 can be taken in China, alongside C/C and B, at high passage depths, and contained within it residual human DNA not from anywhere in central China but in stead right where they were sampling from the 2018 “pathogen host adaptation and immune intervention” grant—the belt and road regions; https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109888056517115303 But also these membrane anchored cellnsurface expression vectors intended for HEK293f of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike that have most relevance to Spike-nanoparticles for use in non-humans. They are not vaccines that can be used in humans due to the human signal peptide used (expressing an antigen together with a human protein, especially when co-localized through generation of nanoparticles processed from the same peptide chain) and the pcDNA3.1 which contained undesirable proteins. They are also not pseudoviruses. They best fit the “Spike nanoparticles” specified in DEFUSE out of all. (As a plain binding study would not use a complicated transmembrane anchor, which interfered with pseudovirus assembly. Human tpA signal peptide and pcDNA3.1 mean the formulation is unsafe for humans, which should not happen for such clearly finished-for-mass-production-in-HEK293f nanoparticle (that also have envelopes) formulations unless it is intended only for non-humans (such as DEFUSE bats).) https://t.co/gpv4cXu1WP. https://archive.md/1C7om Continued EHA human sampling=Yunnan and belt and road DNA. Isolate if possible=special unpublished VERO-CHO cells. And it was sequenced before the first public sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 with this machine type by the flow cell, confirmed via Sangon policy and Chinese law, and before+not matching any samples of WA1 was even taken in China. And this exact CAS special project mirroring of DEFUSE+Year 5 extension—sample humans from belt and road area, isolate and engineer viruses for infection characterization, and create vectorized and nanoparticle vaccines that are capable of bringing in both backbone and Spike into bats studied in and released by the WIV, and into the main sample storage facility of the WCDC. (Also see this—note all the FCS relevant oddities can also be caused by targeted RNA recombination link.springer.com/chapter/10.100… followed by cell culture). The instability associated with 8782/2814/18060 (WA1->A->B) is found to recur at least 3 times in the WA1/UW cluster, especially their cultured isolates. The associated samples have T22657C, T3346C, A21562C and G487T. all of which is in RaTg13 but not in WuHu-1. also T1963C and T22963C in BANAL-52. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109640519028841414 It is not just that SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan grows best in VERO cells out of all variants. Some earliest patients harbored inside their QS specific S1-S2 deletions that can form only in VERO E6.

Flavinkins on Gab: '@Parsifaler https://anandamide.substack.com/p/cu…' Flavinkins on Gab: '@Parsifaler https://anandamide.substack.com/p/curious-kittens However, examining these sequences (that were found from the Pfizer vials) revealed that while there were plasmid backbones that were highly similar, they are not identical and there were key differences between these plasmids and those that have been found within these Pseudomonas assemblies. For one, None of these plasmids harbored a mammalian/eukaryotic promoter that is used to drive the expression of the Spike protein, which is expected as these are supposed to be used to generate mRNA for vaccine production. Secondly, A duplication is discovered within one of the Pseudomonas-related sequences, whereas a deletion is found in the other plasmid with the Spike protein, while substitutions within the backbone fragment are found within both of the P.aeruginosa-linked plasmid sequences. This indicates that, compared to these unknown primary backbone sequences, the P.aeruginosa assemblies were found to have undergone a substantial level of evolution that involved duplication, deletion, and substitutions within the backbone sequences for these plasmids--suggesting an ancient origin of the plasmids found within the Pseudomonas assemblies. Third, The C-terminal of the Spike protein inserts, when found, were found to be native--expected for an mRNA vaccine. One of the proteins found was an S1-only protein. The C-terminal membrane anchor coiled-coil sequence is not found in any of these plasmids. This rules out mRNA vaccination as the origin for these Pseudomonas-linked plasmid sequences. Finally, While many P.aeruginosa strains are resistant toward Neomycin and Kanamycin, Neo/Kan, not found within the chromosomes of these assemblies, does in fact additionally confer GmR (Gentamicin resistance) toward the P.aeroginosa strains. While it is possible that the plasmids may have derived from contamination within the BioProject, the supposed natural host for these plasmids, laboratory strains of E.coli, was nowhere to be seen within the BioProject PRJNA839565. The closest sequences found within the BioProject by BLAST just returned other strains of Pseudomonas, Sampled in China in 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/CP081287.1?report=genbank&log$=nucltop&blast_rank=1&RID=Z2K3722G01R https://archive.md/hm8zm https://archive.md/kkSkI https://archive.md/O9Kkr https://archive.md/LYema https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/JAMOHA010000033.1?report=genbank&log$=nucltop&blast_rank=1&RID=Z2M30VUK01R https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/JAMOGL010000063.1?report=genbank&log$=nucltop&blast_rank=2&RID=Z2M30VUK01R https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/JAMOGK010000062.1?report=genbank&log$=nucltop&blast_rank=3&RID=Z2M30VUK01R https://archive.md/GTo6k This also included contigs that have very low coverage, supposedly consistent with "contamination origin". This indicates that 1: the plasmids found have evolved substantially compared to their closest ancestors within the labs. 2: they are found in Pseudomonas spp., instead of laboratory origin E.coli. This is expected as mammalian expression vectors with the use of SV40 Ori and CMV promoter is conventionally maintained within the lab using AmpR, and one lab that deals with mammalian expression typically maintain their plasmids using only one antibiotic for convenience in the preparation of the medium necessary for culturing the bacterial host. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/JAMOGH010000091.1 https://archive.md/ERB08 While in the U.S., AmpR may have been avoided in vaccine preparation (mRNA production vectors instead of mammalian expression vectors) within the Moderna facilities, the same basic rule for non-bacterially-oriented vectors, one antibiotic resistance gene per lab, is maintained within these vaccine-derived Spike expression vectors (all vectors found within the vaccine vials used Neo/Kan and nothing else). This is distinct from that is seen in the Pseudomonas assemblies, where Eukaryotic-oriented Neo/Kan accompanied with AmpR in only one of the plasmid versions was found. This also indicates that both mutations (substitutions seen in the backbone), duplications/deletions, and recombinations have shaped the plasmid backbone found within these P.aeruginosa assemblies and that this did not happen within a lab (E.coli is not found within PRJNA839565).' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JVI.00790-20…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JVI.00790-20 This is not the only cell passage specific deletion that would end up in some of the very earliest patients. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/73/2/e437/5869859 DelQTQTN, a variant that emerges during VERO cell passage, is found specifically within at least 3 patients arriving from Wuhan in Guangdong, and variations at the “upstream probe binding site” (where closest related QTQTNS-bearing genomes contained only one transition at this probe, insufficient to prevent its binding), which also emerges at cell culture passage of SARS-CoV-2 in VERO cells, are found within patient samples taken from the Central Theater Command Hospital in Wuhan, alongside with variants that had deletions in the SPRRARS site, del-mut-1. DelQTQTN(which is specifically found within the patient samples and where the deletion is exactly 1AA longer than those claimed to be in RmYN02/RacCS203/Banal-247) and variations in the upstream probe binding sites are unique to VERO cell cultured strains of SARS-CoV-2. Their presence within the earliest patient samples within China implies that a VERO cultured stock was the proximal inoculum of many of the earliest patients within China. This directly point toward the proximal origin of the Chinese outbreak being associated with virology research and culturing of viruses.' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

So, where are DEFUSE going to sample humans? Also, the RaTg13 RBD bind human ACE2 poorly, resulting in exceptionally high sVNT cross-reactivity as even poorly binding antibodies can display ACE2 off it. Once again, 1: RaTG13 is not viable. https://zenodo.org/record/5702700#.ZJ2KiyV6slT https://zenodo.org/record/5778318#.ZJ5hyCV6slT 2: the real issue is that 1. WIV lies about everything serological. None of their “tests” were positive when politics require it to be negative. And 2. The missing sequences of Latinne et al is where you find what the WIV was working on. 7 SARSr and 54 total CoVs were missing entirely.

Anomalies in BatCoV/RaTG13 sequencing and provenance To this date, the most critical piece of evidence on the purposed “natural origin” theory of SARS-CoV-2, was the sequence known as RaTG13, allegedly collected from a single fecal sample from Rhinolophus Affinis. Understanding the provenance of RaTG13 is critical on the ongoing debate of the Origins of SARS-CoV-2. However, this sample is allegedly “used up” and therefore can no longer be accessed nor sequenced independently [1], and the only available data was the 3 related Genbank accessions: MN996532.1, SRX7724752 and SRX8357956. We report these datasets possessed multiple significant anomalies, and the provenence of the promised claims of RaTG13 or it’s role in proving a “probable bat origin”[2] of SARS-CoV-2 can not be satisfied nor possibly be confirmed. zenodo.org

The seminal paper from the Wuhan Institute of Virology claiming SARS-CoV-2 probably originated in bats appears to contain a contrived specimen, an incomplete and inaccurate genomic assembly, and the signature of laboratory-derived synthetic biology The bat coronavirus RaTG13 was purportedly identified in a bat “fecal” specimen that is probably not feces, has significant unresolved method-dependent genome sequence errors and an incomplete assembly with significant gaps, and has an anomalous base substitution pattern that has never been seen in nature but is routinely used in codon-optimized synthetic genome constructions performed in the laboratory. zenodo.org

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Note how the WHU itself gets about half of all the animal work that involved the “understanding risk of bat coronavirus emergence” grant— Both it and DEFUSE are included in the “pathogen host adaptation and immune intervention” grant.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

And in deed, this 2018 EHA grant approval document invoked an near exact replication of DEFUSE on what to do with the new SARSr-CoVs—gather Spikes 10%-25% divergent from SARS-CoV-1, test with chimeric viruses first, and then take the immune-evasive and human infectious ones, and validate with full genomes—clearly more than “only 1-2” with binding to human cells first, see SARS-like signs from some of these next, and then some (more than 1 but nor all) don’t respond to mAbs, vaccines, etc.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@BlackTomThePyr8 - Tom Czerniawski

Few will ever understand the gravity of what Lt. Col. Murphy did. By releasing DEFUSE he showed us where to look. From that discovery, subsequent draft DEFUSE documents were discovered years later by @USRightToKnow that proved C-19 to be synthetic, and revealed how it was made.

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

What those analyzers think: “many different precise and specific pieces recombine into SARS-CoV-2”. Reality: an unpublished but readily sampled SARS-CoV-2 progenitor spread fragments over time into multiple locations. Some end up in the published samples. “10%-25% Spike divergence”—they will isolate RBDs from viruses that they sample to identify one that bind ACE2. Only fine tuning is needed later. “Exotic recombination”? It is just reverse transcriptases in cases of “postpandemic inserts”. How many billion hosts are needed and how this compare to the total number of wild animals on the entire Earth? link.springer.com/chapter/10.100… Use targeted RNA recombination if you have a cultured virus in stead. “Perfect synergy”? Nothing but VERO/HAE cells. Those “synergy” are only stable here. Not in any live hosts which they will mutate and destroy each other in stead. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109205261283826972 ReCCA is tautological and fictitious. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109863181504837302 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109465063042828622 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109255356915252021 BtSY2 is sequenced in 2018. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109399710986742685 BANAL is in the hands of the DOD in 2017. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109340247585238829 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109800300869616862 And all of which got funneled into the EHA, which eventually will end up in the WIV.

Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/1089460581208001…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108946058120800199 How would you go onto constructing a synthetic consensus backbone that would be 1: guaranteed to be rescuable. 2: easy to manipulate as fragments. 3: easy to manipulate even after being ligated? You would need to choose fragments with type IIS restriction sites such that 1: each individual type IIS site must have a precedent in its presence of absence in the wild in at least 1 Sarbecovirus (distance doesn’t matter here. Can be as distant as BM48-31. Abundance matters statistically (rarer individual sites are less likely to show up at spillover) but does not matter if you are making a clone. As long as you find your desired presence/absence of a site at a specific location in even just one genome, you can use it and be confident that it won’t break your consensus genome. This is governed by both the availability of individual side precedence in sampled genomes and by the location of the site, whatever that doesn’t break the genome and is optimal for cloning gets chosen) to ensure that highly conserved RNA structural motifs aren’t disrupted. 2: there must be no BsaI sites between two BsmBI sites and no BsmBI sites between two BsaI sites to minimize the need of double digestion. 3: the number of overly small fragments should be minimized while no overly large fragments should be present at all. That is, the Standard Deviation (S.D.) Of the length of the fragments shouldn’t be too high. 4: the number of fragments should be kept to as low as possible with the restriction that you can easily manipulate each individual fragment within a M13/pUC vector backbone, as an excess number of fragments are more difficult to keep track of or manipulate. The type IIS restriction sites in the SARS-CoV-2 genome matches all the requirements above. Other genomes in its clade (or even any that is found in Asia)? Not that much. Unfortunately since clonability does not translate to spillover potential (without a lab), the fact that easily clonable Sarbecovirus genomes are rare in general also translates into the possibility that one that ended up spilling over just happen to be one that is easily clonable as SARS-CoV-2, being low. Since the fragments are what that is being chosen for the consensus genome, site selection influences ReCCA especially for the segments that were located near restriction sites—the segments surrounding them are what that were originally chosen in the consensus construct, where one of the requirements used is that the pattern of type IIS sites within the selected set of fragments should make the final genome assembled from them easy to clone. Finally, how could all the non-SARS-CoV-2 genomes you use in the ReCCA graph have a BsaI site in the first position of the F3 fragment (this site is highly conserved in Sarbecoviruses found in Asia) , but the final ReCCA, supposedly generated from related sequences sampled in the wild, not having that site? Either the ReCCA algorithm itself have considered these sites as part of the synonymous sites that was used to infer the “highly conserved segments”, and included SARS-CoV-2 itself into the analysis (making the algorithm tautological), or it is the result of the consensus-generation process where the choice of segments and sites to be used for the consensus included an requirement for the ease of cloning and manipulation for the final genome—something that would matter if you are synthesizing and rescuing it in the lab, not so much for anything that “spills over from the wild”. https://archive.ph/VypuD' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'In fact, how the ReCCA algorithm functions (it pi…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'In fact, how the ReCCA algorithm functions (it picks the closest sequence to the SARS-CoV-2 branch On “phylogenetic trees constructed on each (very short) segment of the genome”) mean that it is impossible to reconstruct an ReCCA without inputing the SARS-CoV-2 genome into the algorithm (as the reference genome to be aligned against) and thus biasing the result catastrophically—to the point that it is impossible to distinguish this process from what that would be used during the construction of an consensus genome for an infectious clone (fragments are picked with a requirement that the sites on the selected fragments lead to a genome that can be easily synthesized and constructed), and removes any statistical power of “ReCCA” to argue that the specific type IIS restriction pattern of SARS-CoV-2 to be the only possible combination of sites that is “evolutionarily likely”. It once again, failed to provide any biological reason why a specific, <1-in-100, easy-to-clone pattern being any more likely to end up being the spillover strain (that must not use the SARS-CoV-2 genome itself as the reference when such probability is assessed) compared to the >99-in-100 other possible combinations outside the S1 With the “ReCCA components” (where none were easy to clone by themselves) that are not easy to clone, in a non-circular manner. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109288626916761348' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'When a synthetic recombinant genome for a coronav…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'When a synthetic recombinant genome for a coronavirus is constructed, fragments are selected from relevant natural bat isolates with a requirement that the type IIS restriction pattern using the planned enzymes on the resulting assembly should enable easy cloning and efficient manipulation—a less than 1 in 100 chance for this to happen randomly by chance for recombination outside the S1 region of the genome, and completely irrelevant to spillover. When a natural virus spills over, there is very little effect (within 1 order of magnitude) on the chance that some specific strain would end up becoming the pandemic strain for recombination ancestry outside the S1 region. There is no requirement that a strain that spills over must be a strain that is easy to clone by the 2 most popular type IIS restriction enzymes that were used in CoV genome assemblies, and the chance given natural spillover of an ancestry that had an efficient type IIS RGS system without modification is the same chance as finding one such strain in nature just by 1 single random sampling—so far no specimen from Asia satisfy this on their individual genomes. Again, which sequence on the ReCCA graph were not sampled from nature? Unfortunately, the so-called “natural recombination ancestry” argument may well just be one of the many ways workable coronavirus genomes are “recovered” from a set of otherwise unisolated samples. Whatever you reconstruct out of natural isolates for a clone, it must be easy to clone. It can be from one of the rare samples you find with an easy-to-clone pattern, or it could be one of the combinations of various contigs from sequencing a pooled sample. It could also be a chimeric genome constructed using fragments selected from related wild isolates with a requirement that the result is easy to clone. When a strain spills over naturally, there is no requirement that it must be easy to clone—restriction enzymes work on DNA not on RNA, and there is no reason why the specific combination with an easy to clone site pattern must be selected other than the posterior claim “it happened” (ReCCA construction used SARS-CoV-2 genome as reference). This is a circular argument as the claim that “the SARS-CoV-2 genome with its unusual combination of type IIS sites is the result of a natural spillover” assumed P(spillover|strain have good site combination)>=0.5 while P(strain have good site combination)<<0.5 with the only justification “we observe that the SARS-CoV-2 genome is easy to clone and can be constructed using a combination of fragments from some 8+ different “bat virus strains”” only able to justify this implied probability assumption with the assumption “SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a natural spillover”, a hypothesis that is being tested in the type IIS RE site analysis paper in stead of an underlying assumption. In conclusion, while a ReCCA with an easy to clone type IIS site combination with the go-to enzymes used for assemblies of this length is a possible combination of the bat coronavirus sequences known from sampling, there is no justification for this hypothetical and still unsampled ReCCA to be the only possible combination where a spillover is possible or that a spillover strain will have a probability that it will be easy to clone being >0.5 while the chance of finding such a strain from a random sampling from the wild being only about ~0.01.' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'Additional sample formats, such as “bat coronavir…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'Additional sample formats, such as “bat coronavirus isolate NNNNNN” are found in 2015 samples, whereas the 2016 sequences (the last sequences to be deposited into GenBank from known bat coronavirus searching papers in China/CAS) contained within their authors “Edward C Holmes”. This may hint on the role of E.Holmes on the handling of bat Coronavirus sample sequencing for samples collected “between 2015-2019”. Sequences MH315932-MH315944 have formats “XxNNNNNN”, however these contained samples from as early as 2013, making it difficult to ascertain as where these samples came from. However, these numbers (and the “Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats and the Origin of Human SARS Coronavirus” paper, with E.Holmes in the GenBank records) contained the only deposited CAS samples known to be collected in 2016, which could be taken as evidence of E.Holmes and WIV collaboration for sampling efforts and sequence/sample sharing, in the 2015-2019 period. A collaboration (sample/sequence sharing) between Guangdong and Wuhan institutions through E.Holmes https://zenodo.org/record/6849652#.Y38toiW8klT , can not be ruled out. The original GenBank deposition date of 2018 seems to coincide with the supposed sampling date of “BtSY2”. We now know that some of the samples taken in 2018 under E.Holmes contained RBD sequences related to the Omicron strain of SARS-CoV-2. The question becomes: Why you are taking samples from bats (dissected rectum), without performing some kind of tests immediately after sampling, as early as in 2015-2018, given that an ethics approval for the destructive sampling of wild animals in China required some kind of academic program to be first sent for approval, which have to include the detail of the exact experiments that requires the dissection of the bats and collection of the rectum samples. If any kind of testing/screening/experimentation were done initially on the samples (immediate experimental plan would have to be provided for the sampling proposal to be justified and approved—and “for storage, until some technology that doesn’t yet exist until late 2021” isn’t one of them), what were the results? Why, despite sampling of bats by EHA/CAS and expeditions into Yunnan/Mojiang mine continued all the way until 2019, the last such sequences deposited from China was sampled in 2016? If “This research, including the procedures and protocols of specimen collection and processing, 262 was reviewed and approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Yunnan Institute of 263 Endemic Diseases Control and Prevention. (No. 20160002).”, why weren’t the results immediately made available to the public as the samples were collected and processed over the course of 4 years? RNA samples are after all, very fragile and does not tolerate long-term storage very well. When were these actually sequenced? (I see 15 different sequencing machines in the FCIDs, with FCIDs ranging from H2 to H7, HG to HY, and sequencing on the same machines hundreds of runs apart. This could indicate sequencing done immediately after sampling) And if these were sequenced before the pandemic, who had access to the sequences? Were these really “newly discovered” viruses, or just sequences that were put into embargo in the “great silence” of CAS accession numbers between 2016-2019, only recently released? (Should these samples be sequenced pre-pandemic, near their collection date in 2018, this could be corresponding to phase 1(QS0) of DEFUSE. After sequences generated as early as in mid-2018, there would be more than 1 year to work with the cloning and culture experiments.) The machines found in https://github.com/Augustpan/Individual-Bat-Virome/blob/main/raw_data/lane_id_table.csv Are: A01426 A00821 A00920 A00270 A00877 A00289 A00881 A00783 A00253 A00917 A01045 A00808 A00459 A01415 A01050 The samples with BtSY2 are: S18CXBatR24 @A00917:648:H3Y25DSX2:4 S18CXBatR29 @A00783:739:H3V32DSX2:3 Both appeared to be on the earliest run on that particular machine, where the run contained no sample from 2019, and where the flow cell ID were from an early era (H3). Archive for read mappings: https://archive.ph/CuzzR Archive for lane IDs: https://archive.ph/IKxD1' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: 'To see more about the DOD-sponsored Institut Past…' Flavinkins on Gab: 'To see more about the DOD-sponsored Institut Pasteur sampling of the BANAL caves in 2017 and the censorship of even the already-sequenced batflies library https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109150240613656613 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109139121799069783 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108782000872829271 http://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108745003276913992 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108938621623162894 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108961381086722860 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108808844066927838 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109198525541365424 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109222447665307488 PREDICT-2 and EHA activity in SE. Asia including Southern Laos https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109079936391006382 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109079963106312117 Past lab escapes from IP france https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108929427082821215 And on the type IIS REase found in IP cambodge https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109215673255176764 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109216529429569399' gab.com

Flavinkins on Gab: '@Graviola_Finland @EIGARBARINO https://archive.m…' Flavinkins on Gab: '@Graviola_Finland @EIGARBARINO https://archive.md/8rlbT FULL TRANSLATED TEXT of the briefing of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation on the analysis of documents related to military biological activities of the United States, made on January 30, 2023 with the supporting documentation that it provided. https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108782801366501491 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108908816879287433 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108808844066927838 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108808523459345532 It confirms that sampling and researching effort for S.E. Asia is in deed being conducted in these labs. Anomalies regarding the Caspian sea in 2019: https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108949034317465342 EHA activity in the Caspian sea region, up to 2019: https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108782587895528182 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109139121799069783 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109529211058973737 DOD, IP laos and batflies🦇🪰: https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108961381086722860 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108938621623162894 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/108782000872829271 https://archive.md/JZkwi EHA, Laos and PREDICT-2: https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109158749548555994 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109079936391006382 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109079963106312117 https://archive.md/hMp7x 🦇🧪🥣？ https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109150240613656613 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109198525541365424 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109222447665307488 https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109728264957247673 https://archive.ph/3fFfn https://archive.md/T6sN5 (No wildlife trade route linking Wuhan to Laos…… But plenty of sampling route linking Laos to labs both in Wuhan and on the East Coast……)' gab.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

Before they begun enforcing their claim of “100/174 centered around the market” and starting to tamper with data to make the claim, https://ghrp.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41256-021-00200-8 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7149375/ 135/92 and 115/82 cases already got into in early peer-reviewed papers that went missing in the WHO report. Past media reports archive.md/Ea0Kw archive.md/1x658 also contradict WHO in key early cases’ residences, including the earliest case they admit in the WHO report. archive.md/5sdkR archive.md/1pcCU archive.md/N0hib archive.md/VXtu9 archive.is/Kyr1z https://archive.org/details/mace-e-pai-covid-19-analysis-redacted/page/8/mode/1up And you know that they hate this information when it was censored. The MACE-EPAI document here is not searchable on google. Up to one third of all cases were either removed completely or moved toward the market in the “dataset”. archive.md/zUD1F archive.md/Pc6gp https://archive.is/p3K3Z Including the very first case they ever admitted officially. And outright removed 4 times more cases than official. Unlinked cases supposedly secondary to linked cases should cluster around them, not the market itself. archive.md/GvRcD archive.md/ZgVzp Wuhan authorities after that archive.md/OIGPz 2014 incident now targeted only the Huanan market when looking for EID outbreaks—and nowhere else. archive.md/1x658 They tampered with the early cases data archive.md/Ea0Kw To make it look like it “started at the market” when in reality the first case they ever admitted lived right next to the WIV BSL-4. archive.md/5sdkR severe discrepancy happening December 2019 and January 2020 indicate tampering with case counts. archive.md/1pcCU This is indicative of catastrophic ascertainment bias was going on. None of China’s “early cases” dataset is credible. https://archive.md/ET1GA https://archive.md/Ea0Kw https://archive.md/1x658 The tampering of early case residence data is systematic and extensive. It is the reason why they refused to provide this data in any detail at all. Not only did The first every case they admitted live in Shidong right next to the BSL-4, and were moved toward the market in the WHO report in contradiction to all known media coverage, https://gab.com/Flavinkins/posts/109256201942085712 the entirety of Wuchang district was wiped clean for every single WHO case that have onset before 27/12/2019–with up to 3000 cases moved to the market this way over the entire Wuhan outbreak. https://archive.md/1x658 and for central Wuchang near the labs and the densest inhabited regions inside the district, all cases were moved away in the WHO map. Unfortunately Rasmussen's work on the origins question rests heavily on what David Relman described as "hopelessly impoverished" early case data. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/02/27/little-known-scientific-team-behind-new-assessment-covid-19-origins/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/17/covid-early-cases-wuhan-china-mystery/ https://archive.md/ke1lp https://archive.md/RaYPC David Fisman: I think the most interesting thing this fellow says is that there are clearly tens of thousands of cases...That implies a much earlier introduction than would have occurred with a seafood market outbreak..."

The comparison of epidemiological characteristics between confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases with COVID-19 during the early epidemic in Wuhan, China - Global Health Research and Policy To put COVID-19 patients into hospital timely, the clinical diagnosis had been implemented in Wuhan in the early epidemic. Here we compared the epidemiological characteristics of laboratory-confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases with COVID-19 in Wuhan. Demographics, case severity and outcomes of 29,886 confirmed cases and 21,960 clinically diagnosed cases reported between December 2019 and February 24, 2020, were compared. The risk factors were estimated, and the effective reproduction number (Rt) of SARS-CoV-2 was also calculated. The age and occupation distribution of confirmed cases and clinically diagnosed cases were consistent, and their sex ratio were 1.0 and 0.9, respectively. The epidemic curve of clinical diagnosis cases was similar to that of confirmed cases, and the city centers had more cumulative cases and higher incidence density than suburbs in both of two groups. The proportion of severe and critical cases (21.5 % vs. 14.0 %, P < 0.0001) and case fatality rates (5.2 % vs. 1.2 %, P < 0.0001) of confirmed cases were all higher than those of clinically diagnosed cases. Risk factors for death we observed in both of two groups were older age, male, severe or critical cases. Rt showed the same trend in two groups, it dropped below 1.0 on February 6 among confirmed cases, and February 8 among clinically diagnosed cases. The demographic characteristics and spatiotemporal distributions of confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases are roughly similar, but the disease severity and clinical outcome of clinically diagnosed cases are better than those of confirmed cases. In cases when detection kits are insufficient during the early epidemic, the implementation of clinical diagnosis is necessary and effective. ghrp.biomedcentral.com

Association of Public Health Interventions With the Epidemiology of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Wuhan, China Was there an association of public health interventions with improved control of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China?In this cohort study that included 32 583 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in Wuhan from December 8, 2019, through ... ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

MACE E PAI COVID 19 ANALYSIS Redacted : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive MACE E-PAI COVID-19 ANALYSIS archive.org

Opinion | Wuhan’s early covid cases are a mystery. What is China hiding? The story of how the pandemic got started — and turned into a global catastrophe — remains a black box. It should not be. washingtonpost.com

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/world/asia/china-world-health-organization-coronavirus.html https://archive.md/UFrSv They systematically moved more than 3000 cases from the lab to the market and gave “cases data” that they wanted to push for market as first outbreak site to distance from the labs. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370635299_Greater_than_the_Sum_of_its_Parts_-_Aggregated_Wuhan_COVID-19_case_data_points_to_the_wrong_side_of_the_Yangtze_River_-_Rixey_-_20230509 Such an result of having unlinked cases closer to the market than linked cases is not expected even under the null hypothesis of market origin, which we should see unlinked cases secondary to and cluster around the linked cases, and not the market itself. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370635299_Greater_than_the_Sum_of_its_Parts_-_Aggregated_Wuhan_COVID-19_case_data_points_to_the_wrong_side_of_the_Yangtze_River_-_Rixey_-_20230509 Not only there were an complete absence of verifiability in Chinese cases, there is direct non-circumstantial evidence that they moved up to 3000 cases from Wuchang to Huanan. In fact, it is totally not normal to have unlinked cases closer to the market than linked cases—the only way this can happen is with ascertainment bias. Only near the market gets ascertained if not directly linked to it. Base rate neglect. They did the exact same thing when claiming that all 67 “pre-Huanan checkable cases” were “serologically negative”. Again, the social media associated here say “before Jan 18, 2020”. Included all Dec cases. https://www.mdpi.com/2220-9964/9/6/402 It is actually impossible for unlinked cases, supposedly secondary, to cluster closer to the market than linked cases which supposedly to be primary, without significant sampling bias or outright manipulation in the underlying “data”. Both evidently happened. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.08680.pdf https://archive.md/JVFuc If you toss away anything that is not officially announced by China in bold, then obviously you would arrive at exactly what China wanted you to believe.

On W.H.O. Trip, China Refused to Hand Over Important Data (Published 2021) The information could be key to determining how and when the outbreak started, and to learning how to prevent future pandemics. nytimes.com

ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable researchgate.net

ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable researchgate.net

Exploring Urban Spatial Features of COVID-19 Transmission in Wuhan Based on Social Media Data During the early stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, there was a short run of medical resources, and Sina Weibo, a social media platform in China, built a channel for novel coronavirus pneumonia patients to seek help. Based on the geo-tagging Sina Weibo data from February 3rd to 12th, 2020, this paper analyzes the spatiotemporal distribution of COVID-19 cases in the main urban area of Wuhan and explores the urban spatial features of COVID-19 transmission in Wuhan. The results show that the elderly population accounts for more than half of the total number of Weibo help seekers, and a close correlation between them has also been found in terms of spatial distribution features, which confirms that the elderly population is the group of high-risk and high-prevalence in the COVID-19 outbreak, needing more attention of public health and epidemic prevention policies. On the other hand, the early transmission of COVID-19 in Wuhan could be divide into three phrases: Scattered infection, community spread, and full-scale outbreak. This paper can help to understand the spatial transmission of COVID-19 in Wuhan, so as to propose an effective public health preventive strategy for urban space optimization. mdpi.com

@blink64 - polyploidy

When actual statisticians have a go at your paper purporting to show the SARS2 outbreak originates at the HSM. Thanks @gdemaneuf! https://t.co/avfBP4bZPa

@NestCommander - Kevin W. McCairn PhD

@threadreaderapp unroll

@Kevin_McKernan - Kevin McKernan

I was always amazed at the regulators allowing a single PCR primer pair as a DNA quant when the same agency is approving COVID PCR EUAs that have 3 targets for the virus. Great work from @P_J_Buckhaults We have also see a 10CT (1,000 fold) difference between lots.

@Kevin_McKernan - Kevin McKernan

having multiple primer pairs allowed us to verify what we see in sequencing which is that the spike region doesnt DNase or ligate as readily as the backbone. Presumably the background RNA is slowing these reactions down. Using a single primer set can lead to error in the quant. https://t.co/LNFr9J7c76

@Kevin_McKernan - Kevin McKernan

Best to use as many as you can . This is more pronounced in Moderna which are cleaner from a DNA standpoint but have a wider variance on spike/Ori qPCR. https://t.co/tfHziiMPgh

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(1/28) 🚨⚠️ Virology is a Sham — Explained for Every Attention Span I’ve tailored this thread to all attention spans—from 10-word memes for goldfish brains to 25,000-word papers for chads—and everything in between. Pick length that suits you and see why virology’s a scam. 🧵👇

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(2/28) Virology is a Sham — Explained for Every Attention Span “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” 3/28: 20 words 4/28: 30 words @APWK 5/28: 40 words 6/28: 45 words @DrWojakMD 7/28: 50 words @AndrewKaufmanMD 8/28: 50 words @drtomcowan 9/28: 55 words Dr. Mark Bailey 10/28: 70 words Dr. Stefan Lanka 11/28: 70 words Dr. Stefan Lanka 12/28: 100 words 13/28: 130 words Dr. Jordan Grant 14/28: 140 words 15/28: 200 words 16/28: 250 words 17/28: 300 words 18/28: 300 words 19/28: 500 words @potusastrologer 20/28: 550 words @Alec_Zeck 21/28: 600 words 22/28: 3000 words Dr. Stefan Lanka 23/28: 4000 words Dr. Stefan Lanka 24/28: 5000 words @Alec_Zeck @JacobDiazTheUV Dr. Jordan Grant @MikeDonio @ViroLIEgy 25/28: 14,000 words Dr. Mark Bailey, Dr. John Bevan-Smith 26/28: 21,000 words Dr. Stefan Lanka 27/28: 25,000 words Dr. Mark Bailey

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(3/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 20 words

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(4/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 30 words @_APWK_

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(5/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 40 words

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(6/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 45 words @DrWojakMD

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(7/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 50 words @AndrewKaufmanMD

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(8/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 50 words @drtomcowan

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(9/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 55 words Dr. Mark Bailey

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(10/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 70 words Dr. Stefan Lanka

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(11/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 70 words Dr. Stefan Lanka

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(12/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 100 words

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(13/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 130 words Dr. Jordan Grant

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(14/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 140 words

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(15/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 200 words

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(16/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 250 words

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(17/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 300 words

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(18/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 300 words

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(19/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 500 words @potusastrologer Link: https://planetwavesfm.substack.com/p/open-letter-to-prof-denis-rancourt

Open Letter to Prof. Denis Rancourt The Canadian former physics professor says he is assembling a team to investigate the existence of viruses. I offer historical documents that might facilitate his efforts. planetwavesfm.substack.com

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(20/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 550 words @Alec_Zeck Link: https://aleczeck.substack.com/p/lets-get-to-the-root-there-is-no?s=w

Let's get to the root: There is no proof of SARS-CoV-2 To the freedom-fighting virus pushers: If we don't start addressing the root of the lie, we will be playing this game forever aleczeck.substack.com

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(21/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 600 words

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(22/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 3000 words Dr. Stefan Lanka Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20221207011455/https://greatreject.org/dr-stefan-lanka-claims-about-viruses-are-false/

Dr. Stefan Lanka: "All claims about viruses as pathogens are false" The true causes of the diseases and phenomena attributed to viruses now have a different explanation, and note one that is much clearer than the current pseudo-explanations. web.archive.org

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(23/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 4000 words Dr. Stefan Lanka Link: https://ourfreesociety.com/viruses/dismantling-the-virus-theory-dr-stefan-lanka.pdf

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(24/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 5000 words @Alec_Zeck @JacobDiazTheUV Dr. Jordan Grant @MikeDonio @ViroLIEgy Link: https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/22/debunking-the-nonsense/

Debunking the Nonsense A few months ago, I was invited by Alec Zeck to help develop and participate in a presentation brilliantly led by him and including many other people whom I greatly admire and respect such as Dr. Jordan Grant, Mike Donio, and Jacob Diaz. We set out to create an easy to understand case against the… viroliegy.com

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(25/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 14,000 words Dr. Mark Bailey, Dr. John Bevan-Smith Link: https://drsambailey.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/THE-COVID-19-FRAUD-WAR-ON-HUMANITY_Live-ToCV3.pdf

Unmasking the Viral Paradigm In mid-2024, the legendary Vera Sharav of the Alliance for Human Research Protection sent a request. She asked if my husband Mark and I would write an essay concerning the perversion of science for her companion book to the documentary “Never Again is Now Global”. drsambailey.com

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(26/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 21,000 words Dr. Stefan Lanka Link: https://web.archive.org/web/20250108011720/https://pdfhost.io/v/lCDrTdbZm_The_Virus_Misconcepion_Parts_13_by_Stefan_Lanka

The Virus Misconcepion (Parts 1–3) by Stefan Lanka.pdf | PDF Host PDF Host read free online - The Virus Misconcepion (Parts 1–3) by Stefan Lanka.pdf web.archive.org

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(27/28) ⚠️🦠 Virology is a Sham — Explained in 25,000 words Dr. Mark Bailey Link: https://drsambailey.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/A-FAREWELL-TO-VIROLOGY-Expert-Edition-V1.2.pdf

Unmasking the Viral Paradigm In mid-2024, the legendary Vera Sharav of the Alliance for Human Research Protection sent a request. She asked if my husband Mark and I would write an essay concerning the perversion of science for her companion book to the documentary “Never Again is Now Global”. drsambailey.com

@DrWojakMD - Dr. Wojak, M.D.

(28/28) If you can read, you now have NO EXCUSE for believing in “viruses” after this thread. Maybe I’ll make a video version for the illiterate. 2025 will be a pivotal year for this fraud being exposed. Further reading attached. 🚨 Follow for more threads like this. https://t.co/fr0nztY4ds

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

Holmes attempted <> methods, ...with his Twitter thread on March 6th 2023, ...as evidence that the 60 viruses submitted as part of a preprint, together with Prof Jie Cui and ZLShi of WIV, were complete but only 163 of a potential 180 sequences were part of this 12-JUL-2018 PrePrint? Only 154 of those are in the current GI series available to be recovered... as far as I know...with this current GI series of 154 submissions is interrupted by submissions dated 25-OCT-2019 and the ACCESSION series continuing from the last, with <> to <> which is unrelated but dated Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615993.1?report=girevhist This suggests that the original GenBank submission, perhaps actually of 180 sequences, was cropped to 163 and given new ACCESSION numbers one year after it was submitted...with the cropped series of 163 placed in their current GI position on 25-OCT-2019...but what of the missing 9 ORF8 from this GI series? Methods: basic GI series analysis this post GI is 1769824416 https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824416 ...next will be 1769824414 So <> is the next missing OFR8 gene for <> GenBank submission from @syd_health 's & @Sydney_Uni 's Prof Edward Holmes @EdwardCHolmes to GenBank of @NLM_NIH soon to be headed by @DrJBhattacharya So now I am trying to help Holmes & @syd_health recover the missing data NOW tally is at eleven missing ORF8 and three missing S genes... where for <> RdRp is the there: https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615889.1?report=genbank and S gene is there but supressed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824528 but no ORF8 gene in this GI series Why? Missing ORF8 tally so far: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rs6303_Yunnan of a total of 15 missing... Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ? https://web.archive.org/web/20220809085043/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+++++++++++++Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series...Why? 1) Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rspp7896_Yunnan of 11 S genes left out of this study. Why? <> S gene is there but seems quite different to others. Why? All this so far indicates that the 2023 @COVIDSelect disclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete...but the count continues... next search is GI 1769824414! Taxonomy browser (Bat SARS-like coronavirus) https://archive.md/qgC9W#selection-2037.0-2081.1

Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs6303_Yunnan RNA-dependent RNA polym - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs6303_Yunnan RNA-dependent RNA polym - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs6303_Yunnan spike protein (S) gene, - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube web.archive.org

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

One more before I put the roast on for Australia Day dinner... @GrahamPerrettMP is my local Federal MP and he has helped in the past, but last time I wrote to him he replied that I should check the Queensland State Library for more details...perhaps I should check back with him again too. These issues of how to handle the dangerous side of science have been a problem since at least Iraq's @UN biological weapons inspections...with discussions of Mustard brought to the table by @R_H_Ebright thank you, @INTERPOL_CBRNE questions are important. H/t @CharlesRixey @Ayjchan @Globalbiosec Holmes attempted <> methods, ...with his Twitter thread on March 6th 2023, ...as evidence that the 60 viruses submitted as part of a preprint, together with Prof Jie Cui and ZLShi of WIV, were complete... but only 163 of a potential 180 sequences were part of this 12-JUL-2018 PrePrint? https://web.archive.org/web/20220809085043/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+++++++++++++Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus Only 154 of those are in the current GI series available to be recovered... as far as I know...with this current GI series of 154 submissions is interrupted by submissions dated 25-OCT-2019 and the ACCESSION series continuing from the last, with <> to <> which is unrelated but dated Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615993.1?report=girevhist This suggests that the original GenBank submission, perhaps actually of 180 sequences, was cropped to 163 and given new ACCESSION numbers one year after it was submitted...with the cropped series of 163 placed in their current GI position on 25-OCT-2019...but what of the missing 9 ORF8 from this GI series? KISS Methods: basic GI series analysis this post GI is 1769824414 anyone can do this... https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824414 but with <> nothing is missing, all three sets are there in GenBank ORF8, S and RdRp...and apparently has identical RBD to As6526? <> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/KY417142 So...next will be 1769824412 <> also all three accounted for too and even features in the <>... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615887.1?report=girevhist So, next is 1769824410...Bingo! <> ORF8 missing! So <> is the next missing OFR8 gene for <> GenBank submission from @syd_health 's & @Sydney_Uni 's Prof Edward Holmes @EdwardCHolmes to GenBank of @NLM_NIH soon to be headed by @DrJBhattacharya @secrubio & @RobertKennedyJr in the mix too. So now I am trying to help Holmes & @syd_health recover the missing GenBank data...for everyone that hungers for a slice of truth tune in... NOW tally is at twelve missing ORF8 and three missing S genes... where for <> RdRp is the there: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615886.1?report=genbank and S gene is there but suppressed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824532 but no ORF8 gene in this GI series Why? Missing ORF8 tally so far: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rs6303_Yunnan 12) Rs6266_Yunnan of a total of 15 missing... Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series...Why? 1) Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rspp7896_Yunnan of 11 S genes left out of this study. Why? <> S gene is there but seems quite different to others. Why? All this so far indicates that the 2023 @COVIDSelect disclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete...but the count continues... next search is GI 1769824408! Taxonomy browser (Bat SARS-like coronavirus) https://archive.md/qgC9W#selectio ...speaking of things that are difficult to understand... Any idea of how it is that @BrookeNGenovese reasonable Sep 2020 appeal to have the suspended@Twitteraccounts for:@PREDICTProject@OneHealthLabs@GlobalVirome@HALIUCDavis has gone? Perhaps some are up & running, perhaps others are still suppressed? <<@TwitterSupport also, the lab’s account @OneHealthLab &the Global Virome Project @GlobalVirome are similarly suspended..since June...despite repeated attempts to resolve. 🤨 @Twitter oh and the @HALIUCDavis account, too. Anyone noticing a theme here...?>> How is @RogerMarshallMD & @COVIDSelect going to discuss this issue with the public if the terms are suppressed? Things to chew over dinner roast?

Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube web.archive.org

Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs160665_Yunnan RNA-dependent RNA pol - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Bat SARS-like coronavirus isolate As6526, complete genome - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs6266_Yunnan RNA-dependent RNA polym - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs6266_Yunnan spike protein (S) gene, - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@Studio28nyc @McWLuke @PeterDaszak @WHO @SciDiplomacyUSA @BangXiao_ @POTUS After Australia Day roast lunch (which was fantastic) I sent another email this time to Zhengli Shi & @BangXiao_ Then me & the fam went to local barefoot lawn bowls.

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@BrookeNGenovese @twitter @PREDICTproject Not gone, just suspended You can find @PREDICTproject here

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

Seeking No14 ORF8 omission...with some healthy distraction from @breakfast_dogs @harishseshadri2 @gdemaneuf about the truisms of love...and knowing at all. @Rebecca21951651 @emilyakopp @a_kruschke @Ayjchan @VBruttel @BillyBostickson Back to the data set. Holmes attempted <> methods,@MarionKoopmans ...with his Twitter thread on March 6th 2023, ...as evidence that the 60 viruses submitted as part of a preprint, together with Prof Jie Cui and ZLShi of WIV, were complete... https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.01240-24 ...but only 163 of a potential 180 sequences were part of this 12-JUL-2018 PrePrint? https://web.archive.org/web/20220809085043/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+++++++++++++Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus Only 154 of those are in the current GI series available to be recovered... as far as I know... Note important under examined bioinformatics data: ...with this current GI series of 154 submissions is interrupted by submissions dated 25-OCT-2019 and the ACCESSION series continuing from the last, with <> to <> which is unrelated but dated Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615993.1?report=girevhist This suggests that the original GenBank submission, perhaps actually of 180 sequences, was cropped to 163 and given new ACCESSION numbers one year after it was submitted...with the cropped series of 163 placed in their current GI position on 25-OCT-2019...but what of the missing 9 ORF8 from this GI series? GI count is hypothesized as a way of delineating this Undone Science data set. KISS Methods: basic GI series analysis this Xpost GI is 1769824408 anyone can do this... https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824408 but with <> nothing is missing, all three sets are there in GenBank ORF8, S and RdRp... So...next will be 1769824406 <> also all three accounted for too...but getting close to the typology of another hidden data set from Beijing Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology? <> isolate missing isolation source sputum collection date 2019 geographic location China: HeNan>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/biosample/28539355 So, next is 1769824404 <> all there...but this is where the RdRp set ends and so GI for 1769824404 is < Next is 1769824402 <> all there... ///////// Hmm interesting data links here: NOTE homework <> @quay_dr @MartinaSisters <> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31022925/ /////// Next is 1769824400 <> all three there Next is 1769824398 <> all three there Note: duplication issues here with S gene? Next is 1769824396 <> Tombola! Ambo...you see ORF8 and RdRp are here but for <> the S gene is missing. Why? So <> is the next missing data point for <> GenBank submission from @syd_health 's & @Sydney_Uni 's Prof Edward Holmes @EdwardCHolmes to GenBank of @NLM_NIH soon to be headed by@DrJBhattacharyateamed with@secrubio& @RobertKennedyJr by @POTUS So now I am trying to help Holmes & @syd_health recover the missing GenBank data...for everyone that hungers for a slice of truth tune in... NOW tally is still twelve missing ORF8 and now four missing S genes... where for <> RdRp is the there: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824500 ORF8 gene is there but suppressed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824396 but no S gene in this GI series Why? Missing ORF8 tally so far: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rs6303_Yunnan 12) Rs6266_Yunnan of a total of 15 missing... Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series...Why? 1) Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rspp7896_Yunnan 4) Rs9214_Hubei of 11 S genes left out of this study. Why? <> S gene is missing Why? All this so far indicates that the 2023 @COVIDSelect disclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete...but the count continues... next search is GI 1769824394! ////// Suppression and Dissent in Science is such an interest topic https://documents.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/99rsppp.html ...my MA thesis Professor is very good in this area Brian Martin and also has good advice about academic reading and writing...a little every day. COVID Origin Case study is full of under examined data. EG Such an interesting set of STS & Philosophy of Science discourse data: Q/ What exactly here is so controversial? @PREDICTProjectarchive is good & interesting: @OneHealthLabsarchive @waybackmachine is too late: @HALIUCDavis archive doesn't look that useful: @GlobalVirome archive: One Health Institute (OHI) @OneHealthUCD any ideas? < ///// Oh well. next missing data point starts with the ORF8 GI 1769824394 searching for more missing S genes, I think? A little each day.

Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube web.archive.org

Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs6255_Yunnan RNA-dependent RNA polym - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

not collected - BioSample - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Characterization of a New Member of Alphacoronavirus with Unique Genomic Features in Rhinolophus Bats - PubMed Bats have been identified as a natural reservoir of a variety of coronaviruses (CoVs). Several of them have caused diseases in humans and domestic animals by interspecies transmission. Considering the diversity of bat coronaviruses, bat species and populations, we expect to discover more bat CoVs th … pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs9214_Hubei RNA-dependent RNA polyme - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs9214_Hubei ORF8 gene, complete cds - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@VBruttel - Dr. rer. nat. Valentin Bruttel

Why SARS-CoV-2 was a lab manipulated virus in 10 key points https://vbruttel.substack.com/p/why-sars-cov-2-was-a-lab-manipulated The IMO most compelling molecular and circumstantial evidence regarding the origin of COVID-19. ➡️ Please share, retweet, and raise awareness to help prevent similar events from occurring again.

Why SARS-CoV-2 was a Lab-Manipulated Virus, in 10 Key Points SARS-CoV-2 exhibits specific alterations that align so precisely with a research proposal that, combined with circumstantial evidence, they prove a laboratory origin beyond reasonable doubt. vbruttel.substack.com

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@_everythingism @AceBearstrom @hiltzikm STS studies regularly acknowledge and explore institutional limits to knowledge away from the political narratives you outline here. <<Undone Science Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions By David J. Hess>> https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262529495/undone-science/ Since this research…

Undone Science A theoretical integration of science and technology studies and social movement studies that finds both common ground and “undone” research.As the fields... mitpress.mit.edu

@StoreEducation - EducationStore

Writing how to be more productive without procrastinating or bingeing UOW: University of Wollongong, Australia Speaker: Emeritus Prof. Brian Martin and members of PhD Candidates Date: 09/02/2020 Time: 11:30 AM Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney Register NOW: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_aA-y9bEaQKKO4fTdu_oVxw

Video Conferencing, Web Conferencing, Webinars, Screen Sharing Zoom is the leader in modern enterprise video communications, with an easy, reliable cloud platform for video and audio conferencing, chat, and webinars across mobile, desktop, and room systems. Zoom Rooms is the original software-based conference room solution used around the world in board, conference, huddle, and training rooms, as well as executive offices and classrooms. Founded in 2011, Zoom helps businesses and organizations bring their teams together in a frictionless environment to get more done. Zoom is a publicly traded company headquartered in San Jose, CA. zoom.us

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

But there is poetry in these lethal paragraphs of RNA H/t @quay_dr @MartinaSisters Where have the poets of this world gone? Why have rhymes bent to reason and quills been put aside to crumble ? What feeble mind thinks yet does not imagine possibilities of other minds too? Minds seek minds within what we all wonder

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

The question of //Pathos// has disturbed the search for the next missing part of this data set. Never a better reason to interrupt seeking is finding a question linked to the heart. Knowing love is a perennial concern. To leave souls behind has a sharp gravitas. Back to the data. In 2023 Holmes attempted <> methods,with his Twitter thread on March 6th 2023, ...as evidence that the 60 viruses submitted as part of a preprint, together with Prof Jie Cui and ZLShi of WIV, were complete... https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.01240-24 ...but only 163 of a potential 180 sequences were part of this 12-JUL-2018 PrePrint? https://web.archive.org/web/20220809085043/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+++++++++++++Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus Only 154 of those are in the current GI series available to be recovered... as far as I know... this thread tests these assumptions & knowledge claims. Note important under examined bioinformatics data: ...with this current GI series of 154 submissions is interrupted by submissions dated 25-OCT-2019 and the ACCESSION series continuing from the last, with <> to <> which is unrelated but dated Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615993.1?report=girevhist This suggests that the original GenBank submission, perhaps actually of 180 sequences, was cropped to 163 and given new ACCESSION numbers one year after it was submitted...with the cropped series of 163 placed in their current GI position on 25-OCT-2019...but what of the missing 9 ORF8 from this GI series? GI count is hypothesized as a way of delineating this Undone Science data set. KISS Methods: basic GI series analysis this Xpost GI is 1769824394 <> anyone can do this... https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824394 Bingo GI 1769824394 <> ! Again ORF8 and RdRp are here but for <> the S gene is missing. Why? So <> is the next missing data point for <> GenBank submission from @syd_health 's & @Sydney_Uni's Prof Edward Holmes @EdwardCHolmes to GenBank of@NLM_NIH NOW tally is still twelve missing ORF8 and now five missing S genes... where for <> RdRp is the there: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824498 ORF8 gene is there but suppressed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824394 but no S gene in this GI series Why? Missing ORF8 tally so far: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rs6303_Yunnan 12) Rs6266_Yunnan of a total of 15 missing... Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series... Why? 1) Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rspp7896_Yunnan 4) Rs9214_Hubei 5) Rs9201_Hubei of 11 S genes left out of this study. Why? <> S gene is missing Why? All this so far indicates that the 2023@COVIDSelectdisclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete...but the count continues... next search is GI 1769824392!

Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube web.archive.org

Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs9201_Hubei ORF8 gene, complete cds - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs9201_Hubei RNA-dependent RNA polyme - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs9201_Hubei ORF8 gene, complete cds - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@gdemaneuf There is a theory that Drosten changed his mind…or was more free to speak his mind…after Shi made it out of China recently…nice idea. People. People do what people do…they fall in love and do stupid and sometimes inspirational things.

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@R_H_Ebright @ScienceMagazine Further...as much as Holmes has stated that data from Jie Cui was not linked to WIV 162 of 163 submissions to GenBank remain suppressed or missing...with other serious data integrity issues and cyber biosecurity issues needing to be addressed... Disqualifying conflict of…

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@_everythingism @AceBearstrom @hiltzikm STS studies regularly acknowledge and explore institutional limits to knowledge away from the political narratives you outline here. <<Undone Science Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions By David J. Hess>> https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262529495/undone-science/ Since this research…

Undone Science A theoretical integration of science and technology studies and social movement studies that finds both common ground and “undone” research.As the fields... mitpress.mit.edu

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

In 2023 Holmes attempted <> methods appropriate of bioweapons investigations, see @CharlesRixey ...with Eddie's Twitter thread on March 6th 2023, here: ...as evidence that the 60 viruses submitted as part of a preprint, together with Prof Jie Cui and ZLShi of WIV, were complete... https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.01240-24 ...but only 163 of a potential 180 sequences were part of this 12-JUL-2018 PrePrint? https://web.archive.org/web/20220809085043/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+++++++++++++Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus But only 154 of these are in the current GI series available to be recovered... as far as I know... this thread tests these assumptions & knowledge claims. //Note important under examined bioinformatics data: ...with this current GI series of 154 submissions is interrupted by submissions dated 25-OCT-2019 and the ACCESSION series continuing from the last, with <> to <> which is unrelated but dated Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615993.1?report=girevhist This suggests that the original GenBank submission, perhaps actually of 180 sequences, was cropped to 163 and given new ACCESSION numbers one year after it was submitted...with the cropped series of 163 placed in their current GI position on 25-OCT-2019...but what of the missing 9 ORF8 from this GI series? GI count is hypothesized as a way of delineating this Undone Science data set. /// KISS Methods: basic GI series analysis this Xpost GI is 1769824392 <> anyone can do this... even @stgoldst or perhaps @tgof137 @VICENews @ChrisCillizza @zerohedge even? https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824392 GI 1769824392 <> all good GI 1769824390 <> all good GI 1769824390 <> BINGO! Again ORF8 and RdRp are here but for <> the S gene is missing. Why? So <> is the next missing data point for <> GenBank submission from @syd_health 's & @Sydney_Uni 's Prof Edward Holmes @EdwardCHolmes to GenBank of @NLM_NIH NOW tally is still twelve missing ORF8... and now six missing S genes... where for <> RdRp is the there: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824496 ORF8 gene is there but both suppressed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824388 but no S gene in this GI series Why? Missing ORF8 tally so far: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rs6303_Yunnan 12) Rs6266_Yunnan identified of a total of 15 missing... Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series... Why? 1) Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rspp7896_Yunnan 4) Rs9214_Hubei 5) Rs9201_Hubei 6) Rs151199_Hunan identified of 11 S genes left out of this study. Why? <> S gene is missing Why? All this so far indicates that the 2023 @COVIDSelect disclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete...but the count continues... next search is GI 1769824386!

Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube web.archive.org

Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151239_Hunan ORF8 gene, complete cd - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151199_Hunan RNA-dependent RNA poly - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151199_Hunan ORF8 gene, complete cd - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@_everythingism @AceBearstrom @hiltzikm STS studies regularly acknowledge and explore institutional limits to knowledge away from the political narratives you outline here. <<Undone Science Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions By David J. Hess>> https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262529495/undone-science/ Since this research…

Undone Science A theoretical integration of science and technology studies and social movement studies that finds both common ground and “undone” research.As the fields... mitpress.mit.edu

@CharlesRixey - Charles Rixey, MA MBA (c) 🐭

Linked below is an article written by LtCol Joseph Murphy, the person who leaked the DEFUSE proposal to me, which DRASTIC then analyzed and released on September 20th & 21st, 2021. 🧵 https://brownstone.org/articles/the-biodefense-oligarchy-and-its-demographic-defeats/

The Biodefense Oligarchy and Its Demographic Defeats ⋆ Brownstone Institute Two decades ago, factions argued that biowarfare threats were so significant that biodefense responsibility needed to be removed from the purview of the uniformed military and placed within NIAID under NIH and under HHS. brownstone.org

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

As science is very important... https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.01240-24methods H/t @sciencecohen @hholdenthorp @ScienceMagazine Holmes attempted <> methods, appropriate of biological warfare investigations, with Eddie's Twitter thread on March 6th 2023, here: He was trying to demonstrate that 60 viruses submitted to GenBank as part of a 2018 preprint, together with Prof Jie Cui and ZLShi of Wuhan Institute of Virology, were complete... https://web.archive.org/web/20220809085043/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+++++++++++++Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus Interestingly only 163 of a potential 180 sequences, with ORF8, S & RdRp available for each, were said to be part of this 12-JUL-2018 PrePrint? Bioinformatics https://breakingdefense.com/2022/02/cyber-can-now-create-biowarfare-effects-without-a-bioweapon/ and cyberbiosecurity are important science too. But only 154 of these are in the current GI series available to be recovered... as far as I know... this thread tests these assumptions & knowledge claims...lets do some <> searching together. //Note important under examined bioinformatics data: framing this data set...with this current GI series of 154 submissions interrupted by submissions dated 25-OCT-2019 and the ACCESSION series continuing from the last, with <> to <> which is unrelated but dated Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615993.1?report=girevhist This suggests that the original GenBank submission, perhaps actually of 180 sequences, was cropped to 163 and given new ACCESSION numbers one year after it was submitted...with the cropped series of 163 placed in their current GI position on 25-OCT-2019...but what of the missing 9 ORF8 from this GI series? Finding the missing data set will help demonstrate what could have happened. GI count is hypothesized as a way of delineating this Undone Science data set. /// KISS Methods: basic GI series analysis this Xpost GI is 1769824386 <> anyone can do this... even? https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824392 GI 1769824386 <> all good GI 1769824384 <> all good GI 1769824382 <> all good note last of the S Gene in this series GI 1769824380 <> all good GI 1769824378 <> all good GI 1769824376 <> all good GI 1769824374 <> all good GI 1769824372 <> all good GI 1769824370 <> all good GI 1769824368 <> all good GI 1769824366 <> all good GI 1769824364 <> all good GI 1769824362 <> all good GI 1769824360 <> all good GI 1769824358 <> all good GI 1769824356 <> all good GI 1769824354 <> BINGO! Finally! Again ORF8 and RdRp are here but for <> the S gene is missing. Why? So GI 1769824354 <> is the next missing data point for <> GenBank submission from @syd_health &@Sydney_UniProf Edward Holmes @EdwardCHolmes to GenBank of@NLM_NIH NOW tally is still twelve missing ORF8... and now seven missing S genes... where for <> RdRp is the there: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824436 ORF8 gene is there but both suppressed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824354 but no S gene in this GI series Why? Missing ORF8 tally so far: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rs6303_Yunnan 12) Rs6266_Yunnan identified of a total of 15 missing...3 to go... Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series... Why? 1) Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rspp7896_Yunnan 4) Rs9214_Hubei 5) Rs9201_Hubei 6) Rs151199_Hunan 7) Rs8548_Guangdong identified of 11 S genes left out of this study...4 to go! <> S gene is missing Why? All this so far indicates that the 2023@COVIDSelectdisclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete...but the count continues... next search is GI 1769824352! Wonder what we will find...especially when we next seek out the known duplicates in <> and <>? Duplication can mean missing, and missing mean unverified in Dual Use Research of Concern field...where one the uses is Biological Warfare and the other is fairweather thinking Science as usual? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17687-3

Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube web.archive.org

Cyber can now create biowarfare effects, without a bioweapon - Breaking Defense The digitization of medicine and biomedical research has been a boon for medical breakthroughs, but comes at a cost. From ransomware attacks at hospitals to intellectual property breaches at research centers, cybersecurity is now a major concern in the medical world. In the following op-ed, three experts at the intersection of national security and health policy lay out the worryingly diverse ways the global healthcare system is at risk, and why it should concern the defense community.  The worst biological warfare scenarios remain in the realm of nightmares and science fiction. From developing pathogens to finding an appropriate vector, the process of weaponizing biological agents is fraught with challenges. Without discounting the well-documented history of biowarfare and the very real threat of novel weaponized biological agents in the future — particularly as gene editing and designer molecules revolutionize the field — real hurdles remain. It’s dangerous, and the effects are difficult to predict and control. But what if it was possible to create bioweapon effects, without having to actually use a bioweapon? That’s no longer a hypothetical. The digitization, automation, and networking of biomedical and public health information may mean that cyber tools can be used to achieve biowarfare effects that were previously unrealistic or impractical. Perhaps the most glaring wake-up call is the use of social media tools to spread and amplify misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines, contributing to viral illness and death of US citizens. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how our public health is vulnerable to direct manipulation by malicious actors in the cyber domain. 2020 saw a 200% rise in healthcare cyber-attacks, and the upward trend continues. Networked data is increasingly the backbone of our entire medical system: initial R&D/experimental biomedical research, treatment development, clinical trial data, drug supply chains, the equipment used in treatment, individual health records, and personal fitness tracking. Manipulation or theft of R&D and clinical trial data drugs, devices and treatments can invalidate results or sow doubts about their reliability, hamstringing or confounding scientific studies in response to public health crises and making people sick. The clinical R&D landscape is evolving: Growth in team-based translational science is bringing research scientists, systems thinkers, analytic boundary crossers, and business developers together across global communications architectures faster than ever. And as a result, the threat surface is growing as well. RELATED: How To Build A Better Policy For Countering WMD Threats Supply chain interference can cause widespread disruption in critical medical care or can target delivery to specific populations for more tailored effects. The sophisticated global cyber campaign targeting the COVID-19 vaccine supply chain (specifically the “cold chain”) is a striking example, but is by no means a unique event. It is part of a larger trend, in which hackers have shifted their focus in recent years to increasingly target pharmaceutical and medical supply chains. These are attractive ransomware targets for the lucrative prices they command precisely because they threaten the delivery of critical lifesaving drugs and therapies. These same supply chain vulnerabilities can be exploited by actors whose goal is not financial gain but biological damage. Hospitals and healthcare facilities are vulnerable as well. Critical life-saving machinery and devices — infusion pumps, defibrillators, ventilators, dialysis machines, and active patient monitoring devices — can be breached by both insider and external threats. Access to cyber tools can give actors the ability to disrupt, delay, or deny treatment, manipulating critical health outcomes for patients, even life or death. The ability to hold patients’ health at risk is what has made this such an appealing and profitable target for ransomware. And the COVID-19 Pandemic has shown us that these breaches are now a common occurrence. As health records and personal fitness data are increasingly specific, detailed, digitized, and shared across devices platforms, and databases, they become vulnerable. Health record breaches alone rose 300% from 2018 to 2021. Our ever-growing volume of personal health information can be harvested and even manipulated to affect specific individuals, or aggregated to target populations by race, age, gender, location, socioeconomic status, medical condition, or any number of other factors depending on the malicious actor’s goal. The blending of the biological and cyber domains suggests that we need to prepare differently for the threat of biological warfare if we are to properly defend our population. The most difficult task is changing our fundamental model of boundaries between clinical research, bio-surveillance, care delivery, and individual devices. DoD has an important leadership role to play in driving, coordinating, and overseeing this change. To start, we must embrace the same principles required by any other type of complex cyber supply chain which, according to NIST [PDF], requires that we: 1) assume our systems will be breached and consider recovery and mitigation up-front, 2) establish collaborative and cross-organizational governance organized by use case with clinical and business owners at the forefront, backed by security experts, and 3) remember that a risk anywhere in the entire chain can impact any link — it may not be your responsibility contractually, but it will be your problem in reality. In the clinical cyber supply chain, the individual software systems receive most of the focus, but it is the rapidly changing interconnections where breaches happen most often — so working together to adjust perceived systems boundaries and overall mental models must be a continual task. The community of interest – which includes scientists, pharmaceutical companies, medical technology developers and manufacturers, academics, cyber security professionals, national defense professionals, and patients – is far-reaching, fragmented, and stove-piped. We must undertake a holistic reevaluation of biological warfare defense in the context of a changing and networked public health ecosystem. Katherine Hasty is a US Air Force veteran and director of Future Warfare at Long Term Strategy Group. Dr. Janie L. Gittleman is executive director for Global Health Innovation at ManTech International and a former Senior Health Advisor to the Defense Intelligence Agency Surgeon General. Edward F. O’Connor is a Subject Matter Expert with ManTech’s Health Division and a former CIO of Central Health and the Community Care Collaborative.   breakingdefense.com

Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151239_Hunan ORF8 gene, complete cd - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs8548_Guangdong RNA-dependent RNA po - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs8548_Guangdong ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Origin and cross-species transmission of bat coronaviruses in China - Nature Communications Bats are presumed reservoirs of diverse coronaviruses (CoVs) including progenitors of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19. However, the evolution and diversification of these coronaviruses remains poorly understood. Here we use a Bayesian statistical framework and a large sequence data set from bat-CoVs (including 630 novel CoV sequences) in China to study their macroevolution, cross-species transmission and dispersal. We find that host-switching occurs more frequently and across more distantly related host taxa in alpha- than beta-CoVs, and is more highly constrained by phylogenetic distance for beta-CoVs. We show that inter-family and -genus switching is most common in Rhinolophidae and the genus Rhinolophus. Our analyses identify the host taxa and geographic regions that define hotspots of CoV evolutionary diversity in China that could help target bat-CoV discovery for proactive zoonotic disease surveillance. Finally, we present a phylogenetic analysis suggesting a likely origin for SARS-CoV-2 in Rhinolophus spp. bats. Bats are a likely reservoir of zoonotic coronaviruses (CoVs). Here, analyzing bat CoV sequences in China, the authors find that alpha-CoVs have switched hosts more frequently than betaCoVs, identify a bat family and genus that are highly involved in host-switching, and define hotspots of CoV evolutionary diversity. nature.com

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@R_H_Ebright @alisonannyoung With ongoing cyberbiosecurity issues the whole time! The problem of knowledge silos within and between cybersecurity and bio world continues throughout this period from 2008 to NOW! Still now… Why?

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@R_H_Ebright @ScienceMagazine Further...as much as Holmes has stated that data from Jie Cui was not linked to WIV 162 of 163 submissions to GenBank remain suppressed or missing...with other serious data integrity issues and cyber biosecurity issues needing to be addressed... Disqualifying conflict of…

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@_everythingism @AceBearstrom @hiltzikm STS studies regularly acknowledge and explore institutional limits to knowledge away from the political narratives you outline here. <<Undone Science Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions By David J. Hess>> https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262529495/undone-science/ Since this research…

Undone Science A theoretical integration of science and technology studies and social movement studies that finds both common ground and “undone” research.As the fields... mitpress.mit.edu

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

My application for SAGO at @WHO was rejected...but it was in volunteer capacity and so I simply continued to help where I can. https://2012-2017.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2496/Combatting_Corruption_Among_Civil_Servants_-_Interdisciplinary_Perspectives_on_What_Works.pdf My skill sets are listening...catching...and surprise...not simplicity H/t @CharlesRixey Umberto Eco said it well. If it is too complicated, read more books. But he wrote this type of thing in Italian, so don't see these ideas as complexity, see them as language. Teaching a language takes time and repetition...about two years of immersion...or you can nowadays Gronk your way through? The lived experience here is of an INCOMPLETE data set...so obviously I cannot fully explain the data...but you can join me on the journey. Surprise! Truth is important...but it takes a lot of listening to hear certain truths...trauma adds more layers of humanity and so our souls are stretched thinly as we listen to the person within the cyborg of text based embodiment twisting under the weight of the unknown...but knowable: <> LtCol Joe Murphy US Marines https://brownstone.org/author/joe-murphy/ In this space and habits of removed and gone...Holmes blinked and attempted <> methods, appropriate to biological warfare investigations, with Eddie's Twitter thread on March 6th 2023, here: Why? Good question, ask him. He says he was trying to demonstrate that 60 viruses submitted to GenBank as part of a 2018 preprint, together with Prof Jie Cui and ZLShi of Wuhan Institute of Virology, were complete... https://web.archive.org/web/20220809085043/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+++++++++++++Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus Interestingly only 163 of a potential 180 sequences, with ORF8, S & RdRp available for each, were said to be part of this 12-JUL-2018 PrePrint? But only 154 of these are in the current GI series available to be recovered... as far as I know...and I don't know everything...I am seeking the answers to fairly obvious questions. This thread tests these assumptions & knowledge claims... So lets do some <> searching together! // Forensic note: important under examined bioinformatics data is framing this data set...with this current GI series of 154 submissions interrupted by submissions dated 25-OCT-2019 and the ACCESSION series continuing from the last, with <> to <> which is unrelated but dated Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615993.1?report=girevhist This suggests that the original earlier GenBank submission, perhaps actually of 180 sequences, was cropped to 163 and given new ACCESSION numbers one year after it was submitted...with the cropped series of 163 placed in their current GI position on 25-OCT-2019...but what of the missing 9 ORF8 from this GI series? Finding the missing data set will help demonstrate what could have happened. GI count is hypothesized as a way of delineating this Undone Science data set. /// KISS Methods: basic GI series analysis this Xpost GI is 1769824352 <> anyone can do this... even you? But if you cannot, what does this say about how easy it is to make a mistake in a DURC program? https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824352 GI 1769824352 <> all good, all three, ORF8, RdRp and S genes present. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615857.1?report=genbank GI 1769824350 <> all good too https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615856.1?report=genbank GI 1769824348 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615855.1?report=genbank GI 1769824346 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615854.1?report=genbank GI 1769824344 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615853.1?report=girevhist GI 1769824342 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615852.1?report=genbank GI 1769824340 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615851.1?report=genbank GI 1769824338 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615850.1?report=genbank GI 1769824336 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615849.1?report=genbank GI 1769824334 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615848.1?report=genbank GI 1769824332 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615847.1?report=genbank GI 1769824330 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615846.1?report=genbank GI 1769824328 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615845.1?report=genbank GI 1769824326 <> all good https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615844.1?report=genbank GI 1769824324 <> BINGO!!!! @MonaRahalkar your old friend! Finally! Again ORF8 and RdRp are here but for <> the S gene is missing. Why? So GI 1769824324 <> is the next missing data point for <> GenBank submission from@syd_health&@Sydney_UniProf Edward Holmes @EdwardCHolmes to GenBank of@NLM_NIH NOW tally is still twelve missing ORF8... and now eight missing S genes... where for <> RdRp is the there in two naming versions but only partly suppressed here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824434 and here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615898.1?report=girevhist but not available to GenBank search terms: <> https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus or <> https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Yu%2CP.%2C+Hu%2CB.%2C+Li%2CB.%2C+Luo%2CD.%2C+Zhu%2CG.%2C+Zhang%2CL.%2C+Holmes%2CE.C.%2C+Shi%2CZ.+and+Cui%2CJ. Strange isn't it? ORF8 gene is there again with two names but both searches for title and authors are not available again: https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824324 &here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615843.1?report=girevhist If the <> linked submissions are not suppressed then these search terms should give at least two results for the ORF8 and RpRd? But in any case no S gene in this GI series for <> Why? Recap: Missing ORF8 tally so far: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rs6303_Yunnan 12) Rs6266_Yunnan identified of a total of 15 missing...3 to go... Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series... Why? 1) Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rspp7896_Yunnan 4) Rs9214_Hubei 5) Rs9201_Hubei 6) Rs151199_Hunan 7) Rs8548_Guangdong 8) RaTG13_Yunnan//Ra4991_Yunnan identified of 11 S genes left out of this study...3 to go! <> S gene is missing yet it is very important...especially the version of Ra4991 that was originally loaded on to GenBank before this current GI series was perhaps placed, cropped, edited and moved and given new ACCESSION codes. This apparently happened from Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM to 25-OCT-2019 So <> methodology requires more data. All this so far indicates that the 2023 disclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete...but the count continues... next search is GI 1769824322! How to make strong knowledge claims about the origin of COVID without these data sets? Well you cannot. But Holmes gives it a go. @GrahamPerrettMP ? Any word from the relevant Ministers yet? https://www.sydney.edu.au/infectious-diseases-institute/news-and-events/news/2020/03/24/the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2.html

Archive - U.S. Agency for International Development 2012-2017.usaid.gov

Joe Murphy, Author at Brownstone Institute Joe Murphy is a lieutenant colonel in the US Marines with 16+ years of service. brownstone.org

Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube web.archive.org

Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs8460_Guangdong ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs8460_Guangdong ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs8363_Guangdong ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151569_Guizhou ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151514_Guizhou ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151493_Guizhou ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151491_Guizhou ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151388_Guizhou ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151262_Guizhou ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs141567_Guangxi ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs141455_Guangxi ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs13488_Guangxi ORF8 gene, complete c - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs13484_Guangxi ORF8 gene, complete c - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs13479_Guangxi ORF8 gene, complete c - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain RaTG13_Yunnan RNA-dependent RNA polym - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

No items found - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

No items found - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain RaTG13_Yunnan ORF8 gene, complete cds - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 sydney.edu.au

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@JamieMetzl @WHO I applied @WHO SAGO but didnt get in... so continued with thesis from OSINT epidemiology perspective as type of study that @mvankerkhove et al are probably not able to perform in an institutionally independent way...hope it helps.

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@R_H_Ebright @ScienceMagazine Further...as much as Holmes has stated that data from Jie Cui was not linked to WIV 162 of 163 submissions to GenBank remain suppressed or missing...with other serious data integrity issues and cyber biosecurity issues needing to be addressed... Disqualifying conflict of…

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@_everythingism @AceBearstrom @hiltzikm STS studies regularly acknowledge and explore institutional limits to knowledge away from the political narratives you outline here. <<Undone Science Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions By David J. Hess>> https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262529495/undone-science/ Since this research…

Undone Science A theoretical integration of science and technology studies and social movement studies that finds both common ground and “undone” research.As the fields... mitpress.mit.edu

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

<> methods, appropriate to biological warfare investigations, with Eddie's Twitter thread on March 6th 2023, here: Why? Good question, ask him. @sciencecohen <> Yep...my guess is that Jon knew about the RaTG13/Ra4991 from sick miners but decided not to or was directed not to say anything right away. H/t @R_H_Ebright 5 years ago after being on the case for 25 years... Holmes says he was trying to demonstrate that 60 viruses submitted to GenBank as part of a 2018 preprint, together with Prof Jie Cui and ZLShi of Wuhan Institute of Virology, were complete...but they are obviously incomplete. https://web.archive.org/web/20220809085043/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+++++++++++++Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus Only 163 of a potential 180 sequences, with ORF8, S & RdRp available for each, were said to be part of this 12-JUL-2018 PrePrint? But bioinformatics analysis is important to these knowledge claims, H/t Trevor Bedford @trvrbonly ...and only 154 of these are in the current GenBank GI series available to be recovered...as far as I know...and I don't know everything...I am seeking the answers to fairly obvious questions...like why were these 180 GenBank submissions not available when WIV frist published post COVID outbreak discovery? https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.22.914952v2.full.pdf This thread tests these assumptions & knowledge claims... So lets do some <> bioinformatics philosophy of science searching together! // Important Forensic note: important under examined bioinformatics data is framing this data set...with this current GI series of 154 submissions interrupted by submissions dated 25-OCT-2019 and the ACCESSION series continuing from the last, with <> to <> which is unrelated but dated Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM. https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615993.1?report=girevhist This suggests that the original earlier GenBank submission, perhaps actually of 180 sequences, was cropped to 163 and given new ACCESSION numbers one year after it was submitted...with the cropped series of 163 placed in their current GI position on 25-OCT-2019...but what of the missing 9 ORF8 from this GI series? Finding the missing data set will help demonstrate what could have happened. GI count is hypothesized as a way of delineating this Undone Science data set. /// KISS Methods: basic GI series analysis this Xpost thread GI is next after 1769824324 <> anyone can do this... even you? https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824352 GI 1769824322 <> all good, all three, ORF8, RdRp and S genes present. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615842.1?report=genbank GI 1769824320 <> all good too https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615842.1?report=genbank GI 1769824318 <> all good https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615840.1?report=genbank GI 1769824316 <> all good but remember that the full sequence of Rs5725_Yunnan was available for the thesis <> of WIV but for <> only the ORF8, RdRp & S gene were available. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615839.1?report=genbank Remember that GI 1769824315 is where this GI series ends with <> Submitted (25-JUL-2018) and placed Oct 25, 2019 06:16 PM together with this GI series? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824315 Finally! NOW tally is still twelve missing ORF8... and now eight missing S genes... where for <> RdRp is the last to be found with this GI count there in two naming versions but only partly suppressed here: https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824434and here https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615898.1?report=girevhistbut not available to GenBank search terms: <> https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirusor <> https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Yu%2CP.%2C+Hu%2CB.%2C+Li%2CB.%2C+Luo%2CD.%2C+Zhu%2CG.%2C+Zhang%2CL.%2C+Holmes%2CE.C.%2C+Shi%2CZ.+and+Cui%2CJ. Strange isn't it? ORF8 gene is there again with two names but both searches for title and authors are not available again: https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824324 &here https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615843.1?report=girevhist If the <> linked submissions are not suppressed then these search terms should give at least two results for the ORF8 and RpRd? But in any case no S gene in this GI series for <> Why? Recap: Missing ORF8 tally so far: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rs6303_Yunnan 12) Rs6266_Yunnan identified of a total of 15 missing...3 to go... Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series... Why? 1) Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rspp7896_Yunnan 4) Rs9214_Hubei 5) Rs9201_Hubei 6) Rs151199_Hunan 7) Rs8548_Guangdong 8) RaTG13_Yunnan//Ra4991_Yunnan identified of 11 S genes left out of this study...3 to go! <> S gene is missing yet it is very important...especially the version of Ra4991 that was originally loaded on to GenBank before this current GI series was perhaps placed, cropped, edited and moved and given new ACCESSION codes. This apparently happened from Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM to 25-OCT-2019 So <> methodology requires more data. All this so far indicates that the 2023 disclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete... How to make strong knowledge claims about the origin of COVID without these data sets? Well you cannot. But Holmes gives it a go. To find the rest of the missing data points we need to examine the 180 potential for the 3 S and 3 OFRF8 missing. It is so easy to make mistakes with this type of count and so checking and rechecking with different methodologies is important. This is the complex ground of the information domain. I have to back track and see if I have missed a thread in the GI series? This is why I have left this trail of pebbles...so I can back track when needed. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-biodefense-oligarchy-and-its-demographic-defeats/

Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube web.archive.org

Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs8460_Guangdong ORF8 gene, complete - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs160665_Yunnan ORF8 gene, complete c - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs160665_Yunnan ORF8 gene, complete c - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rf5511_Yunnan ORF8 gene, complete cds - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs5725_Yunnan ORF8 gene, complete cds - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Infantis strain FSIS170229 - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

No items found - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain RaTG13_Yunnan RNA-dependent RNA polym - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

No items found - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

No items found - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain RaTG13_Yunnan ORF8 gene, complete cds - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Biodefense Oligarchy and Its Demographic Defeats ⋆ Brownstone Institute Two decades ago, factions argued that biowarfare threats were so significant that biodefense responsibility needed to be removed from the purview of the uniformed military and placed within NIAID under NIH and under HHS. brownstone.org

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@R_H_Ebright @ScienceMagazine Further...as much as Holmes has stated that data from Jie Cui was not linked to WIV 162 of 163 submissions to GenBank remain suppressed or missing...with other serious data integrity issues and cyber biosecurity issues needing to be addressed... Disqualifying conflict of…

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

@_everythingism @AceBearstrom @hiltzikm STS studies regularly acknowledge and explore institutional limits to knowledge away from the political narratives you outline here. <<Undone Science Social Movements, Mobilized Publics, and Industrial Transitions By David J. Hess>> https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262529495/undone-science/ Since this research…

Undone Science A theoretical integration of science and technology studies and social movement studies that finds both common ground and “undone” research.As the fields... mitpress.mit.edu

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

This is where I lost count! Doh! Next GI will have to start from here and be inserted into current tally. GI 1769824546 restart count again here...and insert missing into tally KISS Methods: basic GI series analysis this Xpost GI is 1769824546 <> anyone can do this... even you? But if you cannot, or if you lose count so easily, like I always do...what does this say about how easy it is to make a mistake in a DURC program? https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824546 GI 1769824546 <> all good, all three, ORF8, RdRp and S genes present. Next GI 1769824544 <> & RdRp are there but suppressed but ORF8 is already 5) on the tally https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615953.1?report=genbank GI 1769824542 <> & RdRp are there but suppressed but ORF8 is should be 6) on the tally not 7) as I must have started counting GI from the RdRp list here? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615952.1?report=genbank GI 1769824540 <> & RdRp are there but should be 7) on the list not 9)? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615951.1?report=genbank GI 1769824538 <> & RdRp are there but should be 8) and is missing! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615951.1?report=genbank Lets keep going to the next one... GI 1769824536 <> & RdRp & ORF8 are there https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615949.1?report=genbank GI 1769824534 <> & RdRp & ORF8 are there https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824534 GI 1769824532 <> & RdRp but missing ORF8 should be 9) on the list not 12) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824532 GI 1769824530 <> & RdRp & ORF8 are there all good https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824530 GI 1769824528 <> & RdRp but ORF8 missing should be 10) on tally not 11) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824528 GI 1769824526 <> & RdRp & ORF8 all good https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824526 GI 1769824524 is <> so S & RdRp & ORF8 all good https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824524 GI 1769824522 is <> so S & RdRp & ORF8 all good https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824522 GI 1769824520 is <> all good GI 1769824518 is <> all good GI 1769824516 is <> all good GI 1769824514 is <> all good GI 1769824512 is <> all good GI 1769824510 is <> ORF8 missing 1) on tally GI 1769824508 is <> all good GI 1769824506 is <> all good GI 1769824504 is <> all good GI 1769824502 is <> all good GI 1769824500 is <> is tricky missing S gene 1) in tally not 4) missing but RdRp and ORF8 OK https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615936.1?report=genbank GI 1769824498 is <> again missing S gene 2) not 5) in tally, but RdRp & ORF8 are good. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615930.1?report=genbank GI 1769824496 is <> again missing S gene 3) not 6) in tally, but RdRp & ORF8 are good. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615930.1?report=genbank GI 1769824494 is <> all good GI 1769824492 is <> ORF8 is missing 2) in tally GI 1769824490 is <> all good GI 1769824488 is <> all good GI 1769824486 is <> all good GI 1769824484 is <> all good GI 1769824482 is <> dare I say BINGO!!! <> RdRp is there https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615922.1?report=girevhist but ORF8 is missing number 11) and S is missing number 4) NOW tally is still fourteen missing ORF8... and still nine missing S genes... Recap: Missing ORF8 tally so far with order fixed: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Ra7909_Yunnan prev Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Rspp7905_Yunnan prev Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7931_Yunnan prev Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rs6266_Yunnan prev Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rs6303_Yunnan prev Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rf130223-29_Beijing prev Rs6303_Yunnan 12) Rs6266_Yunnan identified of a total of 15 missing...1 to go? Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series... Why? 1) Rs9214_Hubei prev Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rs9201_Hubei prev Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rs151199_Hunan prev Rspp7896_Yunnan 4) Rf130223-29_Beijing prev Rs9214_Hubei 5) Rs9201_Hubei 6) Rs151199_Hunan 7) Rs8548_Guangdong 8) RaTG13_Yunnan//Ra4991_Yunnan identified of 11/11 S genes left out of this study... <> S gene is missing yet it is very important...especially the version of Ra4991 that was originally loaded on to GenBank before this current GI series was perhaps placed, cropped, edited and moved and given new ACCESSION codes. This apparently happened from Jul 13, 2019 08:18 PM to 25-OCT-2019 So <> methodology requires more data. All this so far indicates that the 2023 disclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete...but the count continues... next search is GI 1769824322! How to make strong knowledge claims about the origin of COVID without these data sets? Well you cannot. This tally is nice and messy at the moment...I will need to clean it up in the next post! Counting from GI 1769824482 <> and smoothing out the tally. A stuff up in a GI count like this is character building, but also gives an insight into the lived experience of bioinformatics of Virology. How could this type of thing but constantly happening an STILL there is an attitude that errors are not common. What bullshit! They happen all the time! Like @sciencecohen who details DNA of SARS-CoV-2 instead of RNA. We are all people doing people stuff...stuff-ups too. https://www.science.org/content/article/mining-coronavirus-genomes-clues-outbreak-s-origins

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs8363_Guangdong spike protein (S) ge - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rspp7924_Yunnan spike protein (S) gen - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Ra7909_Yunnan spike protein (S) gene, - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rspp7905_Yunnan spike protein (S) gen - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rspp7905_Yunnan spike protein (S) gen - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs5725_Yunnan spike protein (S) gene, - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs160665_Yunnan spike protein (S) gen - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs6266_Yunnan spike protein (S) gene, - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs6255_Yunnan spike protein (S) gene, - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs6303_Yunnan spike protein (S) gene, - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rf5511_Yunnan spike protein (S) gene, - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs161465_Guangdong RNA-dependent RNA - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs161419_Guangdong RNA-dependent RNA - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs151334_Guizhou RNA-dependent RNA po - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs9201_Hubei RNA-dependent RNA polyme - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs9201_Hubei RNA-dependent RNA polyme - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

Next one? <> no ORF8 found in @NLM_NIH GenBank <>, complete cds is there but suppressed... GenBank: MH615955.1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615955.1?report=genbank <> GenBank: MH615905.1 is there but suppressed... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615905.1?report=genbank ...so that is NOW four missing ORF8; all with S and RdRp available but suppressed; 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi Were these in the 60-54=6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this PrePrint ? https://web.archive.org/web/20220809085043/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=Spread+and+Geographic+Structure+of+SARS-related+Coronaviruses+in+++++++++++++Bats+and+the+Origin+of+Human+SARS+Coronavirus ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series in GenBank? https://news.clearancejobs.com/2019/08/15/weaponizing-medicine-chinas-latest-theft-a-potential-biological-weapon/ Who knows? @COVIDSelect @COVIDSelectDems ? @R_H_Ebright

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs141456_Guangxi spike protein (S) ge - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rs141456_Guangxi RNA-dependent RNA po - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Spread and Geographic Structure of SARS-related Coronaviruses in Bats - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube web.archive.org

Weaponizing Medicine: China's Latest Theft a Potential Biological Weapon A Canadian research lab sent deadly virus strains to China under the guise of scientific advancement. Now a Chinese lab scientist has been dismissed and Canadian law enforcement investigates. - Intelligence news.clearancejobs.com

@tommy_cleary - Tommy Cleary

Censorship of the nature deployed in the case of COVID had some obvious negative effects...but some were not so bad. @BiosafetyNow https://biosafetynow.substack.com/p/censoring-virology It was nice and quiet. The people censored had to find ways to reach out to each other...the phenomenology was that we had to look at what we were looking through. It also builds a compassion for a data set you are auditing during verification and for your own findings...a health doubt...need to double check and have peers that are brutal not lazy. Fixing this mess is going to be fun! Some wisdom always comes from a moment of stupidity and reflection. KISS Methods: basic GI series analysis this Xpost GI 1769824482 <> anyone can do this... even you? But if you cannot, or if you lose count so easily, like I always do...what does this say about how easy it is to make a mistake in a DURC program? https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1769824482 Starting with next RdRp GI 1769824480 is <> all good GI 1769824478 is <> S gene misssssing BBBBBingo! S gene missing no 5) in tally more BLAST homework here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615920.1?report=genbank Couple more to find! GI 1769824476 <> all good GI 1769824474 <> all good GI 1769824472 <> all good GI 1769824470 <> all good GI 1769824468 <> all good GI 1769824466 <> all good GI 1769824464 <> all good GI 1769824462 <> ORF8 missing number 3) GI 1769824460 <> all good GI 1769824458 <> all good GI 1769824456 <> all good GI 1769824454 <> all good GI 1769824452 <> all good GI 1769824450 <> all good GI 1769824448 <> missing ORF8 tally number 4) GI 1769824446 <> all good GI 1769824444 <> all good GI 1769824442 <> all good GI 1769824440 <> all good GI 1769824438 <> all good GI 1769824436 <> missing S number 6) not 7) GI 1769824434 <> missing S number 7) prev 8) GI 1769824432 <> Binnnngooooo RdRp good, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH615897.1?report=genbank missing S number 7) & ORF8 missing number 12) with complete genome available on CNCB from June 2021 https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/biosample/browse/SAMC346732 NOW tally is still a mess Recap: Missing ORF8 tally so far with order fixed: 1) Rs151334_Guizhou 2) Rf131405_Shanxi 3) Rs140400_Guangdong 4) Rs141456_Guangxi 5) Rspp7924_Yunnan 6) Ra7909_Yunnan prev Rspp7921_Yunnan 7) Rspp7905_Yunnan prev Ra7909_Yunnan 8) Rspp7931_Yunnan prev Rspp7907_Yunnan 9) Rs6266_Yunnan prev Rspp7905_Yunnan 10) Rs6303_Yunnan prev Rspp7896_Yunnan 11) Rf130223-29_Beijing prev Rs6303_Yunnan 12) Rspp7952_Yunnan prev Rs6266_Yunnan 13) 14) 15) identified of a total of 15 missing Question: Was <> in the 60-54= 6 ORF8 that <> decided to leave out of this 2018 PrePrint... ...or perhaps the 54-45= 9 ORF8 that are simply missing from the GI series suppressed in GenBank & interrupted by the date 25-Oct-2019? With S genes missing too; of the 60 RdRp sampled only 49 S genes are here in this GI series... Why? 1) Rs9214_Hubei prev Rspp7921_Yunnan 2) Rs9201_Hubei prev Rspp7907_Yunnan 3) Rs151199_Hunan prev Rspp7896_Yunnan 4) Rf130223-29_Beijing prev Rs9214_Hubei 5) Rp8794_Guangdong prev Rs9201_Hubei 6) Rs8548_Guangdong prev Rs151199_Hunan 7) RaTG13_Yunnan RNA-dependent prev Rs8548_Guangdong 8) Rspp7952_Yunnan prev RaTG13_Yunnan//Ra4991_Yunnan 9) 10) 11) identified of 11 S genes left out of this study... <> S gene is missing So <> methodology requires more data. All this so far indicates that the 2023 disclosures of Holmes are potentially incomplete...but the count continues... next search is from GI 1769824432! How to make strong knowledge claims about the origin of COVID without these data sets? Well you cannot. This tally is nice and messy at the moment...I will need to continue to clean it up in the next post! Counting from GI 1769824432 <> and smoothing out the tally. Eventually it may be clearer than bee shit https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp90-00965r000403600002-0

Censoring virology "On reading," by Simon Wain-Hobson, is a weekly discussion of scientific papers and news articles around gain of function research in virology. biosafetynow.substack.com

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rf130223-29_Beijing RNA-dependent RNA - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rp8794_Guangdong RNA-dependent RNA po - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Record suppressed: Bat SARS-like coronavirus strain Rspp7952_Yunnan RNA-dependent RNA pol - Nucleotide - NCBITwitterFacebookLinkedInGitHubNCBI Insights BlogTwitterFacebookYoutube ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Browse - BioSample - CNCB-NGDC ngdc.cncb.ac.cn

THE 'BEE FECES' THEORY UNDONE | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov) cia.gov

@a_kruschke - A.Kruschke

@tommy_cleary @JAHawk94684 @MartinaSisters @mlperk1 @MonaRahalkar @R_H_Ebright @quay_dr @BiosafetyNow @syd_health @SystemsVirology @NLM_NIH @POTUS @Sydney_Uni @DrJBhattacharya @FloDebarre @institutpasteur @thackerpd @Rebecca21951651 @capitolsheila @BillyBostickson @breakfast_dogs @Globalbiosec @gdemaneuf @RdeMaistre @dasher8090 @COVIDSelect @GrahamPerrettMP @harishseshadri2 @emilyakopp @Ayjchan @VBruttel @CharlesRixey @sciencecohen @hholdenthorp @ScienceMagazine @WHO @reSeeIt save Thread

@StevePascolo - Prof. Dr. Steve Pascolo

Le moyen fiable de quantifier l’ADN dans l’ARN est la spectrométrie de masse qui permet très spécifiquement de quantifier les riboses (ARN) et les deoxyriboses (ADN). Avec cette méthode: les vaccins ARNm contiennent bien 1000 fois moins d’ADN que d’ARNm (moins de 30 ng d’ADN par injection) comme stipulé dans les spécifications. Les incompétents (e.g. @raoult_didier) qui ont quantifié l’ADN avec le Qubit et obtenu des quantités énormes ne savent juste pas que Qubit est faussé par l’ARN et les lipides et que donc leurs résultats Qubit ADN sur les vaccins sont erronés. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X25003196

Quantification of objective concentrations of DNA impurities in mRNA vaccines The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the benefits and advantages of mRNA technologies in combination with lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery systems … sciencedirect.com

@BanounHelene - Hélène Banoun

Merci de vous renseigner et de reproduire les manip faites pas ces équipes indépendantes qui retrouvent toutes la contamination ADN Avez-vous réalisé ces dosages? Kevin McKernan at the FDA :Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), 182nd Meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), Zoom Video Conference, June 15, 2023 https://www.fda.gov/media/169804/download Kevin McKernan et al., 2023 Sequencing of bivalent Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines reveals nanogram to microgram quantities of expression vector dsDNA per dose https://osf.io/preprints/osf/b9t7m_v1 Speicher et al :DNA fragments detected in monovalent and bivalent Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada: Exploratory dose response relationship with serious adverse eventsnts. https://osf.io/preprints/osf/mjc97_v1 David Speicher at the TGA : DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines, document 19, consulté le 3 avril 2025, https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-12/FOI%2025-0070.pdf David Speicher (Ontario Veterinary College) at TGA : DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines, 9 septembre 2024, https://russellbroadbent.com.au/wp-content/uploads/David-Speicher-Report-2.pdf Pr Phillip Buckhaults, Professor of Cancer Molecular Genetics, University of South Carolina, at the South Carolina Senate, 16 octobre 2023, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/CommitteeInfo/SenateMedicalAffairsCommittee/PandemicPreparedness/PandemicPreparedness.phpconsulté le 3 avril 2025 https://www.scstatehouse.gov/CommitteeInfo/SenateMedicalAffairsCommittee/PandemicPreparedness/Phillip-Buckhaults-SC-Senate-09122023-final.pdf König, B.; Kirchner, J.O. Methodological Considerations Regarding the Quantification of DNA Impurities in the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Comirnaty®. Methods Protoc. 2024, 7, 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps7030041 Pr Didier Raoult : Didier Raoult, Confirmation of the presence of vaccine DNA in the Pfizer anti-COVID-19 vaccine 2024. ffhal-04778576f https://hal.science/hal-04778576v1/document Kämmerer U, Schulz V, Steger K. BioNTech RNA-Based COVID-19 Injections Contain Large Amounts Of Residual DNA Including An SV40 Promoter/Enhancer Sequence. Science, Public Health Policy and the Law. 2024 Dec 03; v5.2019-2024 https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/biontech-rna-based-covid-19-injections-contain-large-amounts-of-residual-dna-including-an-sv40-promoter-enhancer-sequence/ Wang, Tyler J, Alex Kim, and Kevin Kim. 2024. “A Rapid Detection Method of Replication-Competent Plasmid DNA from COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines for Quality Control.” Journal of High School Science 8 (4): 427–39. https://jhss.scholasticahq.com/article/127890-a-rapid-detection-method-of-replication-competent-plasmid-dna-from-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-for-quality-control Sonia Pekova : Quantitative Multiplex Real-Time PCR analysis of Moderna (Spikevax) and Pfizer (BNT162b2) vaccines, Sona Pekova, MD, PhD., TILIA LABORATORIES s.r.o., Laboratory for molecular diagnostics, Pchery, Czech Republic 08.03.2025 https://www.10letters.org/CzechResearch.pdf

Sequencing of bivalent Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines reveals nanogram to microgram quantities of expression vector dsDNA per dose Several methods were deployed to assess the nucleic acid composition of four vials of the Moderna and Pfizer bivalent mRNA vaccines. Two vials from each vendor were evaluated with Illumina sequencing, qPCR, RT-qPCR, Qubit™ 3 fluorometry and Agilent Tape Station™ electrophoresis. Multiple assays support DNA contamination that exceeds the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 330ng/mg requirement and the FDAs 10ng/dose requirements. These data may impact the surveillance of vaccine mRNA in breast milk or plasma as RT-qPCR assays targeting the vaccine mRNA cannot discern DNA from RNA without RNase or DNase nuclease treatments. Likewise, studies evaluating the reverse transcriptase activity of LINE-1 and vaccine mRNA will need to account for the high levels of DNA contamination in the vaccines. The exact ratio of linear fragmented DNA versus intact circular plasmid DNA is still being investigated. Quantitative PCR assays used to track the DNA contamination are described. osf.io

DNA fragments detected in monovalent and bivalent Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada: Exploratory dose response relationship with serious adverse events. Background: In vitro transcription (IVT) reactions used to generate nucleoside modified RNA (modRNA) for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines currently rely on an RNA polymerase transcribing from a DNA template. Production of modRNA used in the original Pfizer randomized clinical trial (RCT) utilized a PCR-generated DNA template (Process 1). To generate billions of vaccine doses, this DNA was cloned into a bacterial plasmid vector for amplification in Escherichia coli before linearization (Process 2), expanding the size and complexity of potential residual DNA and introducing sequences not present in the Process 1 template. It appears that Moderna used a similar plasmid-based process for both clinical trial and post-trial use vaccines. Recently, DNA sequencing studies have revealed this plasmid DNA at significant levels in both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna modRNA vaccines. These studies surveyed a limited number of lots and questions remain regarding the variance in residual DNA observed internationally. Methods: Using previously published primer and probe sequences, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and Qubit® fluorometry was performed on an additional 27 mRNA vials obtained in Canada and drawn from 12 unique lots (5 lots of Moderna child/adult monovalent, 1 lot of Moderna adult bivalent BA.4/5, 1 lot of Moderna child/adult bivalent BA.1, 1 lot of Moderna XBB.1.5 monovalent, 3 lots of Pfizer adult monovalent, and 1 lot of Pfizer adult bivalent BA.4/5). The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database was queried for the number and categorization of adverse events (AEs) reported for each of the lots tested. The content of one previously studied vial of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was examined by Oxford Nanopore sequencing to determine the size distribution of DNA fragments. This sample was also used to determine if the residual DNA is packaged in the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) and thus resistant to DNaseI or if the DNA resides outside of the LNP and is DNaseI labile.  Results: Quantification cycle (Cq) values (1:10 dilution) for the plasmid origin of replication (ori) and spike sequences ranged from 18.44 - 24.87 and 18.03 - 23.83 and for Pfizer, and 22.52 – 24.53 and 25.24 – 30.10 for Moderna, respectively. These values correspond to 0.28 – 4.27 ng/dose and 0.22 - 2.43 ng/dose (Pfizer), and 0.01 -0.34 ng/dose and 0.25 – 0.78 ng/dose (Moderna), for ori and spike respectively measured by qPCR, and 1,896 – 3,720 ng/dose and 3,270 – 5,100 ng/dose measured by Qubit® fluorometry for Pfizer and Moderna, respectfully. The SV40 promoter-enhancer-ori was only detected in Pfizer vials with Cq scores ranging from 16.64 – 22.59. In an exploratory analysis, we found preliminary evidence of a dose response relationship of the amount of DNA per dose and the frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs). This relationship was different for the Pfizer and Moderna products. Size distribution analysis found mean and maximum DNA fragment lengths of 214 base pairs (bp) and 3.5 kb, respectively. The plasmid DNA is likely inside the LNPs and is protected from nucleases. Conclusion: These data demonstrate the presence of billions to hundreds of billions of DNA molecules per dose in these vaccines. Using fluorometry, all vaccines exceed the guidelines for residual DNA set by FDA and WHO of 10 ng/dose by 188 – 509-fold. However, qPCR residual DNA content in all vaccines were below these guidelines emphasizing the importance of methodological clarity and consistency when interpreting quantitative guidelines. The preliminary evidence of a dose-response effect of residual DNA measured with qPCR and SAEs warrant confirmation and further investigation. Our findings extend existing concerns about vaccine safety and call into question the relevance of guidelines conceived before the introduction of efficient transfection using LNPs. With several obvious limitations, we urge that our work is replicated under forensic conditions and that guidelines be revised to account for highly efficient DNA transfection and cumulative dosing. osf.io

Page not found - Russell Broadbent MP russellbroadbent.com.au

South Carolina Legislature Online - Error scstatehouse.gov

South Carolina Legislature Online - Error scstatehouse.gov

BioNTech RNA-Based COVID-19 Injections Contain Large Amounts Of Residual DNA Including An SV40 Promoter/Enhancer Sequence - Science, Public Health Policy and the Law Background: BNT162b2 RNA-based COVID-19 injections are specified to transfect human cells to efficiently produce spike proteins for an immune response. publichealthpolicyjournal.com

A rapid detection method of replication-competent plasmid DNA from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for quality control | Published in Journal of High School Science By Tyler J Wang, Alex Kim & 1 more. DNA contamination is the primary reason that undermines public trust in the quality of mRNA vaccines. We report a method to detect residual replication-competent plasmid DNA present in mRNA vaccines. jhss.scholasticahq.com

@StevePascolo - Prof. Dr. Steve Pascolo

Le moyen fiable de quantifier l’ADN dans l’ARN est la spectrométrie de masse qui permet très spécifiquement de quantifier les riboses (ARN) et les deoxyriboses (ADN). Avec cette méthode: les vaccins ARNm contiennent bien 1000 fois moins d’ADN que d’ARNm (moins de 30 ng d’ADN par injection) comme stipulé dans les spécifications. Les incompétents (e.g. @raoult_didier) qui ont quantifié l’ADN avec le Qubit et obtenu des quantités énormes ne savent juste pas que Qubit est faussé par l’ARN et les lipides et que donc leurs résultats Qubit ADN sur les vaccins sont erronés. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X25003196

Quantification of objective concentrations of DNA impurities in mRNA vaccines The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the benefits and advantages of mRNA technologies in combination with lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery systems … sciencedirect.com

@ZatAwel - zat awel

@StevePascolo @russeurope Le monsieur qui se prétend le vrai scientifique en insultant ses collègues largement aussi compétents que lui, ça pue exactement comme le scientifique de plateau qui venait vomir pendant la période covid ses débilités quotidiennes.

@russeurope - Jacques Sapir

@ZatAwel @StevePascolo Sauf que lui est un spécialiste de la question de l'ARNm, avec une longue antériorité des travaux, et pas Raoult Donc, c'est nettement plus sérieux

@DjaonBea - ✨DJΛӨП BΣΛ✨ 🐿️ (🌿🌺🍀🌳)❤️CO2

@russeurope @ZatAwel @StevePascolo Vous devriez vous en tenir à l'économie...

@russeurope - Jacques Sapir

@DjaonBea @ZatAwel @StevePascolo Et vous, vous devriez vous taire

@DjaonBea - ✨DJΛӨП BΣΛ✨ 🐿️ (🌿🌺🍀🌳)❤️CO2

@russeurope @ZatAwel @StevePascolo J'ai bien archivé pour la postérité vos réponses

@BanounHelene - Hélène Banoun

Merci de vous renseigner et de reproduire les manip faites pas ces équipes indépendantes qui retrouvent toutes la contamination ADN Avez-vous réalisé ces dosages? Kevin McKernan at the FDA :Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), 182nd Meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), Zoom Video Conference, June 15, 2023 https://www.fda.gov/media/169804/download Kevin McKernan et al., 2023 Sequencing of bivalent Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines reveals nanogram to microgram quantities of expression vector dsDNA per dose https://osf.io/preprints/osf/b9t7m_v1 Speicher et al :DNA fragments detected in monovalent and bivalent Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada: Exploratory dose response relationship with serious adverse eventsnts. https://osf.io/preprints/osf/mjc97_v1 David Speicher at the TGA : DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines, document 19, consulté le 3 avril 2025, https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-12/FOI%2025-0070.pdf David Speicher (Ontario Veterinary College) at TGA : DNA contamination in mRNA vaccines, 9 septembre 2024, https://russellbroadbent.com.au/wp-content/uploads/David-Speicher-Report-2.pdf Pr Phillip Buckhaults, Professor of Cancer Molecular Genetics, University of South Carolina, at the South Carolina Senate, 16 octobre 2023, https://www.scstatehouse.gov/CommitteeInfo/SenateMedicalAffairsCommittee/PandemicPreparedness/PandemicPreparedness.phpconsulté le 3 avril 2025 https://www.scstatehouse.gov/CommitteeInfo/SenateMedicalAffairsCommittee/PandemicPreparedness/Phillip-Buckhaults-SC-Senate-09122023-final.pdf König, B.; Kirchner, J.O. Methodological Considerations Regarding the Quantification of DNA Impurities in the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Comirnaty®. Methods Protoc. 2024, 7, 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps7030041 Pr Didier Raoult : Didier Raoult, Confirmation of the presence of vaccine DNA in the Pfizer anti-COVID-19 vaccine 2024. ffhal-04778576f https://hal.science/hal-04778576v1/document Kämmerer U, Schulz V, Steger K. BioNTech RNA-Based COVID-19 Injections Contain Large Amounts Of Residual DNA Including An SV40 Promoter/Enhancer Sequence. Science, Public Health Policy and the Law. 2024 Dec 03; v5.2019-2024 https://publichealthpolicyjournal.com/biontech-rna-based-covid-19-injections-contain-large-amounts-of-residual-dna-including-an-sv40-promoter-enhancer-sequence/ Wang, Tyler J, Alex Kim, and Kevin Kim. 2024. “A Rapid Detection Method of Replication-Competent Plasmid DNA from COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines for Quality Control.” Journal of High School Science 8 (4): 427–39. https://jhss.scholasticahq.com/article/127890-a-rapid-detection-method-of-replication-competent-plasmid-dna-from-covid-19-mrna-vaccines-for-quality-control Sonia Pekova : Quantitative Multiplex Real-Time PCR analysis of Moderna (Spikevax) and Pfizer (BNT162b2) vaccines, Sona Pekova, MD, PhD., TILIA LABORATORIES s.r.o., Laboratory for molecular diagnostics, Pchery, Czech Republic 08.03.2025 https://www.10letters.org/CzechResearch.pdf

Sequencing of bivalent Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines reveals nanogram to microgram quantities of expression vector dsDNA per dose Several methods were deployed to assess the nucleic acid composition of four vials of the Moderna and Pfizer bivalent mRNA vaccines. Two vials from each vendor were evaluated with Illumina sequencing, qPCR, RT-qPCR, Qubit™ 3 fluorometry and Agilent Tape Station™ electrophoresis. Multiple assays support DNA contamination that exceeds the European Medicines Agency (EMA) 330ng/mg requirement and the FDAs 10ng/dose requirements. These data may impact the surveillance of vaccine mRNA in breast milk or plasma as RT-qPCR assays targeting the vaccine mRNA cannot discern DNA from RNA without RNase or DNase nuclease treatments. Likewise, studies evaluating the reverse transcriptase activity of LINE-1 and vaccine mRNA will need to account for the high levels of DNA contamination in the vaccines. The exact ratio of linear fragmented DNA versus intact circular plasmid DNA is still being investigated. Quantitative PCR assays used to track the DNA contamination are described. osf.io

DNA fragments detected in monovalent and bivalent Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna modRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Ontario, Canada: Exploratory dose response relationship with serious adverse events. Background: In vitro transcription (IVT) reactions used to generate nucleoside modified RNA (modRNA) for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines currently rely on an RNA polymerase transcribing from a DNA template. Production of modRNA used in the original Pfizer randomized clinical trial (RCT) utilized a PCR-generated DNA template (Process 1). To generate billions of vaccine doses, this DNA was cloned into a bacterial plasmid vector for amplification in Escherichia coli before linearization (Process 2), expanding the size and complexity of potential residual DNA and introducing sequences not present in the Process 1 template. It appears that Moderna used a similar plasmid-based process for both clinical trial and post-trial use vaccines. Recently, DNA sequencing studies have revealed this plasmid DNA at significant levels in both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna modRNA vaccines. These studies surveyed a limited number of lots and questions remain regarding the variance in residual DNA observed internationally. Methods: Using previously published primer and probe sequences, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and Qubit® fluorometry was performed on an additional 27 mRNA vials obtained in Canada and drawn from 12 unique lots (5 lots of Moderna child/adult monovalent, 1 lot of Moderna adult bivalent BA.4/5, 1 lot of Moderna child/adult bivalent BA.1, 1 lot of Moderna XBB.1.5 monovalent, 3 lots of Pfizer adult monovalent, and 1 lot of Pfizer adult bivalent BA.4/5). The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database was queried for the number and categorization of adverse events (AEs) reported for each of the lots tested. The content of one previously studied vial of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was examined by Oxford Nanopore sequencing to determine the size distribution of DNA fragments. This sample was also used to determine if the residual DNA is packaged in the lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) and thus resistant to DNaseI or if the DNA resides outside of the LNP and is DNaseI labile.  Results: Quantification cycle (Cq) values (1:10 dilution) for the plasmid origin of replication (ori) and spike sequences ranged from 18.44 - 24.87 and 18.03 - 23.83 and for Pfizer, and 22.52 – 24.53 and 25.24 – 30.10 for Moderna, respectively. These values correspond to 0.28 – 4.27 ng/dose and 0.22 - 2.43 ng/dose (Pfizer), and 0.01 -0.34 ng/dose and 0.25 – 0.78 ng/dose (Moderna), for ori and spike respectively measured by qPCR, and 1,896 – 3,720 ng/dose and 3,270 – 5,100 ng/dose measured by Qubit® fluorometry for Pfizer and Moderna, respectfully. The SV40 promoter-enhancer-ori was only detected in Pfizer vials with Cq scores ranging from 16.64 – 22.59. In an exploratory analysis, we found preliminary evidence of a dose response relationship of the amount of DNA per dose and the frequency of serious adverse events (SAEs). This relationship was different for the Pfizer and Moderna products. Size distribution analysis found mean and maximum DNA fragment lengths of 214 base pairs (bp) and 3.5 kb, respectively. The plasmid DNA is likely inside the LNPs and is protected from nucleases. Conclusion: These data demonstrate the presence of billions to hundreds of billions of DNA molecules per dose in these vaccines. Using fluorometry, all vaccines exceed the guidelines for residual DNA set by FDA and WHO of 10 ng/dose by 188 – 509-fold. However, qPCR residual DNA content in all vaccines were below these guidelines emphasizing the importance of methodological clarity and consistency when interpreting quantitative guidelines. The preliminary evidence of a dose-response effect of residual DNA measured with qPCR and SAEs warrant confirmation and further investigation. Our findings extend existing concerns about vaccine safety and call into question the relevance of guidelines conceived before the introduction of efficient transfection using LNPs. With several obvious limitations, we urge that our work is replicated under forensic conditions and that guidelines be revised to account for highly efficient DNA transfection and cumulative dosing. osf.io

Page not found - Russell Broadbent MP russellbroadbent.com.au

South Carolina Legislature Online - Error scstatehouse.gov

South Carolina Legislature Online - Error scstatehouse.gov

BioNTech RNA-Based COVID-19 Injections Contain Large Amounts Of Residual DNA Including An SV40 Promoter/Enhancer Sequence - Science, Public Health Policy and the Law Background: BNT162b2 RNA-based COVID-19 injections are specified to transfect human cells to efficiently produce spike proteins for an immune response. publichealthpolicyjournal.com

A rapid detection method of replication-competent plasmid DNA from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for quality control | Published in Journal of High School Science By Tyler J Wang, Alex Kim & 1 more. DNA contamination is the primary reason that undermines public trust in the quality of mRNA vaccines. We report a method to detect residual replication-competent plasmid DNA present in mRNA vaccines. jhss.scholasticahq.com

@A1an_M - Alan

During the coronapanic it was routine for those of us in the sceptic camp to be attacked online for being conspiracy theorists and for us to be pestered by the Big Pharma apologists to provide "references" to prove our points (as well as being censored and cancelled by people working for our own government). No reference was ever good enough for them of course, but during that time I built up a huge archive of impeccably sourced information pointing directly to the whole thing being a massive scam. Where possible I'd go back and analyse the source data, rather than rely on a newspaper article or some third-hand commentator. I thought I'd collect together the top few pieces of evidence and put them in a thread here for future reference in an attempt to make sure the whole thing doesn't get brushed under the carpet under the banner of "It was all Tony Fauci's fault for doing gain of function research". The scandal is so much bigger and wider than that. So here it is 🧵: 1/10

@A1an_M - Alan

Item 1 - Prof John Ioannidis estimates of the Infection Fatality Rate of COVID. John Ioannidis, world-leading epidemiologist from Stanford (or he was at that time, his name was soon dragged through the mud), used seroprevalence data (indicating how many people had been exposed to SARS-COV-2) from studies around the world (32 different locations) to estimate the infection fatality rate of COVID-19 (how many people will die on average in a group of people infected with the virus). He concluded that the median infection fatality rate was 0.27% and that for people under 70, the median was 0.05% (1 in 2,000), showing that the virus was overwhelmingly a risk only to the elderly and even then, little more of a risk than seasonal influenza. (As a comparison, the IFR of seasonal influenza is about 1 in 1,000 (0.1%) across all age groups). These rates (from the real world) were far lower than those used in Imperial College modelling and quoted in the media by politicians. An early indication that the whole thing was being overblown. And these estimates were produced very early on in the "pandemic" before the virus had mutated to become even less deadly. Ioannidis study: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v3 2/10

The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data medRxiv - The Preprint Server for Health Sciences medrxiv.org

@A1an_M - Alan

Item 2 - the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship Further evidence that SARS-COV-2 was primarily a threat only to the very elderly was provided by the outcomes for passengers on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. A passenger who had been on the ship and disembarked in Hong Kong subsequently tested positive for COVID-19 and, as a result, the ship was quarantined and passengers and crew stayed on board rather than disembarking in Japan. This gave an opportunity to study the behaviour of the virus in a real life "petri-dish" with thousands of people in close proximity being exposed to the virus. There were 3,711 passengers and crew on the Diamond Princess. Median age 58. Everyone on board had a PCR test (eventually) 619 out of 3,711 tested positive (17%), of whom 301 had symptoms and 318 had no symptoms. There were 7 deaths (6 in the 70-79 age group, 1 in the over 80 age group). So even in a very elderly cohort of people, whom we must assume were all exposed to the virus, only 0.18% of people died. We could also infer that there must have been existing immunity to the virus in this population, given how few tested positive, and how few of those developed symptoms. Link to study: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.12.2000256 Link to Daily Sceptic analysis: https://dailysceptic.org/2021/03/27/the-diamond-princess-told-us-about-pre-existing-immunity-asymptomatic-infection-and-the-infection-fatality-rate-why-were-those-lessons-ignored/ 3/10

Eurosurveillance | Page Not Found eurosurveillance.org is the online home of Eurosurveillance, Europe's journal on infectious disease surveillance, epidemiology, prevention and control. eurosurveillance.org

The Diamond Princess Told Us About Pre-Existing Immunity, Asymptomatic Infection and the Infection Fatality Rate. Why Were Those Lessons Ignored? – The Daily Sceptic The virus raged on the Diamond Princess cruise ship in February 2020, but only 17% of passengers tested positive, suggesting high levels of pre-existing immunity. Why was that lesson ignored by the modellers? dailysceptic.org

@A1an_M - Alan

Item 3 - ONS data from Freedom of Information requests ONS data gradually became more and more politicised during the coronapanic, and therefore less and less useful, but the data it gave in response to FOI requests in 2020 was actually quite useful. For example this analysis of the age breakdown of those who died following a positive COVID test in 2020 in England and Wales. It showed once again the extent to which this virus was primarily a threat to the very elderly, with 84% of victims over the age of 70 (and also, only 9 victims under the age of 15). Again, consistent with the earlier Ioannidis analysis. Other FOI requests revealed that the mean age of those who died with COVID was over 80, and that, of the 80,000+ deaths recorded "with COVID" in 2020, only 9,000 listed COVID as the sole cause of death on the death certificate - the overwhelming majority of deaths involved at least one other comorbidity. This data also made it possible to compare the age distribution of deaths with COVID in 2020, with deaths from all causes in 2019, and this analysis revealed that if you were under the age of 75, you were more likely to die of any cause, than with COVID. So these three analyses showed that, from an early date, it was clear that SARS-COV-2 was not the deadly threat to everyone it was portrayed to be. ONS FOI links: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsfromcovid19byageband https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/averageageofthosewhohaddiedwithcovid19 https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsfromcovid19withnootherunderlyingcauses 4/10

Deaths from COVID-19 by age band - Office for National Statistics ons.gov.uk

Average age of those who had died with COVID-19 - Office for National Statistics ons.gov.uk

Deaths from COVID-19 with no other underlying causes - Office for National Statistics ons.gov.uk

@A1an_M - Alan

Item 4 - Mask Ineffectiveness In July 2020 there was a sudden turnaround in recommendations for mask wearing amongst the general population. Prior to this date, there had been a consensus that this was neither necessary nor desirable. But suddenly that all changed. The science hadn't changed, there was a randomly controlled trial conducted in Denmark in April/May 2020 which found no statistically significant difference in infections between mask-wearing and non-mask wearing groups. And subsequent studies reviewed by the Cochrane Library found the same. But what had changed was "political lobbying" with the WHO to change their guidance on masks, as the BBC revealed in a rare outbreak of COVID investigative journalism by them (youtube link below). Denmark masks study: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817 BBC Newsnight clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnRqUMxjvR4 5/10

@A1an_M - Alan

Item 5 - Vaccine ineffectiveness There were plenty of signs that the COVID vaccines were not effective in preventing infection, or transmission, or hospitalisation, or death with COVID, at a population level, just by comparing the rates before and after the introduction of the vaccines. The vaccine introduction in mid December 2020 coincided with an uptick in all of these variables. (What changed the trend was the appearance of the omicron variant which Bill Gates dolefully described as "a type of vaccine" which had done a better job of reaching the whole population than the vaccinators). But a study in the International Journal of Epidemiology gave evidence of something which we all observed anecdotally all around us: that vaccinated people were still becoming infected with the virus. The study found that after two doses of the Astra Zeneca vaccine or one dose of the Pfizer vaccine, that whatever immunity the vaccines delivered against the virus quickly waned and actually turned negative within 2-3 months (meaning recipients were more likely to be infected or hospitalised beyond that point). OurWorldInData link: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/covid?pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Confirmed+deaths&Interval=Cumulative&Relative+to+population=true&country=~OWID_WRL International Journal of Epidemiology link https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/52/1/22/6770060?login=false 6/10

COVID-19 Data Explorer Explore global data on COVID-19. ourworldindata.org

@A1an_M - Alan

Item 6 - Risk to Children As we know, in 2020 schools across the UK were closed as part of the national lockdowns, with disastrous impact on education, particularly of the very young and those due to sit exams, and disastrous impact on working parents who had to somehow balance work and home schooling. However it was clear from very early days that children were at vanishingly small risk from the virus and that the risks to them of losing education (and the resultant isolation from their peers) would be far higher. An article in The Times discussed a study conducted on 260 hospitals in Britain in the first half of 2020 and concluded that "no child who was not already profoundly ill has died of Covid-19 in Britain" "The study looked at 260 hospitals in England, Wales and Scotland. Out of the 69,500 patients admitted with proven Covid-19 in the first six months of the year, 651 — or 0.9 per cent — were under 19 years of age". "Six deaths of minors were recorded. Three were newborn babies with other severe health problems. The other three were aged 15 to 18 years old and also had “profound health issues”. Callum Semple, professor in child health and outbreak medicine at the University of Liverpool and Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, who is the senior author of the study, said: “The deaths that we did observe were children with what we would describe as profound co-morbidities — not a touch of asthma, not cystic fibrosis.” These children’s underlying illnesses would have been considered as “life-limiting”, he said. “We did not have any deaths in otherwise healthy school-aged children.” However the authorities, and some in the teaching profession, were happy to let the illusion that children were at some risk from the virus to persist in order to promote their own agendas. Times article: https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/all-children-who-died-of-covid-19-were-already-seriously-ill-jlxr8mkxq 7/10

All children who died of Covid-19 were already seriously ill No child who was not already profoundly ill has died of Covid-19 in Britain, a large study has indicated, with the researchers saying that the results should reassure parents as a new school term begins.The study looked at 260 hospitals in England, Wales and Scotland. Out of the 69,500 patients admi thetimes.com

@A1an_M - Alan

Item 7 Vaccine adverse effects We were assured, repeatedly, from the moment the novel COVID injectables were released, that they were "safe and effective". However the evidence that they were not quickly mounted. As early as March 2020, the Astra Zeneca vaccine was suspended in Nordic countries following adverse effects in medical workers who received it. And the MHRA was forced to mention the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis particularly in young males from vaccination with the Pfizer and Moderna products. And a number of coroners reports directly blamed the COVID injectables as the cause of death in several cases. But the insistence always remained that these were just extremely rare cases. The lie was given to all of this by the MHRA's Yellow Card data. Yellow Card had, up until December 2021 at least, always been used as an "early warning system" to identify problems with medicines. From the beginning of the tollout in December 2020 the MHRA received an absolute deluge of Yellow Card reports from recipients of the injectables who had suffered adverse effects immediately afterwards, as well as medical personnel reporting these symptoms on behalf of the injured and deceased. While not every reported injury may have been directly caused by the vaccine, we also know that Yellow Cards received by the MHRA only constitute a small fraction of the adverse effects actually experienced (they previously estimated that only 10% of serious effects were reported). By September 2023 it was clear from the data that there was an enormous issue with the safety of the vaccines. Serious adverse events were being reported to the MHRA at a rate of 1 for every 424 doses, and deaths running at 1 for every 60,000 doses (and bear in mind most people had at least 2 doses) but to this day there has been no acknowledgement or independent investigation. AZ injuries story: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-norway-idUSKBN2B50GZ/ The MHRA data has been largely archived in obscure locations on the internet now so is hard to link to, but I have all of the receipts if anyone is interested. 8/10

@A1an_M - Alan

Item 8 - Exaggerating the numbers of people who were Vaccinated. We were led to believe by the media that we vaccine refuseniks were in a tiny minority - less than 10%. And this was used heavily as a tactic by the media and government to pressure everyone into being vaccinated. You'll remember all the pressure from the likes of Andrew Neil and Piers Morgan and Sajid Javed and Esther Rantzen and Anne McElvoy and Uncle Tom Cobley and all... But this 10% number was based on ONS data which relied on (old) estimates of the UK population. Meanwhile the Health Security Agency used data from NIMS, which has a record of everyone registered with the NHS, and it estimated that the proportion of the English population which had not received a vaccine, was 19.5%. And ICM ran an opinion poll for Scottish Television on a representative sample of the population which discovered that 32% of the sample (825 out of the 2570 participants) said they'd had no vaccines. But as identified by @profnfenton ICM were sufficiently astonished at this outcome that they decided to apply some "post-survey weighting" to their sample to bring the number down to the "correct" level of 8%. But it's clear that we unvaccinated are a sizeable minority - far more than 10%. And the government knew this too, which is why they eventually recoiled from making the vaccines mandatory in the NHS (and probably in other roles too). BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55274833 ICM poll, Prof Fenton analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccWOMtmH65U 9/10

Covid vaccine: How many people are vaccinated in the UK? A look at progress made in vaccinating the country, as more than 52 million people have received at least one dose and 38 million have had a booster or third dose. bbc.co.uk

@A1an_M - Alan

That's just a subset of the huge library of evidence that exists whoing that the whole of the coronavirus response was at best unnecessary and, more realistically, a gigantic fraud. You no doubt have plenty of examples of your own. But in summary: There was no "pandemic", simply a simulation of one. A simulation which could be repeated again tomorrow. And it could be done whether a novel virus existed or not. All that's needed is a compliant media, a gullible, hypnotised population, and a few grainy videos of crisis actors "dying" on foreign streets, and off we'll go again. Unless... unless some proper journalists are willing to tell the WHOLE truth about what happened in 2020-22, rather than just focus on the limited hangout about the lab leak and the source of the virus. Any volunteers? 10/10

@A1an_M - Alan

Of course the biggest fraud of all, and the one which the entire simulation depended on, and on which any new simulation will also depend, was the use of a test protocol, PCR, which was unfit for the purpose for which it was used. A test protocol which, as per its creator, can find pretty much anything in anyone, if done well. A test capable of finding tiny fragments of virus which are far too small to cause symptomatic illness, and far too small to make transmission to others a possibility. A test incapable of determining if the host is carrying live virus. A test which could deliver significant numbers of false positives and negatives. (False positives being a particular problem if, as mentioned below, decisions on isolation and contact tracing are being made on their basis). But a test whose sensitivity could be dialled up or down to show a sudden spike or dip in "cases" to meet the political requirements of the day. But the whole "testdemic" aspect is so important, it probably deserves a thread all of its own. One for another day... 11/10

@A1an_M - Alan

Probably worth adding that this thread is a summary of seven much longer threads which I wrote in Sep '23 to counter BBC VeryIffy's charge that there was an online Conspiracy Movement in the UK spreading misinformation about COVID and the response. See here: https://t.co/J6eOwBPb7i

@sayerjigmi - Sayer Ji

🧵 What if the foundational premise of modern medicine is incomplete? What if you're not primarily being "infected" by viruses, but rather responding to chemical exposures? And what if your body's healing response—the one we call "disease"—is actually being misinterpreted as symptoms of viral infection? Let me show you the evidence.👇

@sayerjigmi - Sayer Ji

2/ It starts with a simple question: If a painkiller damages only your liver, how does your heart rate become irregular, your breathing shallow, your fever spike within hours? The textbook answer: "The drug circulates and affects multiple organs." But the real answer changes everything.

@sayerjigmi - Sayer Ji

3/ What if your body isn't being invaded by a pathogenic enemy? What if it's *signaling*. Your liver suffers chemical damage. Your body releases microscopic particles called exosomes—cellular messengers that carry information to coordinate a whole-body healing response. You feel sick. Medicine calls it infection. 👉This is EXACTLY what a landmark 2018 study found about Tylenol-induced exosome formation which exhibited highly destructive, contagion-like behavior: https://sayerji.substack.com/p/reframing-viral-mechanisms-exosomes?utm_source=publication-search

Reframing Viral Mechanisms: Exosomes, Toxicity, and the Xenogen Hypothesis Rethinking Pathogenic Assumptions in the Age of Environmental Stress sayerji.substack.com

@sayerjigmi - Sayer Ji

4/Here's the heresy: Viruses and exosomes are molecularly indistinguishable. They share identical marker proteins. They carry the same genetic information. They're the same size. Under electron microscopy, you cannot tell them apart. We've been confusing your body's healing signals for pathogenic invaders.

@sayerjigmi - Sayer Ji

5/ The 2015 influenza virion architecture study proved this. For the first time ever, researchers fully characterized what a "flu virus" actually contains. Result: It's 50% host cell proteins and 50% viral components. The virus isn't "other." It's a hybrid of self and non-self. 👉Dive deeper by reading: Why Everything You Learned About Viruses is WRONG: https://greenmedinfo.com/blog/why-only-thing-influenza-may-kill-germ-theory

Why Everything You Learned About Viruses is WRONG Groundbreaking research indicates that most of what we believed about the purportedly deadly properties of flu virus is based on nothing more than institutionalized superstition and myth. greenmedinfo.com

@sayerjigmi - Sayer Ji

6/ So what exactly is a virus? A piece of genetic information wrapped in your own cellular machinery. A signal. Not a predator. Not an invader. A *message*. And we built our entire public health system on misreading it.

@sayerjigmi - Sayer Ji

7/ During COVID, this catastrophic confusion became undeniable. PCR tests were designed to detect "viral RNA." But they were amplifying exosomal RNA—your own immune system's response particles. A 2024 peer-reviewed study found: "PCR tests have zero specificity in vivo due to exosome RNA." 👉Dive deeper: PCR Testing Unmasked: The Illusion of Viral Detection in a Sea of Nucleic Acids. https://greenmedinfo.com/content/pcr-testing-unmasked-illusion-viral-detection-sea-nucleic-acids

PCR Testing Unmasked: The Illusion of Viral Detection in a Sea of Nucleic Acids PCR Testing Unmasked: The Illusion of Viral Detection in a Sea of Nucleic Acids In a world gripped by the demand for precise diagnostics, PCR testing has become synonymous with accuracy. Yet, beneath the surface of this technological marvel lies a profound challenge to our understanding of disease. What if the very process of amplifying genetic material is not a triumph of precision, but a distortion of reality? Could our reliance on PCR be leading us down a path paved with misconceptions about health, infection, and the very nature of disease itself? greenmedinfo.com

@sayerjigmi - Sayer Ji

8/ The second and subsequent COVID waves? Largely false positives. Artifacts of a diagnostic technology that couldn't distinguish between your body's healing response and a pathogenic invader. We locked down civilization based on this confusion. 👉Dive deeper: Fool Me Twice? PCR Testing, Covid Hysteria 2.0, and the Looming Avian Flu Pandemic https://greenmedinfo.com/content/fool-me-twice-pcr-testing-covid-hysteria-20-and-looming-avian-flu-pandemic

Fool Me Twice? PCR Testing, Covid Hysteria 2.0, and the Looming Avian Flu Pandemic Fool Me Twice? PCR Testing, Covid Hysteria 2.0, and the Looming Avian Flu Pandemic Is Avian Influenza a new pandemic threat, or are we witnessing history repeat itself, driven by misinterpreted PCR tests and pharmaceutical profit motives? greenmedinfo.com

@sayerjigmi - Sayer Ji

9/But here's what they haven't told you about exosomes: Grape exosomes stimulate intestinal stem cell regeneration. They protect against inflammation. They deliver microRNA instructions that repair damaged tissue. Your body's "infection response" is *literally a healing mechanism*. This isn't metaphorical. Plant-derived exosomes (from grapes) work so effectively that mice treated with them survived *twice as long* when exposed to colitis-inducing toxins. Your body isn't fighting an infection. It's executing a repair protocol. 👉Dive deeper: https://greenmedinfo.com/content/grape-exosomes-natures-nanoparticles-cellular-communication-and-regenerative-h

Grape Exosomes: Nature's Nanoparticles for Cellular Communication and Regenerative Healing Grape Exosomes: Nature's Nanoparticles for Cellular Communication and Regenerative Healing Tiny particles from grapes may hold the key to unlocking profound healing effects throughout the body. greenmedinfo.com

@sayerjigmi - Sayer Ji

10/ The pharmaceutical industry knows this. But an industry built on treating "infections" with drugs can't profit from understanding that most "illness" is actually the body's successful healing attempt. So the contagion narrative persists. It sells vaccines. It justifies mandates. It generates fear. Instead, there are thousands of natural remedies which focus on providing nutrigenomically rich, miRNA saturated healing substances, which http://GreenMedInfo.com has been indexing for almost two decades: http://www.Greenmedinfo.com

GreenMedInfo | Alternative Medicine | Vitamin Research | Natural The world's most widely referenced, evidence-based, natural health resource with over 10,000 health topics and 95,000 peer reviewed abstracts. greenmedinfo.com

GreenMedInfo | Alternative Medicine | Vitamin Research | Natural The world's most widely referenced, evidence-based, natural health resource with over 10,000 health topics and 95,000 peer reviewed abstracts. greenmedinfo.com

@sayerjigmi - Sayer Ji

11/ What if we reframed the entire paradigm? Not: "You're infected and must be saved." But: "You've been exposed to chemicals that triggered a healing response. Support that response instead of suppressing it." This isn't "anti-science." It's *following the science* to its actual conclusion—the one the institutional medicine establishment refuses to acknowledge because it dismantles their business model.

@sayerjigmi - Sayer Ji

12/ Your fever isn't the enemy. It's your body raising temperature to activate immune signaling. Your cough isn't pathology. It's your body clearing irritated tissue. Your inflammation isn't infection. It's your body's exosomal healing cascade in action.

@sayerjigmi - Sayer Ji

13/ We've pathologized wellness. We've criminalized immunity. We've built an empire on misidentifying our body's most sophisticated self-repair mechanism as an invading enemy that must be destroyed with drugs and vaccines.

@sayerjigmi - Sayer Ji

14/ The real question: What toxins triggered your immune response in the first place? That's what we should be investigating. That's where prevention actually lives. Not in vaccines against viral phantoms. But in removing the chemical poisons that activated the cascade.

@sayerjigmi - Sayer Ji

15/ "Poisoned, Not Infected" isn't just a reframing. It's an indictment of an entire medical paradigm built on fundamental misunderstanding—one that profits from your fear of germs while ignoring the chemicals destroying your cells. ♦️Read the full investigation into how exosomes, chemicals, and institutional denial have created the modern contagion illusion. The science is there. The evidence is undeniable. The only question is whether medicine will ever acknowledge what it's been missing. 👉Read and share the full article: https://sayerji.substack.com/p/poisoned-not-infected-why-your-bodys

Poisoned, Not Infected: Why Your Body's Healing Response Looks Like Disease How Chemicals, Not Viruses, Trigger the Signals That Make Us Sick—and Why Modern Medicine Keeps Missing the Cause sayerji.substack.com