Event 2021 – Part 1 (Sars-CoV-2 Origin & PCR)
1.) Sars-CoV-2 vs COVID-19
2.) Where did Sars-CoV-2 Originate?
3.) Why understanding Gain of Function is important
4.) In 2006, Chinese put together 4 viruses
5.) They used PCR-testing to prove that’s what they had
First Published Wed 23rd June, 2021. I intended to finish once all parts had been uploaded, but now doubt I’ll ever return to this series. Instead I’m turning the notes I already created into separate parts to be able to refer to references.
Event 2021 Notes (Source)
Part 1
You are all involved in the largest experimental study ever in the history of mankind; either in the experimental or control group.
This is a slice through tissue of a coronavirus, anyone telling you ‘they don’t exist’ needs to look at this. Anyone who tells you ‘we don’t have the genetic sequence’, we do. This is what it looks like, these are spike proteins. (02) And this is a cryo-electron micrograph. (03)
I think this is the video he played in the presentation.
I think he needs to really explain the isolation thing in further detail – most of my ‘truther-buddies’ would need more than this to convince them it’s been isolated, since the term ‘isolated’ doesn’t mean what most scientists thinks it means and there’s not been a single lab in the world who has ‘isolated’ the virus. – Penny
The unique thing about this virus is its spike protein. This is the spike protein. It looks like a tree. It is a molecule. The 3 unique regions above are not found in other CoronaViruses.
Spike protein has at least 3 unusual inserts not found together in related natural CVs:
1. HIV Pseudovirus glycoprotein 120
2. PRRA insert furin cleavage site
3. Prion-like domain at RBS (ACE2 receptor binding site)
Not in presentation, but this is what he is referring to:
See also My Pandemic Timeline for more references to the Gain of Function research USA-Wuhan
In 2006, the Chinese put together 4 viruses. HIV 1, Hepatitis C, and identified it as SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2. (Ralph S. Baric is listed as an author) (07) (08)
I believe this might be the document he’s referring to:
Not in presentation, but Dr Yan (Whistle-blower) has been sounding the alarm about the virus being deliberately created and intentionally released to the world to destroy economies & freedoms since the very beginning of the pandemic.
They used PCR-testing to prove that’s what they had.
They followed Kary Mullis (1944 – 2019) who got the patent for PCR-test, and what Dr Mullis said, is you stop PCR-testing at 20 cycles. and that’s what his patent said, because anything more causes you to artificially induce things that really aren’t real and at 20 cycles you will find anything that’s really there. Dr Mullis was the last person to take on Anthony Fauci. He died from pneumonia in a few months before the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in 2019 at age 74.
The entire ‘pandemic’ is centred around PCR-testing & Mullis definitely would’ve been vocal about both Fauci & how the PCR-tests were being used. – Penny.
Not in presentation, but this is Kary Mullis talking about the PCR Test.
Not in presentation, but this is Kary Mullis on Fauci.
Not in presentation but relevant. A study published by Oxford Academic on the correlation between 3,790 positive PCR tests and 1,941 SARS-CoV-2 isolates, found that at a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, the test was 70 percent reliable, a figure that dropped to 20 percent at 30 cycles, and just three percent at 35 cycles. That meant 97 percent were false positives, yet that was used “in most laboratories in the USA and Europe.” (09)
The lower the Ct value of a specific gene, the more the gene exists in the sample. However, the problem with a Ct-based diagnosis is that there is no absolute or constant Ct cutoff value, and Ct cutoff values are different for each diagnostic reagent even for the same gene.
For example, although there are differences according to diagnostic reagents, a sample is usually judged positive for COVID-19 based on a Ct value of 35. Although the Ct value in a rRT-PCR test is relatively accurate, error of 1–2 cycles are not uncommon in a Ct value depending on various factors, including the skill of the examiner.
Therefore, when there is ambiguity in the Ct value, such as 34–36, the result may be interpreted as false negative or false positive depending on the Ct cutoff value.
Furthermore, because the Ct value is inversely proportional to the amount of the target gene, there is also the disadvantage of a sample being interpreted as false negative in the early stages of COVID-19 infection without large amounts of virus multiplication or depending on the accuracy of the swab.
Interpreting the COVID-19 Test Results (by authors of the above paper) (10)
Another paper ‘Predicting Infectious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 From Diagnostic Samples – Oxford Academic – Nov 2020′ (11) showed no positive viral cultures with a Ct > 24 or STT > 8 days. The odds of a positive culture were decreased by 32% for each unit increase in Ct.
Telegram: Get Post Updates | Chat/Comment | Video Evidence | c19 Images/Memes
References
