Michael Yeadon xVP Pfizer, "there is no virus!" Germ Theory is finally sinking.

5LGreenback

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2022
Messages
129
Location
Canada
@5LGreenback
https://viroliegy.com/2022/09/16/dr-mark-bailey-bids-farewell-to-virology/
There is this link a bit down on the leftside.... and a short excerpted version only 19 pages long.

https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/

Dr. Mark Bailey has done a great job. As in Fantastic!!! Mate! This is truly a clear takedown. Apologies if this has been posted on this thread. I know it is at least posted once elsewhere on the forum.

I have read up to mid 6th page. Thanks for the encouragement @RealNeat to get to the finer details of this excellent thread.

Also posted elsewhere is the accounts of the WWI soldiers who did NOT get sick when trying to get 'infected' by the coughing sick soldiers presumably down with 'Spanish Flu'. They could not get ill. They were coughed on with saliva/mucous particulates and..... Nothing. No transmission. They were 'volunteers' to help find a cure of this 'terrible pandemic'. Same game play 100 years later. Only this time with TV and internet propelling the narrative.
Thanks for this, I’ll go thru it all when I have time.

So far I’ve only got thru the first part, but already her explanation is the same. Basically randomly choosing the longest sequence they could find and calling that covid-19.

Okay, so what are the odds of that a randomly chosen sequence is more likely to be found in people with symptomatic illness?

I’m not saying they aren’t deceiving us, I’m just saying there’s gotta be more to the selection of this sequence they chose to test for.
 

AlaskaJono

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2020
Messages
940
Thanks for this, I’ll go thru it all when I have time.

So far I’ve only got thru the first part, but already her explanation is the same. Basically randomly choosing the longest sequence they could find and calling that covid-19.

Okay, so what are the odds of that a randomly chosen sequence is more likely to be found in people with symptomatic illness?

I’m not saying they aren’t deceiving us, I’m just saying there’s gotta be more to the selection of this sequence they chose to test for.

Hi 5LG-
General info regarding PCR and what they are 'looking for' supposedly: The 30,000 Base pairs of the "SarsCov2 Genome" is/was created by computers and humans. Many sequences were put together to 'create' this. So, completely made up. A sequence identical to the "HIV" genome was discovered within days of the Wuhan lab sending the Sars2 genome to the CDC in the USA. This HIV discovery within the SARSCOV2 genome paper by Indian Doctors was redacted after a few days.... (don't be afraid ... says the medical establishment). I posted this almost3 years ago on the forum. Anyhow, it is easy to see this was a kitchen sink approach, throwing all and any 'bad sequences' into this new bad **** viral genome. IMO....
There is truly an issue with viruses mutating capacity. They are not alive, and do not evolve. Fact.

https://www.genengnews.com/news/mining-the-sars-cov-2-genome-for-answers/
Up til 2019 viral genomes were generally smaller, for example : just found this= https://elifesciences.org/articles/31955
"The literature on viral noncoding DNA or RNA is relatively sparse but highly intriguing. The first viral noncoding RNAs were discovered in adenoviruses, dsDNA viruses that infect humans, and were ~160 base pairs long (Reich et al., 1966; Tycowski et al., 2015; Steitz et al., 2011). These sequences were shown responsible for viral evasion of host immunity by inhibition of protein kinase R- a cellular protein responsible for the inactivation of viral protein synthesis (Mathews and Shenk, 1991). In ovine herpesvirus, miRNAs have been shown to maintain viral latency (Riaz et al., 2014). These are just several examples in which viral noncoding elements have been shown to enable viral escape from host immunity, as well as regulate viral life-cycle and viral persistence (Tycowski et al., 2015). Despite many interesting studies exploring the topic of cellular noncoding DNA (Mattick and Makunin, 2006; Morris, 2012; Mattick, 2004), there are no studies, to our knowledge, that reveal the statistics of noncoding percentage of viral genomes."

A PCR test cannot use that long of a sequence to amplify. It is a method of production, of amplification. To understand the PCR one must just focus on that for a few hours or days or weeks. I am no expert, but I understand the system well enough. Anything over a cycle count of perhaps 30 doesn't prove anything.
This is from my collected 'clippings ' in the last 3 years:

Taiwan's CECC apparently doesn't have an agenda of making their President look as bad as possible. Realizing that COVID-19 patients with a CT value of 32 or higher are unlikely to get sick or be contagious, Taiwan only considers a person to be COVID-19 positive if they have a CT value of less than 35, which means the PCR test must find one of the matching genetic sequences associated with SARS-Cov-2 within the first 34 cycles of DNA amplification (34 cycles creates 17.18 billion copies of the DNA sample). Both the U.S. and Japan use a much higher Cycle Threshold of 40, allowing for 5 extra cycles of DNA amplification. This is a BIG deal, because 39 cycles of DNA amplification creates 549.76 billion copies of the DNA sample... greatly increasing the odds of a FALSE positive from cross contamination. If the powers that may be really want to step up the fear-mongering to sway the nation... they should increase the Cycle Threshold even higher to 45 because at that level approximately 50% of all COVID-19 tests become positive.

My experience is that here in Australia and in NZ and elsewhere, USA included, cycle counts of 40-45 were used .... there are discussions about this on this forum from 2-3 years ago. Basically a PCR test could find gold in your 'system' and amplify billions of times - 1x2 to the 35th power is 34.3 Billion .
Also see below medical techno jargon that says (Taiwan) anything below 30 or 32 cycles could be more meaningful, re viral load if one is sick, or for testing purposes. If there is no virus, then a viral load is what? etc.. . One must be careful when reading or examining the point of view of the medical paper. That is why it is so tricky.

Good luck!

Please see paragraphs below taken from this site:
Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent

This is all regarding HIV/Aids but pertains to the (Quantitative) PCR testing as OXYMORONIC,,,,,, Kerry Mullis's words...
From Article:

"The technique for measuring viral load is known as RNA PCR – ribonucleic acid polymerase chain reaction (25). Mainstream scientists regard this test as the most specific documentation of HIV’s presence in a person’s body. It is often used when the ELISA and WB tests are negative, because PCR can detect the virus’ genetic material (or its RNA/DNA fragments), before the human body has had a chance to recognize the virus, produce antibodies in defense, and react positively in an antibodies-only test (26).
Despite its enhanced specificity, many mainstream scientists and practitioners recommend caution when using PCR for screening or diagnosing infection (27). For instance, authors of a study published in JAMA in 2006, in which PCR was used with a sample of almost 3,000 people, concluded: “The PCR assay is not sufficiently accurate to be used for the diagnosis of HIV infection without confirmation” [(28), p. 803].
PCR technology evolved quickly since it was introduced in 1983 (25). Although being employed, mostly, for assessing viral load (less for screening and diagnosis), it should give us pause to learn, however, that Dr. Kary Mullis – the scientist who won the 1993 Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR test and whose quote introduced this article (Table (Table1)1) – has strongly opposed using the technique for determining the amount of virus circulating in plasma. Lauritsen explains:
Kary Mullis … is thoroughly convinced that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. With regard to the viral-load tests, which attempt to use PCR for counting viruses, Mullis has stated: “Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.” PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral-load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves [(29), p. 3].
If to this picture we add human endogenous retroviruses (or HERVs) (30) as potential confounders, the genetic sequences detected in a PCR test may not be those from an exogenous virus, at all, and may explain the test’s substantial false-positive rates (18, 27). HERVs consist of retrovirus-like particles produced by host cells that are stressed or dying. In other words, when various infections assail the body, and certain cells experience stress or die in large numbers, they can manufacture by-products similar to retroviruses. These by-products can be reactive when testing for HIV antibodies, protein antigens, and viral loads (31). Culshaw summarizes it well:
A retrovirus is nothing more than RNA with an outer protein shell. The shell enables it to bind to cells of the type it infects, and once it gains entry, the outer coating disappears and the RNA is transcribed to DNA and incorporated as provirus into the host cell’s own genome. It is for this reason that retroviruses are called enveloped viruses, and it is also the reason that it is very difficult to distinguish between exogenous retroviruses (those that originate outside the body from a foreign invader) and endogenous retroviruses (those that are manufactured from our own retroviral-like genetic sequences under conditions of cellular stress, including diseases) … Much of the genetic material attributed to HIV is in fact DNA or RNA from [these] decaying cells (…) Human beings are filled with such endogenous retroviruses [(32), pp. 53, 55–56].
 
OP
RealNeat

RealNeat

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
2,344
Location
HI
Thanks for this, I’ll go thru it all when I have time.

So far I’ve only got thru the first part, but already her explanation is the same. Basically randomly choosing the longest sequence they could find and calling that covid-19.

Okay, so what are the odds of that a randomly chosen sequence is more likely to be found in people with symptomatic illness?

I’m not saying they aren’t deceiving us, I’m just saying there’s gotta be more to the selection of this sequence they chose to test for.
You're basing this off of what statistics? You and your acquaintances? Your sample size has to be much larger to draw the conclusion that "it can't be random." These massive amounts of variants, not just the fad ones you hear in the media, are all random variations to encompass so called sarscov2 genomic sequences. The scope of PCR positivity has become all encompassing along with manipulating cycle thresholds. In the words of Kary Mullis (more or less) "with PCR you can find anything in anyone."
 

joaquin

Member
Joined
May 4, 2022
Messages
699
Location
Shreveport
I don't want to derail this thread. But I do have a question that has been on my mind: Those at-home quick tests for covid, what are they detecting?
 

AlaskaJono

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2020
Messages
940
I don't want to derail this thread. But I do have a question that has been on my mind: Those at-home quick tests for covid, what are they detecting?
Just heard an interview lastnight with Eric Coppolino last night, planetwaves.fm . , supposed to be about Pluto in Aquarius, and first 25 minutes is solely about the computer virus that humans thought they 'caught'. He mentions this RAT test and what the heck is it and just what is it measuring. States that ViroLIEgy dude thinks it could be a pH test. :tearsofjoy: .... I do highly recommend this first part of an hour interview solely about the virtual world situation.
 

joaquin

Member
Joined
May 4, 2022
Messages
699
Location
Shreveport
Just heard an interview lastnight with Eric Coppolino last night, planetwaves.fm . , supposed to be about Pluto in Aquarius, and first 25 minutes is solely about the computer virus that humans thought they 'caught'. He mentions this RAT test and what the heck is it and just what is it measuring. States that ViroLIEgy dude thinks it could be a pH test. :tearsofjoy: .... I do highly recommend this first part of an hour interview solely about the virtual world situation.
Is the ViroLIEgy podcast online? I get the emails but some of it is behind a paywall.
 

AlaskaJono

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2020
Messages
940
@joaquin
The interview is voice only Eric Coppolino on planetwaves.fm. He as multiple websites/ plus substack - Lots of Covid research done and avail. :cool:
I have only read the viro lie gy website stuff.
 

5LGreenback

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2022
Messages
129
Location
Canada
You're basing this off of what statistics? You and your acquaintances? Your sample size has to be much larger to draw the conclusion that "it can't be random." These massive amounts of variants, not just the fad ones you hear in the media, are all random variations to encompass so called sarscov2 genomic sequences. The scope of PCR positivity has become all encompassing along with manipulating cycle thresholds. In the words of Kary Mullis (more or less) "with PCR you can find anything in anyone."
I base it off those 6 co workers and endless anecdotes of people who were forced to test weekly or even daily for the purposes of keeping their jobs etc. Was there the odd asymptomatic positive? Yes. But generally, when feeling healthy people tested negative. When feeling symptoms of whatever, the test would be much more likely to come back positive.

These general observations are true virtually everywhere. Just because there are still cases of false positives or false negatives doesn't negate the fact that whatever "genetic sequence" they choose, is somehow more likely to show positive when someone is sick.

My firefighter buddy had to test every week (punishment for being unvaxxed) he tested negative every time, except for the one week he was sick, he tested positive. This went on for 5 months, so out of 20 weeks, the sick week just so happens to come back positve? C'mon.

Obviously it would be hard to find stats showing this exact thing, but I think its twisting ones reality to deny that symptomatic people have been more likely to test positive.

Again I don't say this in defense of the PCR fraud, I'm just saying there has to be more to it and the no virus crowds explanation of this is not satisfactory.

Granted I still have to get through the info AlaskaJono posted.
 

PopSocket

Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2022
Messages
405
Location
N/A
I base it off those 6 co workers and endless anecdotes of people who were forced to test weekly or even daily for the purposes of keeping their jobs etc. Was there the odd asymptomatic positive? Yes. But generally, when feeling healthy people tested negative. When feeling symptoms of whatever, the test would be much more likely to come back positive.

These general observations are true virtually everywhere. Just because there are still cases of false positives or false negatives doesn't negate the fact that whatever "genetic sequence" they choose, is somehow more likely to show positive when someone is sick.

My firefighter buddy had to test every week (punishment for being unvaxxed) he tested negative every time, except for the one week he was sick, he tested positive. This went on for 5 months, so out of 20 weeks, the sick week just so happens to come back positve? C'mon.

Obviously it would be hard to find stats showing this exact thing, but I think its twisting ones reality to deny that symptomatic people have been more likely to test positive.

Again I don't say this in defense of the PCR fraud, I'm just saying there has to be more to it and the no virus crowds explanation of this is not satisfactory.

Granted I still have to get through the info AlaskaJono posted.
The sequence is not totally random from what I understand(and it does not make sense to put a random sequence...) but it has nothing to do with a virus either. Just my little theory I hold since the start of the covid scam. I stopped researching the PCR testing back in 2021 so I could be totally wrong and if someone can point out some major problem with it, please let me know:

When one is "sick" the first phase of any so called "viral" disease of the respiratory tract is tissue destruction and massive amount of genetic material is dumped during cell death process. So the chance of finding any genetic sequence is a lot higher during illness. Especially when one is testing the tissues that are being destroyed like nose and throat.

The second phase is the bacterial "infection" where the destroyed tissue/garbage from the first phase must be eaten up and cleaned by the bacteria while the bacteria is attacked by the body to keep the process in check(in a healthy organism) and thus we get the mucus from the lungs and nose. Again lots of free/inert genetic material/biological garbage from tissues and bacteria is being produced/dumped. And much higher chance of a positive result for any sequences.

In such a dirty environment combined with enough cycles you can find pretty much anything.
 

5LGreenback

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2022
Messages
129
Location
Canada
The sequence is not totally random from what I understand(and it does not make sense to put a random sequence...) but it has nothing to do with a virus either. Just my little theory I hold since the start of the covid scam. I stopped researching the PCR testing back in 2021 so I could be totally wrong and if someone can point out some major problem with it, please let me know:

When one is "sick" the first phase of any so called "viral" disease of the respiratory tract is tissue destruction and massive amount of genetic material is dumped during cell death process. So the chance of finding any genetic sequence is a lot higher during illness. Especially when one is testing the tissues that are being destroyed like nose and throat.

The second phase is the bacterial "infection" where the destroyed tissue/garbage from the first phase must be eaten up and cleaned by the bacteria while the bacteria is attacked by the body to keep the process in check(in a healthy organism) and thus we get the mucus from the lungs and nose. Again lots of free/inert genetic material/biological garbage from tissues and bacteria is being produced/dumped. And much higher chance of a positive result for any sequences.

In such a dirty environment combined with enough cycles you can find pretty much anything.
Interesting and seems very plausible. I would like to see if we can find any evidence showing this to be the case.
 
OP
RealNeat

RealNeat

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
2,344
Location
HI
The sequence is not totally random from what I understand(and it does not make sense to put a random sequence...) but it has nothing to do with a virus either. Just my little theory I hold since the start of the covid scam. I stopped researching the PCR testing back in 2021 so I could be totally wrong and if someone can point out some major problem with it, please let me know:

When one is "sick" the first phase of any so called "viral" disease of the respiratory tract is tissue destruction and massive amount of genetic material is dumped during cell death process. So the chance of finding any genetic sequence is a lot higher during illness. Especially when one is testing the tissues that are being destroyed like nose and throat.

The second phase is the bacterial "infection" where the destroyed tissue/garbage from the first phase must be eaten up and cleaned by the bacteria while the bacteria is attacked by the body to keep the process in check(in a healthy organism) and thus we get the mucus from the lungs and nose. Again lots of free/inert genetic material/biological garbage from tissues and bacteria is being produced/dumped. And much higher chance of a positive result for any sequences.

In such a dirty environment combined with enough cycles you can find pretty much anything.
Yes this is likely what's occurring, it's not literally random, however it's not specific either. Not the type of "specific" most people imagine when referring to the "COVID test." This has been discussed before, the more tissue distress is occurring during time of testing the more legos there will be to build a castle.
 
OP
RealNeat

RealNeat

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
2,344
Location
HI
Interesting and seems very plausible. I would like to see if we can find any evidence showing this to be the case.
Please visit the other "no virus" threads it's discussed in detail. Even Peat has done so. viroliegy.com does the most thorough job in my opinion of breaking down the genetic sequences, PCR tests and what they are actually testing for.

So yes, it's not actually random, but it might as well be. Again, this doesn't prove causality or the existence of a virus, nor the story behind viruses and their inception.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom