All Episodes
Previous Next
April 7, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
01:12:38
The Viral Delusion Episode 5 - Sequencing The Virus... Without The Virus
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The pandemic began.
How did you see it as it was unfolding?
Maybe you could tell us a little bit about why perhaps you saw it a little differently than most people.
Actually, I saw it from the beginning already in February.
I was actually in the U.S.
when things started brewing.
And I got back through England to Italy the very first few days that the lockdown started in March, February-March, and from day one I said, you know, this is a fake, this is a pseudo-pandemic, mainly because, of course, you know, I have
I have a background in the sense that I looked for all the previous big pandemics like SARS-CoV-1 or HIV and so forth where no virus has ever been isolated and no virus has ever been shown to be pathogenic.
And so I had already this background which put me into a position of saying I don't trust this, I don't believe this.
And the first thing I did, I actually went to look for the first Chinese study from the CDC, CCDC, the Chinese Center for Disease Control, published under the name Zhu and others, which was the first supposed isolation of the SARS-CoV-2.
And of course immediately found incredible discrepancies and a methodology that didn't isolate anything.
So essentially what I found was that they were taking the liquid from patients and they were maybe centrifuging them or filtering them.
I made a calculation that in the 15 micrograms that they were using to do the test, there were still like about 30 billion particles, virus-like particles, of which 85 to 95% of human origin, of human genetic origin.
And they would take this very heterogeneous material and put it into a culture.
And then they would say that that was the isolated virus, which of course didn't make any sense.
And that was the first criticism that I published about this study.
Then there was the second one that was absolutely ridiculous about, you know, the German Drosten paper, where they actually built the first swab test to test for the SARS-CoV-2, where they themselves And that was published at the end of February.
And they themselves said that, you know, they created this swab test without even having an actual virus available.
And then the other article that I looked at, which I criticized immediately at the beginning, was the second study in which, from again a Chinese equip, Bao and others, that was the That was the article where they actually claimed that they actually had fulfilled Koch's postulate.
Right?
Koch's postulates are the fundamental principles of microbiology.
And they are logical principles.
So essentially what they say, what Koch said, is that if you want to prove that a certain organism is pathogenic, causes a certain disease,
You have first to isolate the organism, and that's clear, because if you test something that is heterogeneous, even admitting that it creates a disease, you never know which component of the heterogeneous material is responsible.
So he said you have to isolate the organism, then you have to put this organism into a culture, then you have to take this culture, inject it into a guinea pig, and see if it actually reproduces the same symptoms of the disease that you're testing for.
And then you have to re-found and find again this organism in the body of the guinea pig.
These were the principles.
And, of course, these principles have never been fulfilled in microbiology, by the way.
But these guys, Bao and others, a key Chinese group, claim that they have fulfilled this presumed SARS-CoV-2.
And of course, I mean, again, it was pretty much crap in the sense that they took the same, the isolated virus from the zoo group, the one, the article I mentioned before, and they injected it into mice, two groups of mice, one was normal wild mice, another one was genetically modified mice to produce more, more of these AC2,
He stood his enzyme.
Essentially, what he was is, when they injected this material into the wild mice, nothing happened.
Meaning, zero effect.
They had some very light effect, like, you know, like the fur, a little different temporarily, but only in the genetically modified mice.
The article I published, I showed that actually whatever effect was there could have been, they lost, for instance, a little weight for a week.
They could be all related to the fact that these genetically modified mice actually produced more of this enzyme, which is a proteolytic enzyme, and so actually can accelerate metabolism and can help you actually lose weight.
Zero effect on normal mice.
But this for them was the proof that the actual virus, the heterogeneous material, was actually pathogenic.
So the whole thing has been a scam from the beginning.
So the whole thing has been a scam from the beginning.
So the very first paper, the Jew paper.
From what you can remember, what do you remember about what it was trying to say and what it was actually saying?
Well, I mean, I remember a couple Found some people with atypical pneumonia, which is not uncommon.
Every year we see lots of atypical pneumonia.
That's what we often call, you know, the flu or virus, because we don't really know what's causing it.
But, you know, every winter you see this.
So I was like, well, they see a few cases of atypical pneumonia.
That's not unusual.
They have some commonality that they were all at this outdoor food market, which didn't have the best sanitary conditions.
So I'm like, if people got sick from there, I would think some kind of food poisoning.
But they never even came up with that idea.
They just put the people in the hospital and gave them some antibiotics, and they didn't get better.
And they said, oh, it must be something like SARS.
And it was just, why would they come to that conclusion?
And then this was also the weird thing, because if you really do have a new disease, right, you would want to take a good sample of cases to study, like, you know, like a thousand people, or at least a hundred, but they had less than ten.
Why would they only study such a tiny number of people And I think they only actually took samples for these tissue culture experiments from three patients.
Now, you know, that's not really enough.
Because they were saying that this was going to be, you know, worldwide, affect millions of people, and in China they had, you know, thousands and thousands of people they said were affected.
So why are they testing only such a tiny number of people?
Like, that's good to generate a hypothesis, but it doesn't prove anything, you know, because there's always anomalies.
Somebody has their own unique illness that you can never approve.
And this, if you're, like, working in an emergency department or an urgent care center or a primary care practice, every year you get, you know, these people that come in with an acute respiratory illness.
And many times someone presents a little bit different or something weird or unique about it.
And then all of a sudden they're assuming it's like some deadly virus plague, you know, when it could just be they inhaled some, you know, feces from a sick animal and got pneumonia.
And then the other thing that just threw me off is that they're taking samples from the patient to try to find a virus, but they don't look in that fluid from the patient for the virus.
I'm like, well, why not?
That's the source of it.
Instead, I see they mix it in this foreign cell culture, monkey cells.
I'm like, why would they do that?
It doesn't make any sense at all.
And then I saw the pictures in the paper, in the Jiu paper, and they show these images where cells from the monkey kidney culture, and then these all different kinds of little particles.
And then they just put a little arrow next to a particle.
They like the way it looks, and they say, oh, there it is.
That's the virus.
And I'm like, well, what the heck is that?
How could they recognize it just by sight?
They have so many sources of particles in this toxic cell culture soup.
Exosomes are particles that all cells make.
They come off the membrane.
the same exact way that they say virus particles do, and they are the same exact size and shape as they say virus particles are, and they are made of the same thing that they say viral particles are, which is they have a membrane with proteins on it, and they have genetic which is they have a membrane with proteins on it, and they
And the genetic material is of a variety of the same exact types that they say viruses have, which include, you know, DNA double-stranded, single-stranded, mitochondrial DNA, RNA, microRNA.
All those things are reported to be in both exosomes and viruses.
So I said to myself, they created a recipe in the cell culture to make exosomes because they added antibiotics.
And if you look up studies, you'll find that antibiotics induce exosomes.
So they're creating exosomes.
And they're showing particles That look like exosomes.
So how do they know they're not?
There's no chemical test that they did.
They couldn't because they didn't identify anything first to develop a chemical test, right?
So they're just going by sight.
And you know, you just, the thing is, you can't tell the difference of any of these things by sight.
There's just made up.
And I realized that I'm like, this is not scientific at all.
They show a picture.
You know, of cells and various particles and there's just an arrow to these nondescript round particles that they just say, oh, those are the virus, even though there's nothing distinct about them at all.
And they don't even have the spike protein knobs that are characteristic on these images in this paper.
So they're basically just showing you particles of dying cells and saying, oh, these ones No proof.
They didn't purify any particles directly from a patient.
They didn't do any chemical analysis.
The other biologists know, hey, you show typical structures, called VLE, for example.
When you have a dot of tissue on a Petri dish, then it gets its fingers out, called VLE.
Fluid out, stick there, curing itself.
And they walk like this, and they try to unite with each other again, building the tissue, right?
So, and this, when they cut through this, they say, look, this is a spherical thing, but never ever have proven it is spherical.
And they never analyzed And never did the biochemistry of this particle.
Does it really has the proteins of the virus?
Is there really the nucleic acid then?
So it's easy to check this.
Very easy.
You see only they work with structures from cell cultures and never ever were able to visualize something in the blood, from your mouth, from urine, from sperm, from all other kinds of liquid or tissue in the body.
Never ever.
The only way that you could show a brand new organism never been discovered before would be to get it by itself and then study it.
Everybody thinks you see pictures of viruses from sick people.
I thought that.
And then somebody asked me, well, can you show me a study that shows that?
Well, I don't really know.
Why do you think it?
Well, everybody thinks it.
Well, what about the pictures of coronavirus that we see?
Well, what is that?
And why has that been identified as...
What's that picture of?
What's going on there?
So, you know, 99% of them are computer models, right?
So, I can show you a computer model of a unicorn.
Does that mean there's unicorns?
You know, space alien Sasquatch, and for all I know there might be a Sasquatch, but just because somebody shows me a computer picture of it, Doesn't mean it exists.
Let's take one example.
The first paper from Australia that isolated and has a picture of a SARS-CoV-2 virus outside of China.
So that's what people see.
They see this particle with spiky things off the side, which are the spike proteins.
Little dots, and they say that's the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
And that's all most people and most doctors know.
There's the bar.
How did they get that?
They took fluid from one person, mixed it with their amniotic fluid and bovine serum and horse serum and amphotericin B and genomycin and put it in a monkey kidney cell and it broke down.
And then they got these particles.
And that's what they're picturing.
But interestingly, when you read how they did it, and I'll read it and then explain it, they say, quote, Electron micrographs of section Vero cells showed cytoplasmic membrane-bound vesicles containing coronavirus particles, CBOX5B. Electron micrographs of section Vero cells showed cytoplasmic membrane-bound vesicles
Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin to the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.
Now, let's dissect this a little bit.
Vireion means an individual virus.
So they did the virocells, that's the kidney tissue.
They found membrane-bound vesicles.
They found budding out of the cell.
They found these little pieces, particles of genetic material.
That's like when you blow up the house, you occasionally get pieces of paper sticking to the walls.
That doesn't show whether they're going out or going in, or they're just breaking down.
So you see it was stuck together.
Containing coronavirus particles.
There were several attempts, and they didn't look like the ones with the spike protein.
So they didn't find anything that looked like a coronavirus.
And then they added trypsin to the medium.
Trypsin is a pancreatic enzyme, protein digesting enzyme, that then ate away the outside of the protein coating on the virus.
And then, lo and behold, it looked like it had spikes on it.
And so that's the coronavirus.
Thank you.
And there's a lot of analogies one could make.
The one I came up with was, it's like you have a box of wood, and you say, I think there's wood shaped like stars in that box.
And you look through it, and you don't see any.
So you call your carpenter friend, and he cuts out the edges of the wood, and you say, see, there's the star.
And most people would say, wait a minute, that's nuts.
Because obviously there wasn't anything that looked like that until you put something that digested the outside to make it look like it has spikes on it.
And I can imagine people listening to this will say, hey, nobody's that stupid.
And I don't really know what to say about that.
I mean, all I know is what they did.
And all I know is if you ask your typical carpenter or electrician, what do you think about this?
They say, well that's crazy.
And then the genome sequencing that they say they did is just a completely theoretical computer genome.
They never took genetic material from a virus.
They took millions of genetic sequences from one fluid that we don't know what they're from.
Are they from our own selves?
Are they from bacteria?
No idea.
How did they come up with that genetic sequence?
So first of all, we now know that they've never actually isolated So, that should be the end of the story, because if you don't have the thing, there's no possible way of knowing the genetic sequence of the genetic material in that thing.
So, the reason I, in some ways for a while, resisted looking into this is, once I knew that was the thing, There's nothing else to look at.
But anyways, let's look into it first.
So-called isolation or discovery of this virus is done in a single individual, a single human being.
There were 44 cases of pneumonia in December, I guess it was, of 2019.
And the World Health Organization office there in China cataloged these 44 people of pneumonia that they had no explanation for.
And this is in a country that has about a million pneumonias every year.
What is so important about 44 cases that they don't know what's causing them?
Lots of things can cause pneumonia.
Chemicals can.
Malnutrition can.
Drugs can.
Being old can.
Being in a hospital can.
Chronic diseases.
I mean, there's all kinds of things that would cause pneumonia.
And with this one guy, now they have this one guy in a country of over a billion people, you know, and they looked for two virus infections and a bacterium.
And they came up, they couldn't find anything.
So then they did this massive, what I call a dragnet, for all of the RNA.
They were bound and determined to find a virus as a cause for this guy.
So they did this dragnet for all of this RNA, millions of little strands of RNA in this person, using technology that's called metatranscriptomics.
And one of these gene things, this technology-driven stuff, where they can look at all the RNA, all the DNA, sequence it, amplify it trillions of fold, all this technology.
It's technology-driven, not science-driven.
I got this person's lung sample of his lung.
They do all this stuff, have all this fancy equipment.
They zero down to get all these signals, then they have a computer that stitches all these little segments, these little fragments of RNA together, out of millions and millions and billions of these things.
Alright?
And they came up with a sequence, and then they decided that they had discovered this virus, even though they never touched the virus at all, and they said that was the cause of this guy's pneumonia.
They shared that sequence of RNA around the world.
Other people around the world now knew what to look for, so now they're starting to Everybody else is getting samples from people and then coming up with their own little sequence of a coronavirus.
And I think it was just past December or so, or something like that, there's this database in Germany that had already cataloged 400,000 different unique sequences of SARS-CoV-2.
400,000 of these things.
And not one of them had actually ever gotten the virus.
They all do the same thing using metatranscriptomics.
They stitched together all this RNA.
The reason they have so many of these is they don't have the virus.
Because the new model of virology after 51 was that the virus, the toxin of disease, is a dangerous piece of genetic material.
It could be naked, the poor viruses, Ebola, a naked genetic material, or it could be enveloped, right?
Like measles virus, corona virus, you know, even, you know, the crop.
So this is what it is and what they are doing with the genetic material as they never were able to isolate a piece, if not the whole piece In case of coronavirus, there are 30,000 building blocks called nucleotides.
Never ever!
Even its standard techniques, it takes decades to show that you have a long nucleic acid present.
Then you pick it up, you sequence it, and you repeat it, you repeat it, you always came up with the same thing.
They never were able to.
What they are doing, they use very short sequences, which they found in their dying cells, and add them up in mentally using programs and add them up to a given sequence. and add them up in mentally using programs and add And this is called alignment sequence.
So they align very short pieces to a big one.
Then they find, oh, 50% is missing.
Well, but at this place, the protein looks like this.
And if the protein should be like this, the genetic sequence has to be like this.
And they make the gap filling.
They call it like this.
And then at the end, you have a mental construct which has no base in reality.
No base.
It's just an idealistic model.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, before when they got the sequence, start to sequence, they wrote down the sequence on paper, you know, by hand, and they did the alignment with hand, really, you know, and took them along.
And now they're doing it with computer programs.
One name, it's Megahit, Trinity, it's another name of those programs.
Out of millions of very short molecules, they add up and try to fit where this short piece, this puzzle, is fitting to the given picture, to the genome.
And it's a mental construct, and you have just read it, and then you see it.
It's called alignment.
Let's look into it further.
So they take this, as I said, this unpurified mess, so they end up with this vat of literally billions of pieces of genetic material in this stew, right?
So that's the cell culture.
So they have all this broken down genetic material.
Now, you would then think, because this is called an unbiased genome calculation, sequencing, that they look in that brew and say, which is the, you know, what genome do we see?
Thank you.
But they actually don't see anything like that.
What they do is they don't see a whole genome.
So they chop it up into little bits.
So some of them are 2,000 base pairs, some of them are 10,000, some of them are 6, some of them are whatever.
And so they chop it up into little bits of say 10 or 20 or I'm not sure the exact number of possibilities, but little pieces of nucleotides.
So that's like you have, it would be the equivalent of having different sentences and words and stuff, and you can't make that into a whole book.
So you chop it up into letters.
Got it?
So now you have 23 million letters in this brew.
23 million nucleotides in this brew.
That's the pieces of the components of the RNA.
How do they do that?
The computer does it.
The computer chops everything up?
Yeah.
The computer, because if you tell the computer to make a Complete 30,000 length genome with these long bits and can't fit them together that makes sense up.
Because you have to have like B, C, D, D, or let me make it easier, A, B, C, D, and the next one has to be B, C, D, E, and then C, D, E, F, right?
So it has to make sense like overlapping in a sequence.
So the computer is trying to put them in a sequence to make it 30,000 base pairs long and have it come out of those letters.
But if you start with too many letters in a row, it can't figure, it can't work that into a 30,000 genome.
So you chop it up.
It should stop right there.
It's just that right there.
It's not there.
You've proven that it's not there.
Because it cannot make the 30,000, which is the assumed length of a virus.
Right.
So you chop it up into single letters.
So then you now have 23 million letters, nucleotides, base pairs.
So then you say, now, computer, arrange that into a full T-node.
They did not do sequencing.
They did assembling.
Assembly.
Sequencing is a totally different thing.
You don't snip it up.
You start with what you assume is an intact genome.
An intact strand of RNA or DNA or something.
You don't snip it up.
You don't do this metatransferomic stuff from jillions of things.
You take what you've got there and you do what's originally called Sanger sequencing, which you start with the whole thing and you just snip off the nucleotides one at a time.
And then you list it.
That's sequencing.
Alright?
That's how they do the sequencing for the mouse genome, for the human genome.
That's sequencing.
Where you get the authentic, not random, not scrambled, but you get the authentic sequence as it is.
Intact.
Remember with the SARS, they have all these little bits and pieces of RNA and they stitch them together to try to get a complete sequence.
That's what they do.
And you don't know where it's coming from, they just know what it ought to look like.
You could almost take anything and make it look like this.
So here's, you know, like, kind of an example of how you might think about this in nature.
That you have, let's say, the Bible.
Okay.
Now, you want to find out all the words in the Bible.
Now you could, but you don't have the Bible to start with.
Right?
If you just had the Bible, it would be real easy.
You look in there and you can see all the works.
Right?
You can write them down, photograph them, type them into a computer, whatever.
But that's not what they did.
What they did is they took the Bible, and the Quran, and the Apocrypha, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and, you know, War and Peace, and 50 other books, and shredded up all of the pages into strings of 20 letters, They put all those in a computer, and they tried to reconstruct it by overlapping letter sequences that were the same.
Do you think that computer could reconstruct the Bible accurately?
How would it know if the letters came from the Bible, or from Dostoyevsky, right?
Or from the Koran?
You know that the same words are in all these books, right?
Just like the same sequences, the same letters, are in all these organisms.
So, it's an impossible task.
Right?
It's not the way that you would go about doing it in the first place.
Instead, you would go to try to find a Bible that was intact.
And then you could just read it and see the sequence.
Same thing.
You'd find a virus that was intact, and you just take the genetic material right out of there.
You don't need any computer simulations.
The information is right in front of you.
You just read it.
And we have a variety of different ways to read it.
We have the classic way called Sanger sequencing, where it's done end-to-end, one at a time.
And it can take longer.
Or we have next-generation sequencing, where it chops it up into small pieces, reads all the small pieces at the same time, and you can get it done in hours.
Both of those are good if you start with one thing that you know what it is.
You can read it, and it'll be accurate.
And of course, that's how they did it with the human genome and every other real genome.
They don't need to do this stuff.
This is just a, you know, a video game.
That's all it is.
Genomes are like books, right?
There are letters and so forth.
But it's not the searching the Bible.
Because if you search the Bible, you know the Bible.
Right?
The more apt example is this.
Let's say you look for all the English books in the world.
Which are probably millions, if not billions, right?
And you go looking for a sentence like, oh my love I miss you, right?
Something like that.
Now, what are the chances that oh my love I miss you is present in billions of English books?
You know, that's the relationship.
Of course you're going to find something, but where are you going to find it?
Are you going to find it in the book that you think you're looking for, the Sarscov2 book?
Or in some exosome book that has the same love phrase.
We know that there is no way to distinguish RNA from a human or a bacteria from RNA from a virus.
No way.
That's what I read before.
There's no way to say this exosome, this piece, is coming from an exogenous virus versus us.
And also when you do a so-called blast sequence of like the spike protein, it turns out that human beings have 93 identical sequences as what they're calling the spike protein, which they just told it turns out that human beings have 93 identical sequences as what they're calling the spike So there's 93 pieces of the human genome which have that identical sequence.
So it's not unique to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
And as far as we know, there's 91 sequences in other microbes which have that identical spike protein sequence.
We don't really even know what's in the sample.
There was no attempt at taking this lung fluid and trying to characterize every constituent that's in there.
That wasn't done at all.
So we don't really know exactly what's in there.
And that's actually part of the experiment.
Because they say there's a virus in there, right?
But we don't know that to begin with.
Because we don't know what's in there at all.
Right?
So why don't we first show what's in there?
And if we show a new organism, well, then we can then take the sequence of it.
then take the sequence of it, no problem.
No problem.
That's how we've always done it.
That's how we've always done it.
We find an organism that's new.
We find an organism that's new, we study it, we characterize it, then we sequence it.
We study it.
We characterize it.
Then we sequence it.
And we have the technology to do it.
And we have the technology to do it.
I absolutely can tell you, after a year of looking, there has not been one case in the published literature where a virologist or a scientist took somebody who was sick, did the normal isolation procedures, and said, here did the normal isolation procedures, and said, here is this virus.
Now, some people say, well, that's because you can't do it with viruses, right?
It's just not doable.
But the fact of the matter is, it absolutely is doable because it was done with what are called bacteriophages, which is what happens when you stress bacteria.
They protect themselves by going into a, like a spore form that looks like a virus, same size, same shape, et cetera.
And those have been purified and isolated since the 30s.
So this is standard procedure to isolate something that small.
You can do it with exosomes, which are particles that come from us.
So it's not a technical problem.
We could do this since the 30s.
So the question is, why don't they do it?
Why don't they show us this virus from a sick person?
Not only in a hundred people, but in one person.
If virologists did the same thing which they could, they would probably get exosomes.
So, essentially, they couldn't find any toxicity or pathogenicity, and so, again, the whole thing would fall down for them.
And that's why they don't want to use this type of methodologies which are available, and they keep going with this next generation sequencing, where they can play around a bit, you know, because next generation sequencing is a kind of, they call it unbiased, meaning they sequence anything that is there, you know, those 30 billion particles, they sequence all of it,
And they usually come out with, you know, 80% of human stuff, human material, and maybe, you know, a few percent that correspond to some recorded bacteria, maybe some recorded viruses, even though how they've been recorded, of course, is a big question mark, and we know it's fake.
And then there's usually about 10-20% that is always unknown, right?
And so, By doing that, they can still have a leeway where they can play around and claim that there's some kind of virus.
If they did actually proper filtration, nano-filtration, they would come up with a non-toxic exosome and the whole game would fall down.
The problem with genomics is that they say that this genome which they create comes from a specific particle and they say that that particle is a virus and that it causes disease.
I mean, there's so many problems with this.
First of all, As we described just a moment ago, they're not actually physically isolating these particles, so they don't have a purified specimen.
And realistically, if you're going to describe the genome of an organism, you need to have it in pure form.
So, say we were wanting to check your genome, we'd have to make sure the sample came from inside you, so like a blood test or something like that.
Whereas with viruses, they don't do that at all.
They just have these mixed cell cultures which have all kinds of things in them.
And from that kind of crude mixture, so they might take something like a sample from the lung.
Which is going to have a whole lot of human genetic material.
It's going to have a whole lot of bacterial, potential fungal genetic material.
Could have genetic material that you've just inhaled recently, because it's so tiny, it's easy to pass around.
And then from that crude specimen they start to, initially they just blind sequence it, so they just see what sequences they can find inside that specimen.
And the sequences they find, often they'll just shotgun sequence, which is just looking for tiny little fragments, which may be like 150 nucleotides or 300 nucleotides long.
So they have all these little fragments.
And usually when they do that, they end up with millions of unique fragments, like some of the, say, SARS-CoV-2 papers might have had 56 million or more individual fragments.
And then from that, they use a computer program to start to try and reassemble what they say is the genome, even though they have no idea what the genome could look like.
But they look for overlaps with their little sequences, and after a while they put together contigs, which are these contiguous sequences, and after a while they do an analysis and say, well, which one looks like the genome?
So in the case of SARS-CoV-2, they found one of the biggest fragments, which was about 30,000 Nucleotides long and they said that that's the genome with absolutely no proof that that was viral in nature or it came from within a virus.
But then the problem is they say that they compared it to previous coronaviruses which were deposited on their databases.
But if you look at how they got those previous coronavirus genomes, they did it the same way.
They just blind sequenced.
So at some stage in history, somebody just has to make up the genome after blind sequencing.
And then after that, everybody just follows on and says that they found something similar.
But the problem is at no stage did anyone demonstrate with any of those genomes that have been deposited on GenBank that they do actually come from within a virus.
So it's a hard thing to get your head around because everyone thinks, well, you know, but we have thousands or millions of these coronavirus genomes that we can compare to.
But not one of them has been proven to exist in nature in its whole form.
And not one of them has been shown to come from within a particle that they are calling a coronavirus.
What happened is that they had the first sequence of the genome, which they compared to the bat virus, as I explained.
Then, subsequently, they took that genome that they said is this new made-up virus, and all other genome sequencing that's been done has been compared to that one.
virus and all other genome sequencing that's been done has been compared to that one okay so what what happened is that the they essentially have like a recipe and it's published you can find this that they send around to scientists all over the world this is how you can sequence your own SARS-CoV-2 genome and there are thousands and thousands of these okay
So what happened is that they essentially have a recipe, and it's published.
You can find this.
That they send around to scientists all over the world.
This is how you can sequence your own SARS-CoV-2 genome.
And there are thousands and thousands of these, okay, that have been done.
that have been done because it's pretty easy if you have the equipment to do this process of next generation sequencing and you have the software you can easily do this it's just one more sample okay and since this all been developed as a protocol it's just plug and play you just follow the recipe you get the results it's not like doing an experiment for the first time that you have to you know play around with things to get it right it's like this everything's worked out
Because it's pretty easy.
you just follow the instructions and you get the up of the result and what's happened is that every time they repeat this experiment they don't get the same they can't get the same exact results - Oh, my God.
They get what they call, you know, mutations.
Right?
But what that really is, is, is they can't repeat the experiment.
So they've essentially invalidated it because one of the main ways you know a scientific experiment is valid if other people can reproduce the same results using the same procedure in a different laboratory.
If they can't, that tells you the original experiment is not valid.
So they figured out a different way to explain that here.
They say that it's a variant, and every single time they do it, they get another variant, because they can't get the same results because it's a bogus experiment, right?
It's a computer simulation.
And so what they've done is, is that they have mapped out Right.
Which is that here, these results that didn't match were similar in this way.
These results that didn't match were similar in this way.
And we're going to say that those are the same subspecies.
And there's this other same subspecies.
Right.
But it's all a false construct.
It's just completely ridiculous.
If there's no virus to begin with, how can you have a variant of it?
Actually, see, it's even so kind of funny that nobody says anything.
The first study from ZOO, the one I mentioned at the beginning, I made a joke on that, that this virus is actually like a god, because he's triune, he's one in three at the same time, because these researchers actually claim that they took the liquid from three different patients in Wuhan,
They isolated a different, a slightly different virus, according to them, from each one.
And that is inevitable, because when you put these primers, these casual primers, you are bound to fish something different every time.
Because of this complete, you know, lack of proportion between the primer size and, you know, the 30 billion particles, right?
So they took three different Uh, sequences.
But they said, uh, yeah, they're different, but they're, you know, similar enough that they're SARS, all three SARS-CoV-2.
So, from the beginning, they said that the, the virus was three, but one.
Which, again, you know, implies something, uh, magical or mystical or something like that.
And then that, that thing developed into, developing two million different sequences.
In other words, this SARS-CoV-2 is such a powerful goat that not only is born one and three at the same time, but has developed already two million incarnations, not just one.
So what's really happening when they're in action, when they send two million different sequences of this virus, what's really happening?
Can you explain to people, what does that really mean?
Oh, it just means that precisely because there isn't like a real virus, a real organism, right?
Because if there were a real organism, you'd be bound by it, right?
You can't invent one.
It's there.
You know, E. coli, it's E. coli.
You can't produce two million different E. colis, right?
Because everybody would say, That's E. coli.
That's whatever you do different, it's not E. coli, right?
But since there is no virus, real virus, anybody can set up their own version of it.
With no limitation.
There's no gold standard, as you say, right?
So everybody can take the sequence, change a couple of letters, and produce a different sequence.
And they say, oh, this is the sequence that we did in Rome.
Oh, this is the sequence that we did in New York, this is the sequence that we did in London, that we did in India.
That's how variants are born.
But the thing is, of variants, I also published an article on variants.
It's so ridiculous that I actually developed the concept of the ridiculous science, the scientific ridiculous, because, I mean, it's such a ridiculous story that it's unbelievable.
And no one ever says, you know, the king is naked.
No one says that.
This is called, as they say, this is an in silico genome.
In silico means in the computer.
So it's a theoretical genome that only exists, it doesn't exist anywhere in the sample.
There is no 30,000 sequence that's a viral genome, whatever a virus is, like a bacteriophage genome.
There is no such sequence like that in the mixture.
None.
So that's the basis of saying this, quote, virus with this genome does not exist in the biology.
It doesn't exist in the sample.
It is created by the computer.
That's what we call an in silico genome.
Haven't they just admitted that the virus isn't there?
Yes.
So what is their explanation of that?
What's going on?
They say we made it in the computer.
It's easier.
It's better.
It's faster.
You know how the English variant was born?
Okay.
What happened is that, in September 2020, the public health England, researchers of the public health England, started looking for a variant, for a potential variant, because in the southwest of England, there were more cases, there was more cases of COVID, right?
There was an increasing case, Number of cases of COVID.
Now, Southwest of England, and the South of England in general, is where most of the English pensioners live, right?
Why?
Because it's the warmest part.
You know, it's like Florida in the U.S.
You know, people go to retire into the warmest part.
And of course, September, October, this year, they anticipated flu vaccinations.
And they did a lot of flu vaccination because they pushed it by saying, oh, if you want to be sure when you get a cold or something or symptoms, that it's not flu, but it's the COVID, right?
You have to vaccinate against flu.
So whatever happens, if you get respiratory problems, you know, if you are vaccinated against flu, it must be COVID, right?
So they started vaccinating all these people.
And of course, like always, people started getting sick from vaccination.
And, of course, they had to cover this with the idea that there was some kind of new variant.
This is what happened in India.
In India, for all 2020, nothing happened.
You know, the cases of COVID were, like, negligible, right?
Suddenly, they started vaccinating against COVID with these killing machines that are, you know, Pfizer, Moderna, COVID vaccines.
People started dying and started getting very sick.
And so how did they cover for that?
They created the Indian variant, which then was changed into the Delta variant, because otherwise calling it Indian would be racist, right?
But that's how they do it.
So in England, what they did is they started looking for these resurgence of COVID cases related to vaccinations, to flu vaccinations.
And so they started sequencing, right?
Now, There's a big difference between PCR testing, which you do in 5-6 hours, or even antigenic testing, which you do very quickly, in half an hour, right?
And sequencing, which takes 2-3 weeks, because you have to do all this very long process, right?
So, they took some samples, like 1900 samples of these people, positive to COVID in these areas.
And then they found that 4% of these were potentially related to one of these sequences that have been created out of nothing and deposited at the GISAID, right?
And they started saying, oh, maybe there's a pattern here developing, you know, about this new English variant.
Then in December, 18 December 2020, Hong Kong researchers of the World Health Organization published an article, which was then published in January, saying, we now believe that the English variant is dominant in the UK.
And then they say, how can we say that, given that we cannot really test for variants in the population?
Because, you know, to test for genomic sequences two to three weeks, To 60 million people it would take 50 years, right?
So you can't do it.
So they said, how can you say that it's dominant given that we cannot really test directly for this variant in the population?
Well, it's because from September to November 2020, the English virologists, English researchers, deposited at the GISAID a higher number of sequences of this variant Relative to other, to the original variant, to the original COVID.
I don't know if it's clear.
In other words, to prove that the variant was diffused in the population, they did not test the population, they just said, English researchers have deposited more variants at the data bank of the viruses about this variant.
And so this is the proof that actually this is diffusing the population.
Then they add.
We realize that this claim is a little bit biased, because it takes in account the research activity and not the real...
But that's how they decided that it's dominant in England.
Variants, none of them exist really, because there's no original SARS-CoV-2.
So the variants are really just a...
They can invent them any time they want, because if you look up the definition, Within virology of a variant, it's not actually that well specified what they are.
And even amongst the virologists, they don't agree what constitutes a new variant.
I mean, essentially, you're looking at a slightly different genetic sequence that appears.
And it can be fairly arbitrary when they declare that it's some sort of variant of significance.
So what we see happening is when they do their genomic sequencing, sometimes you detect slightly different sequences from previous, and someone could just declare that, wow, that looks like a new variant.
And the most recent one was Omicron at the moment, and that's I mean clearly this was just a way to create more cases because what they said was that previously you would have a PCR that would look at two or three specific selected nucleotide sequences.
And with Omicron they said that the S gene or the spike protein sequence was mutated so that the existing PCRs were not detecting that particular sequence anymore.
So essentially what was previously a negative test is now a positive test.
I mean this is how crazy it's getting.
So previously you'd have Two or three of the selected sequences would be called positive, whereas now you don't need one of those sequences to be positive and they say, well that's because it's Omicron.
So it's totally obscene.
I've never seen anything like it where a previous positive test It becomes negative and then you call it positive because you say that it's because there's a new variant.
And that's why we saw an explosion as predicted in the number of apparent cases.
So at no time did they take a group of people who were said to have this Omicron variant.
They didn't study those people to see if they were actually unwell or what happened to them over a course of time.
They did none of that.
There's no clinical work going on.
It was simply a declaration that we've detected a slightly different genetic sequence.
And hey presto, when other places around the world started checking for this genetic sequence, they start finding it too.
But again, you don't need the presence of a virus to do that.
These genetic sequences can be found anywhere once you start looking for them.
So what's your sense of what's actually going on when they say they have 400,000 SARS-CoV-2 sequences?
Isolations.
Or all these HIV sequences.
812,000, yeah.
What is that really?
It's nonsense.
I don't think the people that are doing it I think they believe it because they're technologists.
They're not scientists.
That's why I make the distinction between technologists and scientists.
These people have fancy pieces of equipment.
They're assuming that the instructions and everything, how they go about doing this, doing the PCR.
Like the people that do the PCR test.
They're assuming the science has been done.
All they have to do is carry it out and do it and assume that the information that they get is legitimate.
Curiosity!
That's what scientists have, is curiosity.
And they have questions.
That's how you distinguish a scientist from engineers, how you distinguish them from technologists.
You know, they have questions.
They have more questions than anything else.
Scientists have questions.
They ask questions.
And technologists don't ask these questions.
Engineers don't ask these questions.
Anthony Fauci certainly doesn't ask these questions.
He's just a dogmatist that just tells you what to believe and what to say.
I think most of them probably honestly think that the methodology is valid, and I think they do think that they are dealing with viruses.
But it's almost like a self-selecting profession, where if you believe in the existence of these disease-causing viruses, then you become a virologist.
Whereas if you can see that there are major flaws In the methodology, then it's not a field that you'd get into, because you don't believe that it's scientific.
So yeah, there's no virologist on the planet right now who will tell you that, well I wouldn't think so, that would say I don't think there are pathogenic viruses, because that would be the end of their work, the end of their funding, and potentially the end of their whole
The problem with virology is that it's a research exercise, but because it remains theoretical and without direct proofs, that's where it should be.
It shouldn't be dictating public policy and used to claim that there are all these infectious diseases passing around and causing havoc in the world, when if you actually look at what they're claiming, it remains entirely theoretical.
Read their papers.
You'll see that they have disproven themselves with their own writing.
Right?
Of course you realize they are completely anti-scientific because they are not questioning the base, the historical base and what they are doing.
It's just a belief system.
They're doing it in faith and they came up with the conclusion.
It's just pure make-believe.
And somehow this has become what we call science.
And I think, to be honest, I think the virologists, most of them are not aware of the history of virology and how it's derailed to the point where they...
And B, that I've been told that these are valid techniques by the people that have trained them and perhaps they just haven't questioned them enough to look into the actual evidence that we have viruses and that they cause disease.
If you speak out or against government or institutional dogma, you will be punished.
So it's no surprise that most people who have any thoughts or disagree with many of the things that are being told to the public that they know is not true.
That's wrong.
Why do they keep quiet?
Because they're... It's the same reason why people wear masks.
They don't want to lose their job, you know?
It's basically the same thing except at a higher level.
These guys don't want to lose their ability to publish in journals, don't want to lose their grants, they don't want to keep going, so they basically become slaves to the institutional apparatus.
And so why do you think these paradigms perpetuate themselves?
Why do we have a situation where virologists are, you know, using techniques and procedures that really, you know, aren't scientifically valid?
And this continues to occur on a sort of massive scale.
Well, I think money is a huge thing.
It's where the funding goes.
So, for instance, if you want to, you know, do some sort of research based around alleged viruses, you're not going to get funding by saying, we want to show that they don't exist.
That's not going to be a project that gets any funding whatsoever.
And you have to remember that a lot of the funding comes from the industry, which is interested in developing products like antivirals and vaccines.
So if you propose to do a project like that, you're going to get funding.
Whereas projects which are not in line with some sort of commercial outcome are unlikely to get any funding.
So, I think that's why.
And I mean, you do get the occasional private experimenter like Dr. Stefan Lanke in Germany.
Who has been running experiments to show that these virology techniques are not valid and they don't require the presence of viruses to end up with what they say are positive results.
But he's had to do that on a shoestring budget with private funding compared to the multi-billion dollar Virology industry, which just keeps getting bigger and bigger, so... I think, yeah, the money is the major factor.
It's where the funding goes.
Yeah, and this is nothing new here.
This has been going on probably ever since World War II.
Maybe even before.
But certainly since World War II, and ramped up certainly since science, which doesn't exist anymore, it's dead.
Science.
Institutional science is dead.
It doesn't exist anymore.
What's taken its place is technology.
In other words, use of fancy pieces of equipment.
And people think that it's science, but it has nothing to do with science.
It has to do with implementing Using this technology to do this and do that basically to make money and to control markets or to control societies and people.
If you've got this invisible enemy that can apparently get anyone anywhere, that's got to be a blockbuster with regards to not only Uh, potential alleged treatments, but also with regards to, for politicians, they can use it to their advantage.
I mean, a politician is always trying to, or most of them, trying to You control the population in some way or another and having an invisible enemy is absolutely perfect.
So yeah, I think there are various people around the world who find the idea of disease-causing viruses to their advantage, whether for commercial purposes or political.
It's interesting because recently there was a breakthrough, and this is the last article I published, And it's not my merit, it was thanked to some North American journalists who have worked on this, where they actually asked a lot of different governments around the world and even some of the states in the U.S.
for proof of the isolation.
And they all answered that actually, you know, they don't have anything available.
But what was very interesting is this specific answer to a FOIA request, Freedom of Information Act request, where actually it was a very smart request in the sense that they asked the CDC, the U.S.
CDC, for proof of isolation of the virus, and then to avoid them to, you know, They kind of go around and try not to answer.
They actually attached to the foyer the vocabulary definition of isolation, to isolate and isolated, and said, you know, of course we mean this, what is common meaning of the word isolation.
And their reply was, you know, shattering, in the sense that this officer, which is the chief of the FOIA for CDC replied, the isolation of viruses, not just of virus, of viruses, according to the meaning above, so the common meaning of isolation, is beyond the possibilities of virology.
So, that in itself, it means that, I repeat, the isolation of viruses, according to the meaning above, to above meaning, I mean, isolation in the proper sense, purified, taken, you know, separated from others, in a pure state and so forth.
The isolation of viruses, in the above sense, is beyond the possibilities of virology.
And, they add, this is an official act, which I published recently, and they add, in microbiology, isolation means cell culture.
Which is ridiculous because, of course, cell culture is the opposite of isolation.
Right?
Isolation is to purify.
Cell culture is to multiply.
Right?
So, essentially, only with this answer, they threw out, you know, 50 years of, or 70 years of virology, saying that we cheated you for all these decades when we said isolation.
We didn't really mean isolation.
We meant cell culture.
What they say is particles in a sick person to find them.
Which is odd, because if there's not enough viruses in a sick person to find them, what's the theory that they're going to make us all sick and kill us all?
So that's obviously ridiculous.
The next thing they say is, viruses are intracellular parasites, meaning they only live inside the cell.
So you obviously can't find them outside the cell, right?
That's the reason.
So then you say, well, how does it spread from one person to another?
Well, it goes in the cell and it comes outside the cell, and then it spreads in the droplets to the next person.
And so then when I talked to a virologist about this, I said, why don't you catch it then?
He said, because it's not there very long.
I said, so how long is it there?
I don't know.
Ten minutes?
Like half an hour?
Three weeks?
You know, I don't know.
So if it's an hour, why don't you get Fred?
And he'll just do the thing every ten minutes for a week.
You know, or get ten friends so they can have shifts.
And at some point you'll find me, right?
It has to come out somehow.
Otherwise, he just told me you can't spread.
And that was the end of it.
What did he say?
Nothing.
Now, if it's true that you can't find it, then how do you know it exists?
And if you can't find it, how do you know what the genome is?
And if you can't find it, how do you know that a certain protein, like a spike protein, came from that particle?
And how do you know there's variants of something which you've never found?
And I can guarantee you, nobody has ever found any of these pathogenic viruses since the 30s when we had the ability to find them.
Now, there's not a single published study showing the exact way that I said, here's a sick person, whether they have herpes or whatever, here's how you purify it and then see it, and they haven't done it.
When you say that you cannot isolate any virus, that viruses cannot be isolated, written in an official document, and that isolation in mycrology means cell culture, that in itself means that virology has no business that in itself means that virology has no business to be alive.
It should be closed down.
I mean seriously, it's just, it's just fantasy.
There's no independent variable, independent variable, there's no actual science being done, it's like science fiction.
▲
Export Selection