Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 22, 2023 - Jim Fetzer

30:26

Origins of Covid-19 by Sam Bailey

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	You may have noticed that the virus existence issue is heating up in some quarters.
	Prominent members of the freedom community that continue to claim that SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses exist appear to be getting increasing flak from their audience.
	It has been somewhat painful seeing the responses where blatant virological nonsense is parroted.
	There are standard virology lab techniques that have been used for decades.
	Viruses are transferred into one cell culture versus another.
	They're isolated in order to be able to make vaccines.
	So of course they've been isolated.
	For those of us that have researched and critiqued all aspects of this issue, it is incredible to witness such fundamental logical flaws and ignorance of virology's history.
	Even worse, now that the US government says it is investigating the origins of COVID-19, many of those in the dark or denial about virology's pseudoscience think they are onto the truth in the form of gain-of-function scandals.
	Because the government has been lying about everything during the pandemic.
	Except this, right?
	We've already talked about the origins of COVID-19 many times, but let's play it again.
	You must remember this.
	A kiss is just a kiss.
	A sigh is just a sigh.
	The fundamental things apply as time goes by.
	On March 5th, 2023, the Congress of the United States Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic issued a memorandum.
	New evidence resulting from the Select Subcommittee's investigation The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2.
	To me, it is surprising that anybody still believes the gaslighting that comes out of the government, its ultimate controllers, or its subsidiaries.
	The last three years have been one of the biggest propaganda and fraud campaigns of all time.
	And yet when the abusers make a new announcement, those that should know better often take the bait once again.
	Because I know while we're talking about gain of function, we're talking about lab leaks, there's this little group of people out there that keep talking about terrain theory and germ theory and this conversation that many of you may not even understand.
	But I just want to say this, we are going to get into those conversations further down the road with some of the people out there.
	If what you want is to remove the idea that any of this ever existed, that any of this ever happened, then what you're saying is you want Tony Fauci to walk off scot-free.
	You want all these liars that lied to us and locked us down to get away with this by saying, oh, the germ never existed, it was never there, when clearly the science is turning on them.
	Their own science is turning on them, and right at the moment where we are going to move into indictments and take these people out, What some of you out there want to do is let's just change the conversation altogether and let these criminals that destroyed our lives walk off in the sunset.
	I don't understand it.
	I don't understand why that would be your conversation right now.
	Well, Dale might want to consider how much trouble Dr. Fauci would be in if more people understood that like HIV, SARS-CoV-2 is a fictional construct.
	As Christine Massey said in her recent Substack article, in an astounding feat of mental gymnastics, Dell equated virology being pseudoscience with Fauci being innocent.
	And with no virus people wanting to let Fauci and all convid perpetrators off the hook for all their crimes of the last three years.
	Maybe someone needs a vacation.
	In any case, those that are familiar with the analysis performed by our team in these matters know that we do not get distracted by phenomena that do not qualify as scientific evidence when it comes to the virus existence issue.
	Press conferences.
	Congressional hearings.
	Sensationalized media reports and emails may be all very entertaining, but if they do not follow the scientific method and logic, then they do not count as scientific evidence.
	The Select Subcommittee stated, On April 16, 2020, slightly more than two months after the original conference call, Dr. Collins emailed Dr. Fauci, expressing dismay that Proximal Origin, which they saw prior to publication and were given the opportunity to edit, did not squash the Lab Leak Hypothesis and asks if the NIH can do more to put down the Lab Leak Hypothesis.
	New evidence released by the Select Subcommittee today suggests that Dr Fauci prompted the drafting of a publication that would disprove the Lab Leak Theory.
	The authors of this paper skewed available evidence to achieve that goal To the uninitiated, this probably looks like some sort of smoking gun.
	Dr Fauci attempting to suppress furtive gain-of-function lab work and other nefarious activities.
	However, none of this constitutes evidence of a quote, virus.
	One has to look no further than the alleged evidence that makes up the Nature publication to see that There is nothing to see here!
	The paper opens by stating, Since the first reports of novel pneumonia, COVID-19 in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, there has been considerable discussion on the origin of the causative virus, SARS-CoV-2, and gives three citations for this claim.
	The first two are some of the original papers that came out of Wuhan in early 2020, one being Peng Zhao et al.
	and the other Fan Wu et al.
	Haven't we been here before?
	Fan Wu et al.
	Rather than using the method widely used by virologists for claiming isolation and pathogenicity through inducing cytopathic effects, Fan Wu et al., the first inventors of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, sent the sample extracted from the patient's lung fluid straight to sequencing for two de novo assembly platforms to search for short genetic fragments, or reads.
	It is important to note that the samples sent for sequencing were not physically isolated viruses, but crude samples containing millions of unique genetic fragments from the patient himself, innumerable microbes, even from the air the patient had breathed on the way to the hospital.
	Over 56.5 million reeds were produced from this genetic soup and pieced together to create 384,000 contigs on Megahit and 1.32 million contigs on Trinity.
	Perhaps with a predisposition to prove their unproven canard that there is the ongoing ability of viral spillover from animal to cause severe disease in humans.
	Fan Wu et al.
	chose the longest, which they claimed had a nucleotide identity of 89.1% with the in-silico bat coronavirus genome invented in 2018.
	Thus, a genome that was as close genetically as a human is to a house cat.
	Subsequently, it was decided that the genome needed a cut and paste, perhaps to make it look even closer to the 29,802 nucleotides of the bat model, and it was reduced to 29,875 nucleotides in the next version of GenBank.
	But the artists weren't finished with their creation, and a third and final model was drawn with a completely different terminal sequence featuring 23 consecutive adenine bases, which, hey presto, looked more like the bat model that featured 26 consecutive adenine bases looked more like the bat model that featured 26 consecutive adenine bases on It is unclear how the virologist knew which genome to choose when all of the options were hypothetical computer constructs.
	It thus quickly becomes apparent that the anti-science of virology and the perversion of the word isolation is not only delusional, but also highly misleading and no basis for anything, let alone the health and well-being of whole populations.
	One year later, Dr. Wu Zhanyu of the China CDC in an interview with Janice McKee Freyer would state that isolation had never taken place.
	No, they didn't isolate the virus.
	That's the issue.
	I do not suspect it's coming from what we originally thought.
	This foundational fraud was rewarded with grants in 2020 totaling US$900,000 from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, made to the two institutions with which 14 of the 19 co-authors of the fraud were affiliated.
	Fudan University received a grant under invoice 6277 to support the epidemiology study and identify the high risks of COVID-19 infection, which will contribute to national and international public health intervention strategy and product development.
	Totalling US $300,000, and the China CDC received a grant under invoice 5832 to support emergency response and evaluation and prepare China for the potential pandemic, which will not only help disease control and containment, but contribute China's experience to global health, but contribute China's experience to global health, totalling Ping Zhu et al.
	Similar pseudo-scientific methods and the same false claim of isolation are found in the paper of Peng Zhu et al., received by Nature 13 days after Fan Wu et al.' 's, but published online in the same volume, 579, on the same day, 3 February 2020.
	These authors likewise claim successful isolation of what they call 2019-nCoV, but on the basis of the cytopathic effects they observed in three cell lines.
	However, these are illegitimate proxies for the postulated infection of a healthy animal or host.
	The three cell lines employed were Vero E6 cells derived from the kidney of an African green monkey, HUH7, a human liver cell line taken from a liver tumour in 1982 and subsequently cultured, And human LR cells, derived from a female human in 1951, suffering from cervical cancer and subsequently cultured.
	None of these cell lines meet the postulated criterion of a healthy host, with which to test for pathogenicity, but are favoured as they produce the effects being sought.
	That is, cytopathic effects in the appearance of extracellular vesicles.
	To the cell lines were added, among other items, inorganic salts, fetal bovine serum to feed the cells, and an array of cytotoxic items such as amphotericin B, an antifungal, trypsin, which hydrolyzes protein,
	penicillin, an antibiotic, streptomycin, another antibiotic, penicillin, an antibiotic, streptomycin, another antibiotic, glutaldehyde, a disinfectant, and osmium tetroxide, an acutely toxic oxidizing agent, and epoxy resin to create a solid substrate for ultra-thin slicing.
	Bizarrely, on the basis that RNA of unknown provenance was part of the culture in which many cells died by way of induced starvation and stress with cytotoxic ingredients, the authors claimed that they had successfully isolated their virus.
	2019 nCoV beta-CoV.
	Not that the cocktail of cytotoxic ingredients had decimated their abnormal cell lines.
	In short, Peng Zhu et al.
	fulfilled none of the postulates to identify the virus or confirm it as being causative of any disease.
	The alleged virus had not even been physically isolated and purified for biochemical characterization, and hence remained entirely theoretical.
	This was apparently of no concern to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the foundation providing the Chinese Academy of Sciences, with which 24 of the 27 co-authors were affiliated, with a 2020 COVID-19 related grant under Invoice 6377 totalling US $359,820 for the following purpose.
	to support developing assays, platform of drug screening and subunit vaccines of coronavirus, which will contribute to product innovation of COVID-19 pandemic control.
	Mark dissected both of these papers in further detail in his essay, A Farewell to Virology, exposing the unscientific and even deceptive experiments that took place.
	Neither of the Chinese papers came close to providing evidence of a virus.
	And as we've come to expect from the virologists, they utilized insufficient methodologies with no appropriate control experiments.
	The third citation, the Proximal Origin paper provided, was the Gorbelenia et al.
	paper, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Related Coronavirus, the Species and its Viruses, a Statement of the Coronavirus Study Group, featuring Ralph Baric and Christian Drosten.
	Well, that doesn't even claim to provide any experimental evidence for a virus.
	As the title explains, it is simply a statement by a study group.
	In other words, the proximal origin paper remains as fatally flawed as the virological nonsense that informs it.
	So when the select committee went on to state, the evidence available to the select subcommittee suggests that Dr. Anthony Fauci prompted Dr. Christian Anderson to write...
	proximal origin and that the goal was to disprove any lab leak theory.
	We can see that this is equivalent to a discussion about a unicorn.
	Perhaps to highlight how preposterous the situation is, we could substitute the words and test the headline.
	Dr. Fauci's goal was to suppress the lab leak origins of the unicorn.
	The supporting quote evidence includes many people talking about unicorns, as well as some laboratories reportedly carrying out gain-of-function research on unicorns.
	The real origins of COVID-19.
	Hmm.
	Once again, haven't we been here before?
	There has not been a single paper.
	Published by anyone that has actually established that anything novel since November of 2019 has clinical distinction from anything that predates November of 2019.
	One of the first documented clusters of what was retrospectively called COVID-19 was in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, when 41 patients with pneumonia were hospitalized.
	The most common symptoms of these patients were fever, cough and myalgia or fatigue.
	Abnormalities were reported in chest CT images for all patients, as would be expected for a diagnosis of pneumonia.
	Six of the patients died.
	There were no specific symptoms or general laboratory findings that would allow for classification of a new type of respiratory illness or for a novel pathogen to be implicated as the monocausal agent.
	At any other time they would simply be diagnosed with pneumonia.
	Wuhan is a city with a major pollution problem.
	To get an idea of just how bad it is, we can compare the pollution levels in Wuhan to that of Zurich, Switzerland in the middle of Europe.
	As you can see, all general measures of pollution point to a toxic environment and there are plenty of reasons why people get respiratory illnesses in China without needing the invention of a new disease.
	China has major problems with pneumonia and in fact a 2010 study revealed that pneumonia remains a leading cause of death in adults as well as the leading cause of childhood mortality in China.
	The declaration of a novel coronavirus was actually entirely a fallacy.
	There was no novel coronavirus.
	There are countless, very subtle modifications of coronavirus sequences that have been uploaded.
	But there was no single identified novel coronavirus at all.
	Despite there being no specific clinical features or investigations that would allow for the designation of a brand new illness, suddenly it was decided that the 41 patients were confirmed to be infected with 2019 nCoV.
	The presence of 2019 nCoV in respiratory specimens was detected by next generation sequencing or real-time RT-PCR methods.
	But how did they know they had discovered a new virus?
	Because they had apparently detected some short genetic sequences purported to relate to the envelope gene of CoV.
	If you suspect something dodgy is going on, you would be right.
	How was it determined so quickly that they had identified a new pathogen?
	And who was coming up with these genetic sequences?
	Well, it was all based on the National Health Commission and China CDC reporting they had identified the first complete genome of the novel beta-genus coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, on the 3rd of January 2020.
	Although this might sound like some high-tech wizardry, this so-called complete genome is a fabrication.
	It was never shown that the sequence came from any virus, let alone a new virus.
	The sequences were obtained from crude bronchoalveolar fluid samples obtained from a single designated case, not from purified viral particles.
	From this crude sample containing billions of genetic fragments, computer software was used to analyze potential combinations and then organize them into a hypothetical genome.
	More on the dubious technique of genome sequencing later in this video.
	In the meantime, you heard that right.
	The original sequences came from a single case who was said to have COVID-19 because they had detected some genetic sequences and these sequences mean the person has COVID-19.
	Welcome to the circular reasoning of modern virology.
	No virus is required.
	On the 23rd of January 2020, Christian Drosten's team published their diagnostic workflow for the detection of 2019 novel coronavirus by real-time RT-PCR.
	As stated in the introduction, their protocol was in fact designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens.
	The hypothetically formulated assays were based on downloading SARS-related virus sequences from GenBank and the sequence released by the Chinese authorities on the 3rd of January.
	So despite the claim they were reporting on the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for SARS-CoV-2, it still hadn't been established that SARS-CoV-2 actually existed in nature They were simply generating a hypothetical sequence from previously detected sequences and then created some primers to target some short sections within that sequence.
	There could be no statement made as to what these primers might react to out in the field.
	Once again, no virus required for these virologists!
	Incredibly, the Drosten paper was accepted for publication within 24 hours of submission.
	It seems they were so excited to be the first out of the blocks that several authors also failed to declare their financial conflicts of interest with a commercial PCR test lab.
	Also, somewhat unusually, version 1.0 of the paper protocol appeared on the WHO website 9 days before the paper was even accepted for publication.
	In any case, a test that had no track record was promoted to the world as the best way to diagnose COVID-19.
	18 months later, and many companies have made billions of dollars peddling their PCR kits.
	But if we go back to the Drosten paper, we can see that there are deeper problems with their PCR protocol.
	In the section where they discuss the sensitivity of their PCR, there is a key word that only gets mentioned once in the paper.
	Analytical.
	They say...
	To obtain a preliminary assessment of analytical sensitivity, we used purified cell culture supernatant containing SARS-CoV-strained Frankfurt 1 variants grown in virocells.
	The definition of analytical sensitivity is outlined in Stephen Buston's Mikey Guidelines.
	Analytical sensitivity is how good the assay is at picking up the sequence if it exists at all in a sample.
	Going back to the Drosten paper, they go on to outline the specificity testing of their PCR protocol.
	This is somewhat disingenuous, as they are only talking about the analytical specificity of their PCR, which refers to the assay detecting the appropriate target sequence rather than other non-specific targets.
	This is a The pivotal point is how a pandemic can be created out of thin air, without requiring any virus at all.
	Essentially, Drosten and his team just created a new PCR protocol and said it could be used to specifically detect the new virus, with absolutely no proof of this claim.
	It gets even worse because the Drosten paper has nothing to do with clinical application of the PCR, i.e.
	how well the test works in the field.
	As outlined in the Mikey Guidelines, we need to know the PCR's diagnostic specificity.
	In this case, how specific is a positive PCR to the condition known as COVID-19?
	So, while health authorities in many countries are using the PCR for diagnosis, from the Freedom of Information requests I've seen, Not one of them can provide any evidence that it can diagnose COVID-19.
	For example, Dr. Kelvin Watson from the New Zealand Ministry of Health claimed that RT-PCR testing used in our accredited medical diagnostic laboratories have undergone rigorous validation for specific performance characteristics That include analytical and clinical sensitivity and specificity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.
	When asked to provide evidence of this, the Ministry replied, the Ministry does not conduct studies or research into PCR testing.
	The clinical aka the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 infected individuals has been determined in numerous settings globally.
	But despite saying there were numerous studies, the Ministry could not even list one to back up their claim.
	They are lying and it is out in the open.
	Something that cannot be emphasised enough about PCR is that if you go looking for genetic sequences in nature, you will find them.
	Especially when you are looking in crude biological specimens, such as those from bronchoalveolar lavage or nasal swabs, For example, every ml of saliva contains millions of human and bacterial cells.
	And a single mammalian cell has been estimated to contain around 360,000 mRNA molecules.
	I'll let Carrie Mullis, the inventor of the PCR, point out the fallacy of drawing conclusions from the mere detection of some genetic fragments.
	And with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody, right?
	I mean, 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, okay?
	So that could be thought of as a misuse of it, just to claim that it's meaningful.
	Another month passed without anyone producing evidence of the isolation of this alleged new virus.
	But then from late February 2020, several teens in different parts of the world stated proudly, announcing that they had isolated SARS-CoV-2.
	Their papers featured electron micrograph pictures of what they claimed demonstrated viruses in their cell cultures.
	So how on earth did they establish that these were viruses at all, let alone the new SARS-CoV-2 virus?
	Welcome to the magical world of virology!
	Where certain intracellular vesicles and certain extracellular vesicles become viruses when the virologists point arrows to them.
	Our experts then confirmed that they had SARS-CoV-2 in their sites by performing genome sequencing on their culture brews.
	But there is a major problem here.
	My VirusMania co-author, Torsten Engelrecht, made a point of contacting all these study authors to ask them whether any of the electron microscope images they obtained depicted completely purified viruses.
	And we published the responses in the third edition of VirusMania, confirming that in not one instance did any of them obtain purified viral particles.
	Let's recount our storyline before we continue.
	They obtained the first genetic sequences from a crude mixed biological sample from a single patient in Wuhan.
	They declare that the hypothetical computer-generated genome from the sample comes from a novel virus.
	But at no point was it established that a. there is a new virus or that b. the sequenced RNA came from a new virus.
	It is simply declared at this point that this is a fact.
	A PCR protocol is then designed to detect small sequences within the hypothetical genome.
	Those with positive PCRs are now all declared cases of COVID-19.
	The study authors find someone who has tested positive for these particular sequences and then use a sample from that same person to perform a viral, or more accurately, a tissue culture.
	From these cultures they find they can get the software to generate sequences that closely match the previously generated sequence And cool!
	Bingo!
	We've found the virus again!
	Oooh!
	That's a bingo!
	But if you've been paying attention, there is still no evidence of any virus at this point, for several reasons.
	Firstly, those that claim they have isolated SARS-CoV-2 and sequenced its genome have all admitted they never purified the alleged variants.
	So where is the step to provide evidence that the RNA comes from inside a virus?
	They're telling us that the PCR and constructed genome sequences are providing specific evidence of a virus.
	Because the PCR and constructed genome sequences are providing specific evidence of a virus.
	Because the PCR and constructed genome sequences are providing specific evidence of a virus.
	Secondly, the Prophet Electron Micrograph Images simply show vesicles, which at best can be called viral-like particles.
	In order to be called a virus, there needs to be another step to show that these particles are infectious and are the specific cause of the condition COVID-19.
	But modern virologists don't go there because experiments that have a historical failure rate of 100% don't look good for the narrative.
	Nothing has changed since 2020.
	The virologists have not redeemed themselves to produce any actual evidence of viruses established through the scientific method.
	In July 2022, we launched the Settling the Virus Debate Statement to continue to expose the anti-science.
	The statement challenged them to perform their usual techniques of PCR, Tissue cultures, electron microscopy and genomic sequencing.
	However this time, doing it in a blinded and scientifically controlled manner.
	As we said, this would be the first step in determining whether such an entity as a pathogenic human virus exists.
	It would test whether their methodologies even had internal validity.
	We know of course that the problem goes deeper, because no particles have ever been shown to exhibit replication competence with contagious disease-causing properties.
	In any case, virology is an offshoot from the equally scientifically bankrupt germ theory.
	The virus model is finished, and the world is gradually waking up to the fraud.
	If we are talking about the origins of COVID-19, Then there is no place for alleged lab leaks, gain of function, or Hollywood-style zoonotic jumps.
	Aside from the fact that COVID-19 was never a new disease, and the PCR and rapid antigen kits have no established diagnostic validity, Sars-CoV-2 never existed as claimed.
	It only exists as a phantom construct that was used to bring about fear and usher in other agendas.
	Expect it to go on until more people wake up.
	Ignore the bankrupt germ theory paradigm and make the move into a much brighter terrain.
	Virologists have resorted to creating their own pseudoscientific methods to replace the long-standing scientific method, as well as changing the dictionary meaning of words in order to support their anti-scientific practices.
	The heart of the COVID-19 fraud is based on virology's claims.
	It is not a strategic mistake to direct our energy towards exposing virology's fallacies.
	Otherwise defeating COVID-19 responses, while leaving the virological nonsense intact, opens the door to any number of viral pandemics in the future.

▲