It's pneumonia, so it must be SARS

Drosten, immunity, and sequencing apostasy now

I claimed elsewhere that:

“The evidence for zoonotic spillover is as thin for SARS as it is for SARSv2.”

I got a reply:

“I don't understand; I think the evidence for zoonotic spillover of SARS is much stronger; for example Guan et al (2003) reported in Science that "SCoV-like viruses were isolated from Himalayan palm civets found in a live-animal market in Guangdong, China. Evidence of virus infection was also detected in other animals (including a raccoon dog, Nyctereutes procyonoides) and in humans working at the same market. All the animal isolates retain a 29-nucleotide sequence that is not found in most human isolates. The detection of SCoV-like viruses in small, live wild mammals in a retail market indicates a route of interspecies transmission, although the natural reservoir is not known."

I responded:

“Their methods are unbelievable. It doesn't match but it must be evidence of crossover! The foundational studies used PCR primers to amplify bits they liked from a load of garbage swiped from someone's nose, and ignored the rest. No purification, just a pile of gunk. No specific pathologies, just a smattering of people with coughs and headaches and the like. The foundational papers for the creation of the original sequence are painful reading for anyone familiar with the scientific method. This one, for example:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa030747

…which bears considerable resemblance to the nonsense that launched SARS2. They even detected C. pneumoniae in their one patient, but chose to ignore it. Staggering. Once you have a sequence on record - obtained by guesswork using fragments freely, but barely, matched to other supposed coronaviruses - any idiot can thereafter* easily match fragments from a nasal swab to it as often as you like. We're still doing this today. No interest in falsification whatsoever. How any of this nonsense passes as science is beyond me. High technology wielded by useful idiots.”

*not in the original post, added here for clarity.

The paper in my comment directly above was written by, among others, known charlatan Christian Drosten and team back in 2003.

Drosten ain’t no good, people. For anyone thinking that genetic sequencing is a path to certainty and clarity, can I plead for a little sober reflection on that point? We can’t take anything for granted and in the case of genetics, it is absolutely essential that we demand the facts, understand the tech, and refuse to elevate any result from sequencing to the level of unassailable truth without a very high standard of proof.

The amount of data they're generating on variants is absolutely eye-watering. It reminds me again of that chap who wrote that the whole business of just existing in Nazi Germany kept their minds so occupied they barely had time to reflect on what it all meant.

The ECDC says"For early detection and prevalence calculation of variants of concern (e.g. B.1.1.7/501Y.V1, B.1.351/501Y.V2, P.1/501Y.V3), alternative methods have been developed, such as diagnostic screening PCR-based assays "

Full sequencing can't be used for this kind of monitoring, it takes too long, it's too complex, the data sets are fucking enormous and unwieldy. So, instead they're using PCR to target very small regions for genotyping. Specifically...

From the PHE doc: "Targets were updated in mid-May 2021 to prioritise accurate identification of Delta over Alpha." 

So the amplification is a filter, then? Sure looks like one. They look for Delta, they find Delta. Don’t agree? Send me the details to prove me wrong!

Furthermore, it doesn't instill any more confidence in the whole operation to know that one of the nine WHO sequencing reference labs is the Corman and Drosten Institute of Clowning.  And another belongs to well-known virologist and liar, Marion Koopmans at Erasmus. And then there’s PHE. 

ECDC: "Specific objectives include the assessment of the circulation of the different SARS-CoV-2 variants in the community selecting representative samples, genetic characterisation to monitor the virus evolution and inform vaccine composition decisions or outbreak analyses." 

Those who control the variants control the pandemic - and can direct the firehose of money into their own yawning maws.

It's just clever-sounding enough to confuse smart people into assuming it's all very meaningful. It must be, right? All these smart, expensive machines and clever clogs folk. They know what they’re doing!

Well, the appearance of Drosten in the middle of all this should be more than enough to unsettle you. Start asking questions. They’re not going to like it, but do it anyway. These people are welcome - absolutely welcome, wide open arms welcome - to prove that their frantic little experiments have actual value by doing a satisfactory job of purifying samples before sequencing and opening up the entire library and process for inspection. And maybe taking questions and giving clear answers. The scandal of the PCR testing casts a huge shadow over all of this.

Yes, we have a lot of data, but is it meaningful? That seems like a good question to me.

If there is a virus, it is not getting more dangerous. It would not be mutating to become more dangerous to children, as I’ve seen some claim.

The hypothesis that there is no virus, that this is all a figment of the imagination, and that sequencing is being abused to manipulate the game by the same deviants who abused PCR, is getting no traction. Highly qualified and deeply impressive people like Peter McCullough are still keen on the idea that Delta is an example of immune escape. But changing one amino acid cannot lead to immune escape when antibody-building responses involve dozens of the things.

Imagine this is your spike protein amino acid sequence (600 of them, I believe that’s approximately the right number):

……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ………..

……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ………..

……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ………..

……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ………..

……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ………..

……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ………..

Dozens of antibodies map to little bits of the physical configurations that result from this sequence, distributed all over the thing (so here I mean to suggest that the theoretical antibodies are associated with the segment of the line directly beneath them).

ab1 ab2

……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ………..

ab3 ab4 ab5

……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ………..

ab6 ab7

……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ………..

ab8 ab9 ab10

……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ………..

ab11 ab12

……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ………..

ab13 ab14

……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ………..

Then we change one amino acid (here represented by a comma - it’s in the zone beneath ab4)

ab1 ab2

……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ………..

ab3 ab4 ab5

……….. ,…….. ……….. …….….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ………..

ab6 ab7

……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ………..

ab8 ab9 ab10

……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ………..

ab11 ab12

……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ………..

ab13 ab14

……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ……….. ………..

That change may mean that ab4 is out of commission, but all the others still recognise their targets. Now, you may say this model is too simplistic, or that it underestimates the impact of such a change, or that sequences aren’t the same as epitopes. But we know that’s not relevant. Cross-immunity proves that the immune system can work over significant variations.

Furthermore, every person creates a slightly different set of antibodies. So, even in the unlikely event of 14 well-placed mutations taking all antibodies shown above out of commission, the antibodies in the next person are slightly different. And so, the infection still fails++.

There are actually many more than 14 antibodies created, I just picked that number at random for this illustration.

Delta is not immune escape. It’s a fiction created by a testing regime. It’s a marketing campaign aimed at children, in particular, and the (wisely) unjabbed in general.

Most of this is just a restatement and illustration of what Mike Yeadon carefully explained months ago. All credit to Dr. Mike. Read his article.

I understand why people don't want to touch these arguments. This level of deception is unthinkable, so even facts presented tidily stand little chance of making headway. It seems like a wildly unpromising strategy to convince people to take their heads out of the sand. It's hard and it's unrewarding. But I think it's critical to attack the fundamentals vigorously - as with the PCR test - because the endgame of this technological rollout is genetic sequencing and engineering of the whole population. If we start now, maybe, just maybe, we can head them off? They are severely limited at the moment in both capacity and speed. The corporate monster would love to see governments pissing away billions on building up sequencing infrastructure. If you beg for it, they will be only to happy to provide it. Rain on that parade, don’t encourage them.

What they're doing with Delta is obvious bullshit. The longer the unquestioning kowtowing to the gods of sequencing goes on, the more ingrained that undeserved and unearned trust will become and the more public money for this crap will be sought and secured.

"We are expanding genomic sequencing and data sharing capacity across the world, collaborating across sectors, and partnering with existing and emerging global surveillance systems to give communities everywhere the tools they need to be effective first-responders in an outbreak."

https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/pandemicpreventioninstitute/

Rockefeller is one of many such institutions that have their cards on the table. The future they envisage is total and ongoing full genomic surveillance (of viruses, of people, of every living thing). As far as I can see, this will mean proprietary algorithms to patch together sequences and create "meaning" for you. If you think it's opaque now, just wait until they have this glorious machinery up and running. “Trust us,” they will say, “we have a fuckload of data and some really expensive tech that you will never understand.” Or, looking even deeper into these plans, feed the nose gunk to the AI, let it take care of the rest. (AI is another turkey, by the way).

Delta’s rise would be the observed pattern if there was no extant virus and the testing was tuned to produce that result.

More people being jabbed than unjabbed means more people will die jabbed than not, even with no extant virus and even if the jab is otherwise harmless (which is isn’t).

The confusion over pathology continues, perhaps because there is no virus generating a consistent one.

All the epidemiological tools and results of sequencing and PCR are based on data obtained by highly dubious means from material in which there may very well be no extant virus, since the tests explicitly don’t require one to spit out results.

That hundreds of thousands of papers and reports and millions of news articles have been generated in the absence of an extant virus, is feasible because they’re all based on that data.

And “vaccine failure” is easy to obtain when there is no extant virus and the testing alone continues to drive the data collection on jabs and everything else.

Indeed, I can’t see anything out there that requires or even implies the presence of a new and circulating virus.

A related question came to mind: Has anyone truly demonstrated that gain of function editing of viruses actually works in the real world? Infecting cell cultures in dishes is very different to infecting people. Cell death and animal sniffles? Convince me.

Also: leave the animals alone. Your sadism speaks volumes.

I wish Kary Mullis were here to chew these people up.

++ I’ve seen people compare viruses subjected to selective pressure (supposedly creating variants) from antibodies to the process that creates superbugs. But evading single compounds is surely very different to evading a multiplicity of antibodies, let alone the multiplicities of multiplicities of social groups. Does the analogy with superbugs really hold? The immune system, as indicated by Dr. Yeadon, is not merely the remarkably complex personal system within us, the immune system also consists of the interactions between our personal immune units. Herd immunity should remind us of this.