THE COVID-19 FRAUD & WAR ON HUMANITY - The second pillar: Genomic sequencing - The third pillar: PCR
THE SECOND PILLAR: GENOMIC SEQUENCING
This unfolding worldwide tragedy has in large part been enabled by the descent of science #$ %the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement” – into scientism, “the uncritical application of scientific methods to inappropriate fields of study”. This has become a secularised system of belief that relies 51 for its authority on its own performativity and the presupposition of phenomenological pre-existence in which assumptions and hypotheses are treated as conclusive and abstractions are treated as replications of the real.
The second pillar of the COVID-19 fraud is that of genomic sequencing. The virologists claim that they have worked out the entire genetic structure of viruses such as “SARS-CoV-2” and upload this onto databanks, as Fan Wu, Peng Zhou, Na Zhu, Leon Caly and their teams did in early 2020, and as many have done since. Again, they claim that they have an “isolate” of the virus but this declaration is made after they have “constructed” the genome from their mixed brew containing genetic fragments of unknown provenance. In the case of Fan Wu et al., despite there being no bats for sale in the indoor seafood market where the patient worked, and despite the inventors being unable to confirm an intermediate host or reservoir for their virus, they chose, nevertheless, another in silico bat coronavirus as the template with which to create WH-Human 1 (SARS.-CoV-2). This, no doubt, is all part and parcel 52 of virology’s need for scientific validation, expressed in its 20-year quest for bat El Dorado wherein, it imagines, lie all the coronavirus treasures of the world. In the 53 meantime, it keeps inventing viruses to feed Big Pharma to keep itself afloat. The process virology uses to claim “isolation” can be summarised as follows. From the biological “soup” taken from patient’s lungs or nose swabs containing all sorts of Jeremy Butterfield, Editorial Director, Collins Concise Dictionary Fifth Edition (Glasgow: HarperCollins, 2003), 51 1348. Fan Wu et al., “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China”, 265, 268-9. 52 David Cyranoski, “SARS outbreak linked to Chinese bat cave”, Nature, 552 (7 Dec 17), 15-16. 53 20
material from the human subject, innumerable commensal microbes and potential contaminants, de novo assembly platforms search for short genetic fragments. After finding millions of unique fragments in the brew, these software programmes piece together a “genome” (one long piece) based on parameters set in the programme. Along the way there is a bit of cut-and-pasting and if pieces are “missing”, other ready-made templates can be added to fill the gaps. However, the man-made algorithms, probability models and arbitrary selections cannot deliver the “yes” or “no” answer to the question of its physical existence in nature, not least because any coronavirus “genome” used as a template in its production will likewise be propositional, the methodology providing no confirmable connection with the material or physical universe, making the new member of the Coronavirus genus merely another product of virology’s sui-referential processes. An analogy for these processes would be that you find a million cards on the floor, each with partial sentences. You start arranging them into full sentences and then eventually a story. If some bits don’t fit you discard them, and if bits seem to be missing you borrow a paragraph from another story. But how would you know that this was an existing story and not something you had just made up? And why could there not be ten smaller stories in there, or no story at all? In short, you cannot claim to know the story unless you have access to the complete story before you start. And herein lies virology’s deception – virologists do not work with a complete genome because they do not work with a complete virus. They work with random bits of biological material and then tell us that it constitutes evidence of a virus. However those of us that examine their experiments carefully can see that there’s a problem: there is no material proof of any virus. Indeed, what the public is not told is that no virus called SARS-CoV-2 has ever been actually isolated and purified as a whole unique structure. What takes place is simply the shotgun sequencing of crude samples which contain genetic fragments of unknown provenance. Therefore, there is no evidence whatsoever, not even the vaguest guarantee, that the resulting in silico “genome” exists in nature or has anything to do with a “virus”. In this manner, however, the invention of the “virus” is 21
presented as a discovery, its faux status retroactively secured through the act of denotation whereby its naming purports its prior existence and its pathogenicity. That a notional hypothetical genome invented by such anti-science should lie at the heart of this assault on humanity is a scientific and ethical outrage. It is this false science that has turned the world upside-down, providing opportunity for politicians to assume the role of needle Nazis. That is the insidiousness of virology’s crime, a generalised version of the false claim of isolation provides politicians with “permission” to state-rape those in the government’s employ, and to extend their systematic programme of bodily violation into the private sector, the latest victims being retail and hospitality workers. For the remainder, the crime steals into our 54 consciousness under cover of duty and beneficence causing many of us to accept into our bodies the unknown contents of vials the government has apparently not bothered to check, produced by a manufacturer with a spectacular record of criminal medical fraud, contents, furthermore, that smuggle genetic vectors with poorly ascertained effects into our bodies, all for the greater good of protecting society from a deadly disease that does not exist.55 How a contemporary democracy could have fallen for such preposterous but deadly nonsense is beyond the scope of this essay. Suffice it to say, that this is why this New Zealand government is not “your single source of truth” but a criminal purveyor of monumental lies it uses as cover for its cowardly crimes against humanity, its acts of terror and democide, and the widespread socioeconomic carnage and dislocation it continues to inflict on the people of this whenua, replicating circumstances prior to the establishment of the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century.
THE THIRD PILLAR: PCR
Rahul Battharai, Covid 19 Delta outbreak: Businesses welcome vaccine certificates for retail and hospitality” 54 NZ Herald (26 Oct 21): https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/covid-19-delta-outbreak-businesses-welcomevaccine-certificates-for-retail-and-hospitality/WB2WIX4KHGR27ZZNS6JJXFIGKQ/ “Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History”, The United States 55 Department of Justice (2 Sep 09), 2: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largesthealth-care-fraud-settlement-its-history 22
The third pillar of the COVID-19 fraud concerns the misapplication of the PCR (modified as RT-PCR, reverse-transcriptase-PCR in order to detect single-stranded RNA because the PCR can only reliably amplify DNA). This misapplication centres on the amplification of RNA sequences taken from human subjects said to belong to SARS-CoV-2 and also a disease termed COVID-19. However, the PCR cannot confirm either of these things; its capability is solely confined to the amplification of the selected nucleotide sequences, not to determining their provenance or significance. This fraud, then, relies on the attribution of meaning to the amplified sequences, which is supplied by: (a) reference to the imaginary in silico genome and not to a proven physical entity called SARS-CoV-2; and (b) a “disease” that with absurd circular reasoning has been defined by the PCR result itself. SARS-CoV-2 has never been located in a human subject, isolated, purified and subsequently photographed and biochemically characterised as a whole unique structure. It has not been proven to exist in nature; in fact, key component parts were patented in 2007 which, by definition, would require them to be man-made. With regards to the short 56 nucleotide sequences being detected by the PCR kits in use, they exist but come from somewhere else, not from a virus labelled “SARS-CoV-2”. (If it is done poorly or at high cycle numbers, as has been typical, the target sequence may not even exist in the sample and a “positive” result is simply an artefact of the process.) Furthermore, the PCR cannot diagnose the infectious status of a human in any proven way and no consistent link has ever been found between a disease state and the PCR results. In short, the misapplication of the PCR means that COVID-19 is a scientifically meaningless construct that represents nothing more than a referential illusion. From the outset, the purpose of this misapplication was to provide the statistical basis for a pandemic based on a disease invented by the WHO for the benefit of elites and selected members of the pharmaceutical industry, not for humankind. As at 3 January 2020, with only “44 case-patients with pneumonia of unknown etiology”, there was no basis to prime the start button for the pandemic the WHO and the pharmaceutical industry were desperately seeking; Moderna and BioNTech, Curtis et al., “Methods for producing recombinant coronavirus”, United States Patent No.: US 7,279,327 9 OcT 56 2007). 23
Dr Kary Mullis, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR): “It doesn’t tell you that you are sick”. (Photo: LA Times 13 August 2019) Pfizer’s partner, for instance, had lost almost $1 billion between them in 2.5 financial years between 2016 and 2019. However, following publication on the WHO’s 57 website on 13 and 17 January 2020 of non-peer reviewed PCR assay sequences designed by Christian Drosten et al. to detect the purported virus, assays designed, as the authors acknowledged, “without having virus material available”, COVID-19 case number began to grow.58 “Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Situation Report - 1”, WHO (21 Jan 20), 1: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/ 57 handle/10665/330760/nCoVsitrep21Jan2020-eng.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y . Moderna, Inc., “United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Form F-1 Registration Statement” (9 Nov 2018), 12, 94; BioNTech SE, United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Form F-1 Registration Statement”, (undated, assumed 2019), 5, F-7: https://investors.biontech.de/static-files/0eb8771c-1cda-4868-bb9f-bdb22dfd29e4 . Moderna’s losses amounted to $230,314,000 for 2016, $255,916,000 for 2017, and $243,308,000 for nine months to end September 2018, and would need more investment. Despite having raised $1.1 billion since 2008 in private placement of their shares, BioNTech still made a before-tax loss of €85,950,000 for 2017 and €48,262,000 for 2018. Victor Corman, Tobias Bleicker, Sebastian Brünink, Christian Drosten Charité Virology, Berlin, Germany; Olfert 58 Landt, Tib-Molbiol, Berlin, Germany; Marion Koopmans, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Maria Zambon, Public Health England, London. Additional advice by Malik Peiris, University of Hong Kong, “Diagnostic detection of Wuhan coronavirus 2019 by real-time RT- PCR”, WHO, 17 Jan 20: https://www.who.int/docs/defaultsource/coronaviruse/protocol-v2-1.pdf?sfvrsn=a9ef618c_2 ; Victor Corman, et al., “Diagnostic detection of Wuhan coronavirus 2019 by real-time RT- PCR”, WHO, 17 Jan 20: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/ coronaviruse/protocol-v2-1.pdf?sfvrsn=a9ef618c_2 ; Victor M Corman, Olfert Landt, Marco Kaiser, Richard Molenkamp, Adam Meijer, Daniel KW Chu, Tobias Bleicker, Sebastian Brünink, Julia Schneider, Marie Luisa Schmidt, Daphne GJC Mulders, Bart L Haagmans, Bas van der Veer, Sharon van den Brink, Lisa Wijsman, Gabriel Goderski, Jean-Louis Romette, Joanna Ellis, Maria Zambon, Malik Peiris, Herman Goossens, Chantal Reusken, Marion PG Koopmans, Christian Drosten, “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR”, Eurosurveillance, 25/3 (23 Jan 20), 23: https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045 24
Between 22 and 24 January, the WHO convened an emergency meeting to monitor the international situation despite there being only 17 deaths and 581 cases reported at that stage. This lack of cases posed a problem for pharmaceutical 59 companies wanting to get their highly experimental genetic encoding devices, disguised as vaccines, onto the market without having to go through the normal approval processes, which they doubted they could pass. A public health 60 emergency could be the means to bypass the stringent licensing conditions of regulatory authorities.61 By now the RT-PCR “tests” were in overdrive, producing enough cases for Tedros to declare “a public health emergency of international concern” (PHEIC), and to stoke the rhetoric: “This is the time for facts, not fear. This is the time for science, not rumours. This is the time for solidarity not stigma.” For in 62 just seven days from 24 January, COVID-19 case numbers had risen worldwide by 1,245.61%, from 581 to 7,818, although only 98 of those were outside China. By 63 the next day, total case numbers had increased to 9,826. Here was the international 64 fraud in full view, astronomical growth of a phantom virus that had not been isolated let alone shown to be causative of any disease, with Tedros recommending as even more important than the “public health emergency of international concern” accelerating “the development of vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics”.65 Bloomfield Affidavit, (13 Jul 20), 8; “COVID-19 pandemic cases in January 2020”, Wikipedia (accessed 17 Jun 59 21): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.COVID-19_pandemic_cases_in_January_2020 Moderna, Inc., “United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Form F-1 Registration Statement” (9 Nov 60 2018), 12. James Delingpole interview of Reiner Fuellmich, The Delingpod (23 May 21): www.odysee.com/ 61 @JamesDelingpoleChannel:0/feullmich:8 “WHO Director-General’s statement on IHR Emergency Committee on Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)”, WHO 62 (30 Jan 20): https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-statement-on-ihremergency-committee-on-novel-coronavirus-(2019-ncov) “COVID-19 pandemic cases in January 2020”, Wikipedia (accessed 17 Jun 21); Andrew Joseph, “WHO declare 63 coronavirus outbreak a global health emergency”, STAT (30 Jan 20). Ibid. 64 “WHO Director-General’s statement on IHR Emergency Committee on Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)”, WHO 65 (30 Jan 20), 3. 25
The stench of fraud was everywhere. Drosten failed to declare that he was a member of the Eurosurveillance editorial board when he and his co-authors were published in Eurosurveillance on 23 January, two days after submission. It also emerged that 66 Drosten would “likely face court charges for holding a fraudulent doctoral title.”67 Another co-author, Chantal Reusken, also failed to declare that she was on the Eurosurveillance editorial board, and yet another of Drosten’s co-authors, Olfert Landt, CEO of TIB Molbiol, failed to declare his conflict of interest until 29 July 2020 that his company was the maker of a PCR kit based on the published assay sequences. For Landt, the deception paid off handsomely, as his company would 68 later report: “TIB Molbiol … has been supplying COVID-19 PCR test kits since early January 2020. Over the last 12 months we have delivered over 60 million tests.” 69 Suddenly the world was immersed not in a viral pandemic but a PCR pandemic generating fear around the world. But fear both pays and pays well. The institution with which this paper’s most prominent creators were associated, the university hospital of Charité Berlin, received a 2020 grant from the BMGF under INV-005971 “to develop diagnostics and virology tools to enable a rapid response to the novel 2019 coronavirus” totalling US$249,550.70 The PCR pandemic has now sustained the phantom COVID-19 pandemic for almost two years. While it is claimed that the PCR can detect a virus and an infection, that is just more deception. The PCR method simply amplifies genetic fragments, that’s it. As we have established, no one has a physically isolated specimen or even proven the existence of the virus. That is why the Drosten PCR assay sequences were designed without a virus, as were assay sequences for the US Centers for Disease Christian Drosten et al., “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR”, 66 Eurosurveillance, 25/3 (23 January 2020), 23. William Engdahl, “Coronavirus Scandal Breaking in Merkel’s Germany”, (10 Dec 20): www.williamengdahl.com/ 67 englishNEO10Dec2020.php Drosten et al., “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR”, 29. 68 “RT-PCR test kits and VirSNiP Mutation Assays for strain surveillance”, TIB Molbiol (accessed 6 May 20): https:// 69 www.tib-molbiol.de/covid-19 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (accessed 7 May 2021). 70 26
Control and Protection. In other words, the PCR has been calibrated to detect 71 genetic sequences of a “virus” that has not been shown to exist in nature. Instead, it is detecting sequences of unknown provenance that are found in some humans and reportedly in some goats, a quail, and jackfruit too. As Kary Mullis, the Nobel Prize 72 winning inventor of the PCR pointed out, the PCR “doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.” Indeed, despite purporting to be a "diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV", the 73 Drosten paper simply described the analytical sensitivity and specificity of their PCR protocol to amplify the selected nucleotide sequences, it did not establish any diagnostic specificity for any clinical condition. Hence, despite health authorities 74 claiming that the PCR is suitable for diagnosing COVID-19, an Austrian court in March 2021 confirmed the contrary, its ruling echoing Mullis: “‘a PCR test is not suitable for diagnosis and therefore does not in itself say anything about the disease or infection of a person.’”75 The complementary partner in the PCR crime is the WHO’S definition of a “COVID-19” case.76 Essentially, a confirmed case can be and most likely will be “a person with a positive Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT)”, that is, a PCR test, regardless of whether the person is unwell or not. This has created a preposterous 77 “2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel: For Emergency Use Only 71 Instructions for Use Catalog # 2019-nCoVEUA-01 1000 reactions”, 40: https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/ download Jesús García Blanca, “The scam has been confirmed: PCR does not detect SARS-CoV-2”, D-Salud-Discovery, 242 72 (8 Nov 20): https://www.dsalud.com/reportajes/fraudes-y-falsedades-en-el-ambito-medico/ ; English trans.: http://philosophers-stone.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The-scam-has-been-confirmed-DsaludNovember-2020.pdf ; Jerry Fisayo-Bambi, “Tanzania: goat, paw paw, jackfruit test positive for coronavirus”, Morning Call (6 May 20): https://www.africanews.com/2020/05/06/tanzania-how-can-goat-papaya-pawpaw-testpositive-to-corona-morning-call/ David James, “PCR Inventor: “It doesn’t tell you that you are sick”, OffGuardian (5 Oct 20): https://off- 73 guardian.org/2020/10/05/pcr-inventor-it-doesnt-tell-you-that-you-are-sick/ Christian Drosten et al., “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR”, 74 Eurosurveillance, 25/3 (23 Jan 20), 23. “Austrian Court Rules PCR Test Not Suitable For COVID-19 Diagnosis And That Lockdowns Has No Legal Basis”, 75 GreatGameIndia (8 Apr 21): https://greatgameindia.com/austria-court-pcr-test/ “WHO COVID-19 Case definitions: Updated in Public health surveillance for COVID-19 | COVID-19: Surveillance, 76 case investigation and epidemiological protocol” (16 Dec 20): https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/ WHO-2019-nCoV-Surveillance_Case_Definition-2020.2 Ibid. 77 27
situation where a “COVID-19” case is nothing more than the PCR result from a test that is not a test because the PCR has no diagnostic capability whatsoever in this regard as it is simply an amplification tool. The “positive” PCR tests are then posted by organisations such as John Hopkins University and Medicine that display meaningless statistics as though they were legitimate. In other words, not one of the 243,554,336 COVID-19 cases displayed on the Johns Hopkins’ blood-splattered coronavirus dashboard as at 25 October 2021 exists outside of the viciously circular discourse that relies solely on the dual unproven premise that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and is causative of COVID-19.78 As a consequence, we are now experiencing a medical tyranny, disconnected from the natural world and so absurd that the detection of a few genetic fragments in one person can be used as the excuse to lock up an entire nation.