From WHO/China joint mission report published Feb 28, 2020: "Since the COVID-19 virus has a genome identity of 96% to a bat SARS-like coronavirus and 86%-92% to a pangolin SARS-like coronavirus, an animal source for COVID-19 is highly likely. This was corroborated by the high number of RT-PCR positive environmental samples taken from the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan." (p. 34)
Regarding these people not being "sick," I've always thought if you're going to use antibody tests (serology) to test for Covid, you probably ought to at least test people who had "Covid" symptoms.
For example, I never understood why all the people who allegedly became sick at the Wuhan Military Games in October 2019 were NOT tested for antibodies. What's up with that?
Even the 2.03 percent of blood donors from California, Washington and Oregon who were tested in the "Red Cross antibody study" (these people gave blood Dec. 13-16, 2019) were never interviewed by officials. If virus sleuths had interviewed these 39 positive blood donors, they could have asked them: "Ah, by the way, did you happen to be sick with Covid symptoms in the days, weeks or months before you gave blood?"
Sometimes it's the studies/investigations that are NOT performed that make you see "red flags."
This post is less about the utility and validity of serology than it is about essentially faking evidence of "spread" of coronaviruses between bats and humans.
Yes, I know all about the Red Cross study. Asking people if they had "COVID" symptoms is no different from asking people if they had a cold or other ILI.
Many samples could be tested - Virginia nursing home "outbreak" samples from 2019, EVALI samples (in possession of FDA, if I'm not mistaken), etc. There is no incentive to do so because the results likely disrupt the "virus from afar" and "thing spreading/suddenly spreading from person to person" narratives.
The military actually draws blood from every active duty service member at least once a year - and saves these samples in a giant blood depository. I didn't know this until years into my "early spread" research.
That is, officials didn't need archived blood from the Red Cross to test for Covid antibodies. They have the largest collection of aged blood in the world!
The U.S. Navy did do two serology studies of sailors - 43 percent positive on one ship and 60 percent positive on the Roosevelt aircraft carrier (that blood was tested April 20-24, 2020).
I never understood why these were the only two ships where they did antibody studies. The Navy has at least 100 ships in its fleet.
Then again, I can make a guess on why they didn't test sailors on every ship in the fleet.
The real bombshell for me was the 1,000+ page Gryphon Scientific Review of Risks & Benefits of Gain of Function Research published 2016..
What we see is a method of science where everything is simulpated in a quest for a marketable product that can anticipate evoloution of RNA molecules so fleeting in Nature they can't culture and grow them. They collect PCR consensus sequences from bits most often seen in their tests.
The selected sequence is used by CRISPR gene jockeys to make DNA clones grown in E.coli until they have a quantity and quality of pure identical RNA for all the flu vaccine development (even egg based) Most fun way to go through the document is to search for "however" where every petrie dish animal model concludes these may not reflect reality of "wild type virus" or human immune systems. Other fun search terms "stockpile" "pre-pandemic" "vaccines".
Gain of Function is the backbone of selling vaccines nothing about it changes the Laws Mother Nature has for RNA molecules and suddenly bestows replication fidelity.. biologically impossible.
My contention from a layperson's perspective is that whatever viruses are or aren't, they don't do what they are claimed to do.
More direct mechanisms (like shots) help create the specter of non-bacterial respiratory illness spreading from person to person.
Even with something like yellow fever - to the extent that transmission from mosquitos to humans has been demonstrated/proven - we are talking about a direct injection.
Note for self:
From WHO/China joint mission report published Feb 28, 2020: "Since the COVID-19 virus has a genome identity of 96% to a bat SARS-like coronavirus and 86%-92% to a pangolin SARS-like coronavirus, an animal source for COVID-19 is highly likely. This was corroborated by the high number of RT-PCR positive environmental samples taken from the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan." (p. 34)
Imaginative fiction:
China - > bats
Middle east -> camels
Scotland -> wild haggis?
Does this mean you've never heard of Loch Ness Monster Respiratory Syndrome (LNMRS)?
Easily cured by eating a deep fried mars bar with a stiff single malt.
Forget "Claim of Function"
We have a longstanding "Reign of Fiction"
👑 🐉 🥃
Regarding these people not being "sick," I've always thought if you're going to use antibody tests (serology) to test for Covid, you probably ought to at least test people who had "Covid" symptoms.
For example, I never understood why all the people who allegedly became sick at the Wuhan Military Games in October 2019 were NOT tested for antibodies. What's up with that?
Even the 2.03 percent of blood donors from California, Washington and Oregon who were tested in the "Red Cross antibody study" (these people gave blood Dec. 13-16, 2019) were never interviewed by officials. If virus sleuths had interviewed these 39 positive blood donors, they could have asked them: "Ah, by the way, did you happen to be sick with Covid symptoms in the days, weeks or months before you gave blood?"
Sometimes it's the studies/investigations that are NOT performed that make you see "red flags."
This post is less about the utility and validity of serology than it is about essentially faking evidence of "spread" of coronaviruses between bats and humans.
We've had the AB testing discussion elsewhere :) https://open.substack.com/pub/sanityunleashed/p/new-york-it-was-widespread-well-before?r=jjay2&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=55024219
Yes, I know all about the Red Cross study. Asking people if they had "COVID" symptoms is no different from asking people if they had a cold or other ILI.
Many samples could be tested - Virginia nursing home "outbreak" samples from 2019, EVALI samples (in possession of FDA, if I'm not mistaken), etc. There is no incentive to do so because the results likely disrupt the "virus from afar" and "thing spreading/suddenly spreading from person to person" narratives.
Positivity isn't evidence of a mechanism.
The military actually draws blood from every active duty service member at least once a year - and saves these samples in a giant blood depository. I didn't know this until years into my "early spread" research.
That is, officials didn't need archived blood from the Red Cross to test for Covid antibodies. They have the largest collection of aged blood in the world!
The U.S. Navy did do two serology studies of sailors - 43 percent positive on one ship and 60 percent positive on the Roosevelt aircraft carrier (that blood was tested April 20-24, 2020).
I never understood why these were the only two ships where they did antibody studies. The Navy has at least 100 ships in its fleet.
Then again, I can make a guess on why they didn't test sailors on every ship in the fleet.
They do indeed. The military also requires the seasonal flu shot.
That AB testing rate in April 2020 feeds the spread narrative too - albeit in a different way, from the herd immunity side of the "novel virus" claim.
Just like the AB and PCR rates in New York City do.
The real bombshell for me was the 1,000+ page Gryphon Scientific Review of Risks & Benefits of Gain of Function Research published 2016..
What we see is a method of science where everything is simulpated in a quest for a marketable product that can anticipate evoloution of RNA molecules so fleeting in Nature they can't culture and grow them. They collect PCR consensus sequences from bits most often seen in their tests.
The selected sequence is used by CRISPR gene jockeys to make DNA clones grown in E.coli until they have a quantity and quality of pure identical RNA for all the flu vaccine development (even egg based) Most fun way to go through the document is to search for "however" where every petrie dish animal model concludes these may not reflect reality of "wild type virus" or human immune systems. Other fun search terms "stockpile" "pre-pandemic" "vaccines".
Gain of Function is the backbone of selling vaccines nothing about it changes the Laws Mother Nature has for RNA molecules and suddenly bestows replication fidelity.. biologically impossible.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161206155142/http://www.gryphonscientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Risk-and-Benefit-Analysis-of-Gain-of-Function-Research-Final-Report.pdf
Thanks.
These people seem to be forever pretending that impossible things are possible.
https://x.com/Wood_House76/status/1736958719563386966
My contention from a layperson's perspective is that whatever viruses are or aren't, they don't do what they are claimed to do.
More direct mechanisms (like shots) help create the specter of non-bacterial respiratory illness spreading from person to person.
Even with something like yellow fever - to the extent that transmission from mosquitos to humans has been demonstrated/proven - we are talking about a direct injection.
Old Capitol Hill adage endures.. "An ounce of facade is worth a pound of substance."
😂
Truth