Hey folks, I wanted to publicly provide the reason why I no longer support some of the information in my post about Chromosome 8 and the WHO from April 2020. This is to serve as a way to set the record straight on that topic.
That post was really only supposed to be a finding. The finding is certainly not being retracted. I did indeed find a complimentary pairing between human DNA and one of the WHO’s coronavirus PCR test primers. This is not disputed. It is the significance of this finding that is disputed.
The post went viral literally 5 months after I had posted it in April 2020. It went viral at a moment where my understanding of PCR and coronavirus had already evolved significantly. By this time, I already knew better than to ask my original question (100% positive in WHO tests?). The response to the original post had re-framed my thinking over those next five months. After some free discussion, I considered the matter to be closed, knowing that I was probably wrong for suggesting 100% of people could test positive with the WHO test.
Imagine my surprise, then, to waking one fine September 2020 morning and finding hits coming at a rate of ten thousand per hour on that post alone…
It had gone viral, in the conspiracy sense. David Icke had it. The now infamous Andy Kaufman was talking about it. Politicians were talking about it. There was no person more thoroughly surprised than myself…I still cannot believe it happened.
It caused me to take another deep dive into PCR, to be sure that I understood where I went wrong, and perhaps ask some new and interesting questions.
To this day, I reiterate that it is sloppy procedure to include PCR primers that can be complemented perfectly in human DNA. That is all my finding was…a complimentary DNA sequence for one of the WHO’s coronavirus PCR test primers. I was too eager to ask whether this would mean 100% of people would test positive, but it is still interesting and still a possible source of experimental error. Primers matching to human DNA could cause imperfect PCR results.
For a test that is so crucially dependent upon a low number of false results, using primers that can be matched in human DNA seems excessively sloppy and rife for possible procedural error. In retrospect, I have considered that the problem would likely be in the other direction…false negatives. Paired primer sequences might be “used up” through matches with human DNA, so there may not be enough remaining experimental materials to adequately amplify the target sequence from the viral RNA equivalent.
This could definitely create false negatives. But that is a separate point altogether.
We would most certainly not see 100% positives, as I had suggested. I admit this, completely. A man named Mark Tic sent me a few emails about this, and for PCR, he used the analogy of a zipper on a jacket. I found this very constructive. Think of the PCR primers like the end-segment on your jacket’s zipper (where you first join the two pieces). The images below are some of my favorite for rt-PCR. I believe that when primers have a match within human DNA, the primer would first copy itself onto the exposed human DNA fragment. The problem is what happens from there, as we would fail to have both the forward and reverse primers operating to make the desired target signal. In the human Chromosome 8 example, it would be like one side of the zipper without a matching complimentary side.
If the primer matches because of human Chromosome 8 rather than SARS-CoV-2, the target amplification would not be achieved. My concern is beyond this…the primer being matched in human DNA may even hinder the kind of amplification that we actually wanted to detect (i.e. false negative).
Kaufman would have to imagine there is some kind of magic happening where the rest of the sequence gets pulled in from some neighboring bacteria or something. This is why I do believe SARS-CoV-2 is a real something. It is not all fake. People do get sick, and the PCR machines tend to pick up a certain seasonal coronavirus signal in PCR data. To Kaufman’s credit, he tried to explain the limitation in my finding, but still seemed to find more use out of it than I ever did.
Please do not think that this implies I am far from Kaufman in my position…I find there to be very little evidence of anything in virology, but I do also concede that the PCR seems to be detecting a seasonal population-wide coronavirus signal. If you do not believe coronavirus is real, you need to try and explain that result to me.
My own feeling is that the coronavirus is seasonally occurring cold, the PCR picks it up broadly in a population, and the media has decided to frame a hysteria around this particular illness. Probably to coincide with the 2020 Presidential Election, because propaganda is so so potent when people are afraid.
While PCR isn’t good at picking up whether a “particular individual” is sick or even infected, it does seem to pick up elevated coronavirus particles at the population level during cold season. It cannot say whether any individual person is sick or had symptoms, but it can detect a population-wide elevated signal. Leaving aside the myriad possible interpretations of that signal, it is being detected. Coronavirus has always been with us, and at most it has been worse slightly in recent years. Perhaps they catered this specific virus to the situation, finding something that would peak in October-December for the 2020 Presidential Election?
All we can really take from PCR at any given moment is that it tells us, broadly, whether seasonal coronavirus is active within the population. Like back in the summer, when it basically wasn’t active anywhere, but we didn’t open the country back up out of…cowardice, I guess?
The worst thing about the coronavirus has been groupthink. People afraid to be the contrary opinion. That time needs to stop. Please do not let them use a virus to bully you into submission. We need real solutions, not the virtue-signaling nightmare that we have ended up in.
For the scientists out there, I just wanted to set the record straight and explain that I understood my error even at the time this information went viral. As for the post going viral, that did not occur under my direction. I was more surprised than anyone.
The ultimate reason I was so excited by my coronavirus PCR finding initially was that I had miscalculated the probability of an 18-character sequence to match perfectly within human DNA. I considered that to be a huge longshot. Much like Mark’s story of a long improbability, I was impressed with the long odds.
When I had been searching other primers (beyond just the WHO), I had rarely been seeing matches that were beyond 16 characters long. Suddenly, on one of the WHO’s shortest primer sequences, I had a perfect 18 of 18 character match. What were the odds?! I looked into it and discovered the odds were about 4-18, which is = 0.0000000000000000014552. That is a compelling number to look at. The decimals are measured at the trillionths space. Upon this brief review, it seemed impossible to think that such a match would come about randomly.
So what convinced me beyond any doubt that I was wrong? The three billion human DNA base pairs. Human DNA has a length of 3 billion base pairs. Since we are comparing RNA (single strand) to DNA (double strand), I figure that the three billion DNA sequences should really be more like six billion total nucleotide sequences. Two strands, at a length of 3 billion sequences each, for a total of 6 billion. Each sequence can be one of four options (A, C, G, T), and I was looking for an exact 18-character sequence, with odds at 1 over 4^18, which is…what again?
Ah yes, well, as it turns out, 4 to the 18th power is only about…69 billion. So actually, on a human DNA strand, where there are close to 6 billion different iterations of an 18-character sequence and a 1 in 69 billion chance, what are the odds of such a random chance match? That comes out to an 8.7% chance of a random match, which is magnitudes higher than I had estimated.
I am now of the opinion that a random match is the only reasonable explanation for my finding, and that it was most likely an innocent error on their part. Remember, I looked through several primers. Eventually I was going to find one that matched. An innocent, random match. Previously, my back-of-the-envelope calculation made me think this match just had to be 1 in-a-million! Yet, with a little time and a little understanding, I have come to see where I was wrong. So be it.
PS: All of this gave me a little peek into the way the conspiracy information world coordinates itself. I am convinced that I witnessed bot nets spring into action (Twitter retweets). When it is desired for people to see your information, suddenly and via automated processes it seems to get fed to the top. How interesting!
That was a very fascinating timeframe for me, and I had a great time studying the post travel viral from one side of the globe to the other. First, Spain was very interested. Then there was a British wave, and even a German wave. Always after some major figure in each country would reference it. For Britain, it was Icke. For Spain, it was a woman whose name I cannot remember (but was apparently their lead anti-vaxxer). Kaufman might just be over-eager with his own theory to say no to the Icke types, but those at Icke’s level certainly seem to qualify as gatekeepers of some sort.
It was just fascinating for me to see who was using the information and to what end. That is all I can really say. Fascinating.
95 thoughts on “0.0000000000000000014552”
Covid 19 test in 2015
Not so: https://www.mimikama.at/aktuelles/2015-patent-covid-19-test/
Google Translate gets you the gist.
To what end do you think they were amplifying it? Just because it could feed the conspiracy churn, but was not an actual threat to their “science”?
Correct, in a nutshell, yes, this is what I think. They did not care about how correct it was, they were all simply using it to meet their own goals, and it might have even been GOOD for them that the underlying question turned out to be wrong.
They amplify the bad and ignore the good…that has been my experience.
Yes, but why would it matter if the Chromosome 8 thing is only a place where some of the test primer is being improperly used up in the PCR process?
It’s one thing to say they might be doing funky stuff with our DNA, but that’d be through the vaccine and nothing to do with my coronavirus PCR Chromosome 8 finding.
yesterday the doctors killed Edie van Halen with their Chemo therapy. He was 65. Also there is a new video from Steve Lukather on Youtube where Ringo Starr plays drums. He’s 80 now and does not look more than say 60.
I just read that this morning, very sad, seems EVH did not have access to the ‘elite treatments’ that Ringo does.
How do you know he died? We were told David Bowie died a few years ago, and that was most definitely a lie since he was on TV shortly thereafter talking about his own death while using a made-up name. The whole thing was so absurd that even many “normal people” saw that it was him.
This is totally off topic, but do you have any resources for the Bowie TV appearance after death? Had never heard about that before, and I would love to check it out.
Yes, I would like to see that also, TY!!
The video is a bit glitchy but here is the sky news interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt2ba3R51aI
Thanks Chris. Yes, that is the one. “Jack Steven” LOL. No evidence of such a person close to Bowie ever having existed. There is one part in that where he slips up and speaks in first person. Also, notice all the comments below that video. A lot of people saw through that nonsense.
Wow, not sure what to say after seeing that…I think the comments under that video says it all. Thanks for sharing!!
here is a comparison video w/ Bowie in 1999;
note the small puffy jowl slightly below the corner of the mouth on both Bowie and Jack
Exactly. EVH supposedly had part of his tongue removed for touching metal guitar picks and is listed as having died of throat cancer caused by HPV
Ringo does look and act a lot younger not sure if it’s the same Ringo we knew.
I don’t believe EVH died, he retired.
“One of the key ways our immune system is activated is through electrostatic discharge from the membranes of invading bacteria or the corona of viruses.
The Coronavirus is no different. It’s an anionic signal our body seeks which begins sending out cationic antimicrobial peptitdes like LL37…”
See minutes 1:54 – 2:45.
It appears that the “Everything is electric!” and “It’s all about the Sun!” proponents are onto something.
Very interesting idea.
I keep seeing vitamin D deficiency being mentioned online as a factor in the severity of COVID-19. This would also seem to be a clue pointing to the important role the Sun plays in maintaining health.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly, Australia won’t be able to add a big Pawpaw to its ‘big’ collection. Tanzania has first rights to honour that germ breathing fruit. What Australia can add is a big toilet roll. And not because the coronavirus has taught us that the fundamental orific has its own pathway to the lungs. We’ve long known that: it’s what our politicians use to speak. No, it will stand as a reminder to never again be caught short when the need arises.
serious criticism of the PCR test and the corona scam:
Chromosome 8 or not, the PCR test is very unreliable and gives mostly false positives. Even chikenwings test positive. A not false positive means no more than you have ever been infected with a flu virus according to this lawyer.
Miles Mathis mentions this video in his recent paper. It’s sounds good, looks good, it’s simply great. But…as the guy states a the end, it takes one and at least one case where the person can prove the damage this Corona measures did and claim for compensation. It sounds to me like “Come on, sue me, anyone? I even help you with the law, give you my best lawyers. Prove me guilty. Wanna bet you can’t?”
It’s a really interesting video but what I can’t get my head around is why it is ” allowed ” to be out there when Dr Cowan’s book , The Contagion Myth has been banned by Amazon.
Seems to me the ONLY position that is currently banned is the one where pathogenic viruses are non existent and simply invented as a means of controlling the masses at will.
I’m not coming down hard on one side or the other but simply making an observation.
I just told you, This gentelman tells us, yes, you’re right, all of you, they are faking this. Nothing of this is true. So what? All the news about people being shot in the head in the Fillipines, being arrested in Italy, even those news about puting sticks in peoples noses for testing, etc. All this exists only in the media. It’s all fake. The virus is fake but the measures are also fake. They tell people to wear masks but there is no law that I know of which forces anybody to wear a mask. It’s all based on recommendations and people follow it voluntarily. I put a mask on in my Aldi because I want to buy groceries and not discuss virology with the cashier which also simple follows orders from her boss or is really scared herself. That’s how mass manipulation works at its best. He tells us, to sue for compensation one needs a real damage which can be judicially claimed. Some small businesses may go broke but they didn’t make any seriose money before and cannot prove they broke because of Corona. It’s a perfect scam, really. This people are untouchable.
Barb, my brother’s step son got jabbed up the nose yesterday so he could go back to school. He had complained about a sore throat at school the other day so they had to check his upper sinus boogers apparently just to be safe. He won’t complain about a sore throat any more of course. Little fella was pissed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I completely agree that PCR is nearly useless on an individual basis, but I’ve yet to see honest discussion about the elevated percentage of positive results during the coronavirus “season”.
Almost totally unreliable on an individual basis, yes, but at the population level it is detecting a higher percentage of positive results during “the season”.
We can talk about alternative explanations there, but I don’t think it’s fair to say PCR is completely useless here.
Thank you, Faux, for a very informative post. I don’t have any problem with any of your reasoning beyond this: It is painfully obvious, to me anyway, that this entire lock-down-shut-down-zombie-mask and social-distancing fair was planned long in advance, every detail in place before 3/11/20. For it to work they needed a virus, and any virus would do, as the media would frame it in such a way as to make it seem real and horrible. They needed a way to test for this virus, real or fake, harmless or harmful, or even just imaginary, that would yield results that would justify amplifying the fear and panic.
I have an English language copy of the paper from the Chinese Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 41(4): 485-488 by Zhuang Guihua et al in which they conclude that RT-PCR in asymptomatic people would yield false positives in 80.33% of those tested. More interesting was that in people with symptoms, the FP rate was 47%. In other words, while this means the test is worthless, in people with symptoms it was programmed to find something. (The paper might still be available in English, but the authors withdrew it under pressure from Chinese authorities. I’d be willing to PDF anyone who wants a copy of my version.)
Given all the planning that went into this, especially the decision to use the PCR as the testing basis, I suspect they put some sequence in the primers that they knew would turn up. They also knew that after cold and flu season, there would be hardly anyone suffering those symptoms, so as part of the long-term strategy, they needed to turn up people testing positive and deliberately chose PCR for that reason. The “asymptomatic carrier,” a bogus concept, was essential to keep the game going.
In other words, the primers they used were planned beforehand, before the charade in Wuhan so well exposed by Kaufman and Crowe and others. I don’t think there is any need to debate the correctness of the primers in use, as PCR does not exist in its current use for any other reason than to keep the hoax alive. Who was it said “The test is the virus”? Oh yeah. Moi.
LikeLiked by 1 person
See, I definitely agree that there are a lot of ways that we can interpret the tendency towards more PCR positive results during cold season, but it’s not even just a matter of primers…the whole sequence is designed to induce amplification only for a very specific genetic sequence, met through forward and reverse primers. One matching primer will not do. I do not think that the game is rigged there, apart from (like you said), the tremendous tendency towards false positives. This makes the test completely unreliable from person to person or even test to test, but it still shows an elevated percentage of positives during the cold season. Plus the test is being done by a wide variety of public and private entities all with their own custom primer, probe sequences. I just don’t see much problem there, scientifically speaking, except of course the tendency towards false positives or cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses. But this still implies that the PCR machine IS generally detecting that certain particle at an elevated rate. This is just something that I think we would need ideas for alternative interpretation, rather than simply trying to say the process itself is complete trash.
As for alternative explanations, the floor is still wide open. I don’t think anyone has hit on a great explanation.
Could the body be internally creating the particle? I think so, yes. In this area, I have seen nothing compelling to say that it’s an external contagion. We have the problem of how something “dead” replicates, we have a very confusing lack of clear contagiousness. So even though I am forced to walk back a little about PCR, I am absolutely not closing the door on alternate interpretations here. In fact, I am all ears.
The video shared in comments about electrical energy at the microscopic level was very interesting. I still believe that basically at a certain precise lat/lng/weather combination, the population is suddenly very prone to illness, and this coronavirus particle is simply correlated. This does not inherently imply causation. It could be that they’re spraying us with coronavirus so that when our immune system is susceptible, it is this coronavirus that is most readily found amongst the sick population.
This is where I do think about whether it is possible that “top level” forces are at work to hijack cold/flu season to use it as a propaganda device. That’s certainly a concept. Honestly, how hard would it be to take over the seasonal infection each year? Use some laboratory bug that you know is going to crowd out other illnesses and unleash it upon the population when conditions are favorable?
That’s my wildest imagined theory, anyway. So as much as I cannot stick with part of my post from April, which I know contained an inaccurate suggestion, I am always open to better explanations. The mainstream doesn’t even need to really explain, they are believed by simply existing. So we can have them pushing contagious viruses without real scrutiny. It really is the Dark Ages out there.
‘It could be that they’re spraying us with coronavirus so that when our immune system is susceptible, it is this coronavirus that is most readily found amongst the sick population.’
I have to say, since this all started, the ‘spraying’ in my area has all but stopped. The blue sky, puffy clouds are like they were back when I was a kid long ago.
If we had reached a saturation point from all that spraying over the years, the old would obviously be most affected, due to lengthier exposure in combination with co-morbidities and Pharma drugs.
Detoxification, from whatever the hell they spray, would be severe. If you have ever detoxed, even from something as simple as sugar (never mind drugs, alcohol, nicotine) you are literally sick as a dog for days if not longer.
If you watch the movie Toxic Skies (a poorly acted B movie, but an interesting truth drop) it shows the relationship between spraying and a pandemic.
Could the PCR be measuring something else that we are not aware of which is why they chose that specific test?
Spray is the wrong word. Contaminate? I don’t think it would be very hard to contaminate the populace. Not sure yet the ideal mechanism for this, but let’s say one contamination in Fall, and the damn thing would spread all through the winter and into spring.
We may be seeing that fresh “contamination” in Wisconsin right now. The question is then contagiousness, or whether any subsequent outbreaks would be fuelled by further contamination.
Maybe it’s the mail? Talk about a horrifying concept.
Ultra-horrifying thought: the mailed ballots are sprayed with SARS-CoV-2…
And I definitely think that the PCR could be testing for just about anything. All we know is this short little particle is being tested for.
I like your thoughts on society detoxing from spray chemicals, but again, I look at the unique season of this weird cold-like illness.
If we take the spray theory, shouldn’t ALL people have suddenly been VERY sick, but afterwards fine? This is coming back by season.
A similar argument was made with pollution. It’s pollution, but still…the symptoms come seasonally? It’s a stretch for me as much as the spraying detox would be a stretch.
I just don’t think we’ve hit on the exact cause of all this yet.
Not “all people” would be affected by a common environmental assault. Vulnerables yes.
“It is painfully obvious, to me anyway, that this entire lock-down-shut-down-zombie-mask and social-distancing fair was planned long in advance, every detail in place before 3/11/20.”
Indeed, this World War W, as I coined it for various reasons, was planned long before. Corbett has done excellent exposure of Billy “eu”genics Gates.
The World of Maskedness was never meant to make sense. If “Covid” were real, there would be an official, scientifically tested, really working face mask mandate. The fact that doesn’t exist means there is no real pandemic.
And there isn’t, there is a dempanic; a panic of the demos, the people. We are not immune, but have been tested by too many other psyops before.
Ab the Fakeologist himself explains it eloquently at Eye Am Eye Radio:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Image doesn’t load properly
Also (for Mark above), we are actually in agreement that this was all planned. I am just saying that the PCR is really, actually detecting elevated positive results corresponding to the cold season. This does not mean that I suddenly buying the mainstream story where this is a novel, contagious, deadly coronavirus.
Perhaps SARS-CoV-2 is an essentially harmless particle. Then PCR would still be legitimately detecting it, but the game is still rigged. Literally nothing different than cold season ever was, but now they use the PCR to accurately mark off when the “season” begins and when it ends. Plus a ton of propaganda-induced mass hysteria.
The rest then is all total mass hysteria…even with a legitimate scientific use for the PCR machine!
I’ve been trying to push people on the illogic of population wide measures, for a disease that (if we accept their numbers) only has significant mortality risk in immune compromised individuals.
The public has not absorbed that info about risk, despite the CDC numbers. Targeted support could be offered to high risk groups. Let everyone else live normally.
Now there’s a controlled opposition group, most likely, pushing this. See Great Barrington Declaration, covered by the BBC and others.
It’s just endlessly astonishing though, that people I know see only virus harm, and all the response harm they see as unavoidable. There’s no openness to modify the response, to minimize harm to children, unemployed, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. It’s one big race to see who can seem the most compliant. Consequences be damned, optimal decisions be damned. And it really is unnerving about how they are acting like a vaccine will make this all go away.
We are being set up to feel so battered and desperate that if a vaccine is going to immediately get us out of this, people will be CLAMORING to get vaccinated.
Makes me sick, all of it.
I’m very willing to explain a few things about PCR. I am no PCR worshipper and do not think it is without its weaknesses. I won’t write much for now until I know I am welcome.
So just one thing for now.
False positives are no special thing, its not special to PCR or COVID testing, and it is a well known and understood mathematical fact. When prevalence is low and test numbers are high, there will be sometimes more false positives than true positives, depending on a few factors. This is for any type of test, PCR or otherwise.
False positives become significant in number when the true positives are rare, such as SARS CoV 2 during the summer in many countries. This interactive calculator from the BMJ nicely illustrates it. Have a play around with the variables… ‘pre test probability’ (percent true positives in the 100 samples), sensitivity (% of true positives correctly determined), and specificity (% of true negatives correctly determined).
If you set the numbers as 1, 99 and 99 respectively, you will see 50% positives are false.
There is more I can add, so if invited I will contribute.
This is the Mark Tic that I emailed with about PCR.
Mark, I would say that you are most certainly welcome here for comments, but be prepared that the skepticism runs very high. Feel free to introduce yourself if you want to give any background.
My gripe has never inherently been with the PCR process. As you said, the percentage of tests positive run higher during the cold season. This supports the general validity of PCR as a process. It is clearly detecting a real something. The question is what that signal means, how closely we can tie it a specific illness, and what policies should be taken as a result. The last two parts are what I have such issue with.
On PCR criticism, it is such a sensitive process that any one single PCR test is virtually useless in a vacuum…especially at the individual level. The NFL doesn’t declare a real positive until they’ve repeatedly tested. Outside of cold season, they’re virtually all false positives.
This is definitely a problem, especially if public policy is built to cause hysteria behind positive tests. It is crystal clear how they propagandized this over the summer…when they no longer had legit positives to run hysteria with, they ramped up testing significantly!!! An obvious ploy to keep the hysteria running.
My gripe with the whole situation has been the way it has been propagandized. The science of virology also has some very large holes in it. I don’t think we know nearly as much as the scientific community might claim, and most certainly this situation has been utilized for propaganda in a completely indefensible manner.
Either way, thank you for your time speaking with me about the PCR process! It really was valuable, and I appreciate it. Be warned, there is very little belief in mainstream science here! For good and for bad.
One question I had for you that I never got around to asking was this: How did they sequence the entire SARS-CoV-2 genome? It is something like 30,000 pairs long RNA, and when I was searching around for this in April they already had the full genome on file.
How can that be? How does that process work? I understand PCR is able to pick up this tiny fraction of the overall genome through a very customized process, but how in the world did they claim to sequence the entire thing?
The first full sequence was published in January from China Sequencing has been highly developed and much quicker than the early days. Sequencing of COVID samples is carried out around the world to track specific strains via the small mutations. It is like a finger print, so the origin of outbreaks can be traced for liklihood of where it came from. The data is also used to estimate the stablility of the virus genome, and subsequent probability of a new more deadly strain occuring. You can find sequencing studies from around the world.
Sequencong nowadays is no huge deal and not a lengthy process, especially only 30000 base pairs. I think whole human genomes can be sequenced within a matter of 1 or 2 days.
The genome is split into pieces which are individually sequenced using some very smart optics and biochemistry and all the shorter sequences are stitched together using a computer.
What exactly is a “COVID sample”? Is it something which has been isolated and purified? [in which case the ‘deadly’ sample would be capable of re-infection, no?]
I meant by what process do they accomplish this sequencing? You describe it as no big deal, that’s fine. I really was just curious HOW they do this sequencing of an entire genome, start to finish, of a supposedly “novel” virus?
You referenced optics and computer stitching. I wish I knew more deeply than that.
Regarding sequencing, the following link is a good up to date summary of the original sequencing method, the Sanger method, and the latest innovations. When I said no “big deal”, i meant relative to the old Sanger sequencing days. 20 yrs ago it took yrs and millions of dollars to sequence a lot of the human genome, but now, it is a tiny fraction of the cost and immensely quicker. BUT it is still very impressive.
As a general comment, please do not jump on any comments about inaccuracies without firstly studying the whole topic. Also, there is a level of knowledge not always obtainable from reading… as with PCR, to fully understand all the details you need to do it yourself in the same setting. Those settings being, research labs or clinical labs, which are very different. Processing routine COVID testing is done under very different and tighter regulations compared to research labs i.e the ones from which you will find published papers.
Don’t worry, I am not going to argue with you about the Sanger method unless I am well-versed. Thanks for the information, time to study up.
While you’re studying up on Sanger keep in mind the role triphosphates play in the body per the narrative:
“Nucleotides are most often thought of as the building blocks of the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA. While this, is, of course, a vital function, nucleotides also play other important roles in cells. Ribonucleoside triphosphates like ATP, CTP, GTP and UTP are necessary, not just for the synthesis of RNA, but as part of activated intermediates like UDP-glucose in biosynthetic pathways. ATP is also the universal “energy currency” of cells, and coupling of energetically unfavorable reactions with the hydrolysis of ATP makes possible the many reactions in our cells that require an input of energy. Adenine nucleotides serve as components of NAD(P)+ and FAD. Nucleotides can also serve as allosteric and metabolic regulators. The synthesis and breakdown pathways for nucleotides and the molecules derived from them are thus, of vital importance to cells. Regulation of nucleotide synthesis, especially for deoxyribonucleotides, is important to ensure that the four nucleotides are made in the right proportions, as imbalances in nucleotide concentrations can lead to increases in mutation rates.“
…azt is a thymidine analogue triphosphate bytheway. Then maybe take a gander at Sanger’s relationship with the wellcome trust…
…Jeremy Farrar is running the wellcome trust hoyendia. He and his pal Neil Ferguson are setting up a world serum bank to keep us safe of course…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another question for you, M-Tic, is how they know that they are sequencing specifically SARS-CoV-2, considering the billions of other existing viruses in the body?
@Notanonymous – Mark Tic, you said:
“The genome is split into pieces which are individually sequenced using some very smart optics and biochemistry and all the shorter sequences are stitched together using a computer.”
What does it mean “the genome is split into pieces”? How or why is it split?…are you saying that it is first seen by us in this “split” form, and then we have to put it back together to prove its ‘reality’, by sequencing?
What are the “very smart optics” that are used in conjunction with the computer modeling?
Since environmental toxicology is not discounted for “virus” epidemics, a positive test result could actually be a detection of microbiological symptoms and damage related to industrial pollution exposure (i.e., not a detection of a “virus”). No?
Would be strange to be so predictably seasonal.
“Would be strange to be so predictably seasonal.” “Environmental shouldn’t come and go”
What you say here points right to the heart of the matter. It is “predictably seasonal” precisely BECAUSE the environment changes. The typical scenario is cold/wet weather shuts us in. Consequently our environment commits us to much less sun, less fresh air, increased exposure to burning fuels for heating, and whatever other toxic load is mandated by being inside buildings more of the time. This explains the “seasonal” cold/flu. Increased toxicity must be dealt with by our bodies, so if the load is enough, the cleansing will be felt, and we cough and blow and possibly fever our way back to health. No virus needed, or present.
That’s your “seasonal PCR population signal”, as many people with compromised health have, due to the bodies efforts to cleanse and heal, MUCH more cellular debris being disposed of in their systems, perhaps more of a bacterial presence, which all translates to more genetic material for our PCR fanatics to play with. No virus needed, or present, or provable.
No amount of sequencing (computer modeling) can create a ‘real’ virus.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My use of the world “environmental” does not match what you try to pick at above. The meaning is “environmental” in the medical diagnostic sense. If the cause of a set of symptoms is “environmental”, then it is caused by the environment, so removal from that toxic environment should abate symptoms. If this coronavirus situation is environmental, this would imply that it is a polluted world that is the cause. If the earth is polluted, the symptoms should not come and go. I stand by this. If the earth is polluted, it is polluted. The syndrome would not seemingly disappear for most of the year. It would be constant in the population. I reiterate that yes, although earth may be heavily polluted and this is harmful, but it’s not a strong fit at all for the current situation. Just not a very convincing idea. It is turning correlation into causation.
You talk about “environmental” above in the sense of something being connected to the environment in general…not the diagnostic use of the term.
It is a huge stretch to say that environmental pollution is the sole, direct cause of the coronavirus situation. True as the existence of environmental pollution might be, that has nothing to do with whether that is the sole cause of the coronavirus illness.
This was theoretically something sudden and seasonal. Sudden, periodic illness is a bad fit with environmental unless you can prove that some specific new pollution came into existence recently, and somehow fluctuates in correlation with cold season.
I have read theories on this, and I simply do not find them compelling. It reads to me like an attempt to use environmental pollution as an easy explanation…forcing the puzzle pieces to fit. I just do not see this as a strong explanation.
Mainstream virology avoids toxicology, so it must be hiding toxicology, because toxicology is so obvious.
Pollution “can come and go”, and be related to COVID-19:
It feels to me like two distinct phenomena, with an environmental cause like pollution unlikely as sole factor behind the coronavirus hysteria. It would necessitate the introduction of a brand new pollutant, on a global scale, and active only for a short season. And you can’t claim that the body itself is more prone to illness during certain months, ergo pollutant illness symptoms disappear for the other months. Saying it’s a new pollutant is also not falsifiable, as there will almost always be some kind of regional health damage caused by pollution. That’s a problem in and of itself, but to assert the coronavirus illness is a sudden, new pollutant is mere force-fitting. Like the people who saw the high level of 5G testing in Wuhan and assumed that it could explain the whole thing, which even I considered for a time. Correlation between two illnesses does not imply causation, short of strong supporting evidence.
I am sure pollution kills plenty of people each year globally, but the impacts are customized by region and by chemical. This is a sudden homogeneous global cold-like illness with atypical features. I just don’t see the sense of trying to say it’s some mysterious new global pollutant.
Coronavirus is a propaganda scheme, and pollution is itself very damaging, but that does not mean that the coronavirus propaganda scheme is tied solely to pollution. It feels like forcing a connection to me.
Then what convinced you of COVID-19 virus existence?
I believe it’s basically just a mild cold, where the vast majority aren’t even effected by it. and the rest have mild symptoms. Only the rarest cases are severe. Colds are colds. It being “real” is not the way I look at it. I think it is just a cold, and the question of whether it is even a NEW cold is open for debate. The PCR machine is likely just detecting a cold, at best. If it is not detecting a cold, we would need to find something else correlated that seems to follow people with colds. For example, if cold medicine was contaminated with SARS-CoV-2, this would probably show the same results.
People get sick, they buy medicine, and we start to get an elevated PCR positive that moves with people getting sick.
But I am also nowhere near any certainty. I am not pushing any specific concept. I simply think that there are about a million things that it COULD be, and I believe the propaganda that we are seeing is criminal.
So you are saying that the pandemic was caused by propaganda?
I am saying there is a mild cold, and there is propaganda. Separately. And a mild cold is not something new.
I like your very good questions and like where your common sense is leading you.
From Jon Rappoport: “… the CDC does not have the COVID coronavirus in its possession, because it is “unavailable.” Their word, not mine.
The CDC is admitting the virus hasn’t been isolated. In other words, its existence is unproven.”
Looophole: Are they saying the virus isolate is “not available” for testing, or not available at all?
Environmental shouldn’t come and go.
“And you can’t claim that the body itself is more prone to illness during certain months, ergo pollutant illness symptoms disappear for the other months”
Ya seem to be stuck in semantics while missing out the obvious. Level of the known pollutants in air/earth/water do vary in time, depending on weather conditions and human behaviour related to weather. For instance, there’s a high jump in chemical pollutants’levels in underground water samples just after any rainfall as farmers have tendency to fertilize soil right before the rainfall, which then rinses pesticides and herbicides along with toxic chemicals intercepted while dropping down, into earth and later water. There’s less fertlization and soil-treating activities going on during cold season with temperatures dropping below freezing point. In similar fashion, air pollution varies depending on i.e. use of heating elements due to cold season anywhere above subtropic belt. Or it varies depending on technology in use, other weather elements like wind and humidity, etc. In short, the point is that pollution levels ARE NOT static and are definitely seasonal and weather driven.
Second, our body is very sensitive to being intoxicated and it certainly has its mechanisms to help itself. Illness is what we describe as a loss of inner chemical balance, something we ‘re used to describe as being healthy. So falling ill means not healthy, but that’s only modern terminology and a black&white simplification of otherwise complicated mechanisms. And it ties into germ vs terrain theory. Illness in the way we were propagandized to understand it, i.e. not healthy, can only be a consequence of germs or disfunctional genetics, right? Well, let’s not jump to conclusions so quickly. To be certain about something means using certain, accurate methods when dealing with a subject at hand. It also means repetition and applying scrutiny to procedural steps to achieve the same results, which led to claiming anything with certainty. Until toxicity and human reaction to certain pollutants aren’t properly researched, there’ll be no progress in this area. So coming back to yr suggestion quoted above – yes, the body is more stabile and in balance during some weather seasons. Ya can observe it yrself and ya already have, by noticing seasonal attribute of winter illnesses. Yet ya want to convince me or suggest that toxicological idea has no valid ground to seasonal pattern, while germs and viruses do? How does that work? If anything, a sceptic should refrain from drawing conclusions based on doubtful foundations before accusing anybody else of doing the very same. Btw, toxico!ogy is the only sensible and rational explanation to seasonal illness pattern.
The seasonal flues make sense if you take into account the alignment of planets, and Earth with the Sun. I am starting to see more and more in the “electromagnetic universe” (not replacing but on top of gravity), which needs to have an effect on us (just like the full Moon does). There is much more to astrology than the “quackery” the Indoctrination Institutes conditioned into us.
This video is one of the best I have seen on “Corona” or “viruses” in general, where ODD speculates about the same thing above. I highly recommend this video:
Oh no, MiniMe is trying to nose his way in.
The worst pollutants are man-made, and so can be the variations.
Is that yr best argument in this, picking on me? Gee, man. And yr assuming again. I’m not trying to get in, I was in this before ya even considered it to be of any interest to question. How ’bout that?
I am not making an argument. I refuse to engage with you.
Refuse to engage me? The way ya put it frightens me. It’s obvious ya don’t want me around here, which may motivate me in quite the opposite way ya assumed.
I don’t, and so be it.
Precedent: Positive virus test results correlated with short-term air pollution during the West Nile Epidemic circa 1999. Similar to COVID epicenters.
This data you link here shows ONE positive out of TWO birds and it makes all these compelling charts saying that HALF blah blah tested positive for West Nile, then simply makes a CORRELATION to high pollution.
It is MISLEADING, and it is a very weak correlation. Literally one positive test. Two birds tested. And you’re running to say it is pollution? Because of one West Nile positive?
C’mon man, this isn’t evidence. This proves my point that it’s a poor argument where correlation is magically turned into causation.
I just have to nose my way into this reply….
West Nile is an invented name for an alleged disease coming from an unproven source or trigger. From here two options follow. If we assume something was going on in the first place then toxicological aspect promises more to deliver if properly researched. Asserting a virus correlation is a redflag per se, knowing viruses were never isolated, purified and proven to cause any disease. If we assume nothing was going on and WN virus story is fake, then there’s nothing to assert correlation to. Just fundamental logic.
Btw, 1 out of 2 is actually a half. And if above option #1 was true, it makes sense they had to stop collecting samples and testing for WN since it could lead to discovering an unthinkable impact of air pollution on life in general if properly researched. We may not know the whole truth behind it, but looking at the pattern in that particular timeframe, Jim’s thesis absolutely holds water. It may be misleading only in the option #2 mentioned above, where WN was only used as a fear-mongering propaganda campaign, preping us for Covidiotism years ahead. In that case, Jim’s thesis serves only as a parallel avenue for conspiracy theorists, where countless theories are there except the only true one – that it was all a hoax.
🙄 I never said 1 out of 2 wasn’t 50%, you disingenuous annoyance.
You misread. But that’s OK.
However I am open to other explanations of the seasonal PCR population signal, and I am sure pollution is doing significant damage. Just not sure the PCR phenomenon is related.
Dear Not Anon, the name “Mark Tic” has an odd sound to it, unreal. Maybe it is just an internet name to protect your identity. You should do that, as your message is garbage. You say false positives are the norm, and we know this, but not to the degree seen with PCR, which was not even designed for its current use. As far as I can tell PCR test results are random, merely a means of sustaining the hoax. I urge everyone I know to avoid the test, as it could cost them two weeks of their lives for no reason.
Speaking of which, where did this idea that SARS-Cov-2 remains contagious for two weeks come from? As far as I can tell, that is just random information made up to advance the draconian controls that accompany this hoax. It has no scientific basis.
What about six feet distance? Again, they just make shit up, it too having unstated reasons but no science. So too with masking.
And the the supposed genome of the supposed virus, which appears to have arisen out of whole cloth … they take a chicken noodle soup mix from a sample, pull a sequence not even knowing where it originates, so sloppy is the methodology, and supplement it using a computer program, then claiming they got it all. This is not just sloppy science, but rather science fraud. You are part of that fraud, Mark Tic.
Then they send people like you around to make it all sound real and reliable. You are most likely a kid in a basement working with a set of instructions, going around the dissenting blogs and spewing your bullshit. I don’t buy it, I don’t buy you or a word you say. My advice, get six feet away from us, and stay away for at least fourteen days.
Mark Tic my ass.
Originally, I had similar thoughts about the guy as well, but I found that he really does understand the mainstream approach, so he is a big resource in that way. I have not found him to be hostile.
He asked to be here, and this post is a place where his input is most certainly welcome, pseudonym or not. We are all commenting under an avatar, whether it matches birth name or otherwise. My vibe from Mark Tic is that he came from mainstream science, and likes to defend it when he can. We all have blind spots where a true-believer is not even able to consider certain things. I don’t think it’s fair to cast him this darkly. He has tried to counter incorrect scientific information, and is mostly pleasant and willing to listen if you are also willing to listen.
My fear … I’ll deal with it …you appearance here with a bullshit name that sounds like my own might be a warning, a signal to cease and desist, as the monsters behind this hoax are in censorious mode. We are living now under full-flower out in the open fascism. This little blog could well go dark. I will never submit, by the way. Never.
We can call him Tic, to help keep things straight. You are, after all, THE Mark.
Also Mark, do not forget that I agree with you that during the off-season, the positives really ARE just about all false positives. Right now in Wisconsin, 20% of tests are coming back positive and the population DOES feel sick.
The elevated seasonal signal is what I refer to above. Even still, the test is NOT reliable enough for each individual person. Yes, I agree there. But it is really showing elevated seasonal signal. This is not something that has been realistically addressed by the skeptic community, apart from denial.
I think straw man is the phrase? Create an image or argument and shoot somebody down for it, when it was never their point in the first place.
Who I am doesn’t need to be secret, but I can see why anonymity is the mode of operation here if people are so provocative. It is very easy to sit behind those cyber walls and throw mud. I guess you would never have a video chat with me? The invitation is always open, just let me know.
There is a lot I can help you all with. I have studied the alternative movement against this pandemic, and have somebody close to me who is actively within it. I support the campaign against 5G, believe WTC 7 didn’t fall down by itself, and have serious doubts about the moon landings. By my unconventional upbringing, my approach to science is unconventional. I am no cookie cut scientist, and really like Mullis. I question everything and trust no one.
The outburst towards me is fascinating for me; an overreaction to polite and good intention contribution to a debate. I am also flattered by it, that someone would spend so much effort on me. The libertarian movement, which is also anti mask, anti pandemic, should be encouraging free speech and debate? Is this a place for only 1 type of comment? That seems quite restrictive for libertarian values? Why spend so much effort on me in this thread?
The whole area of misinformation also fascinates me, and that is why I did a deep dive into it. My view after a lot of time focusing on it is becoming clear. Misinformation is a careful mixture of a lot of fiction together with a very few truths which help it gain credibility. I see a lot of people held together into a movement by a lot of that toxic misinformation mixture, but most of them believe it as 100% true. But, what you don’t see is that there is not much substance to it, and nothing will come of it because a lot of it is rubbish, look at the human chromosome 8 viral fiasco. I think, those that are getting away with the real frauds are very happy with the time and effort wasted on misinformation. Fauxlex is right, there is paid opposition and somebody is distributing the rubbish. Website analytics can be a way to illustrate that. The paid opposition are key players in the social internet network. Or, it is just very simple… people needing to pay the bills and individually making money out of monetized youtube channels etc and they need a constant stream of shock horror headlines to keep the clicks/ hits/ shares coming for cash flow. The main stream media was a victim of that, amongst other things.
On a scientific level I can help you guys pick out the real frauds from the rubbish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For starters, could you answer OREGANOMATT’s questions below ?
I’m open to being educated .
Reproduced here : ( Hope it’s okay with the author )
What does it mean “the genome is split into pieces”? How or why is it split?…are you saying that it is first seen by us in this “split” form, and then we have to put it back together to prove its ‘reality’, by sequencing?
What are the “very smart optics” that are used in conjunction with the computer modeling?
I’m not here to educate people, just to help pick apart the scientific stuff. But i’m very happy to help. I’ve trained and worked with multidisciplinary teams of a range of levels, and would firstly need to understand your understanding to avoid patronising you. In the absence of knowing your level, I’ll suggest a good video but you might need to learn a bit about DNA topics for it to make sense.
That is the issue with a lot of complex scientific topics and the stories that appear that criticise certain things. They are areas that can take hours and days to reach a point where the implications of findings can be critically assessed. People can spend their career in DNA sequencing work, and PCR.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve had first-hand experience with PCR and its true intended usage, comparison of strands of DNA. It is used in that manner in criminal law. A crime was committed against one of my children, and a man was sentenced to 40 years in prison. This was in 1987. He protested his innocence, and in 2001 or so, the Innocence Project got hold of DNA from the crime scene, and proved, using PCR, that it was not his. He was set free, and later won a $3.5 million settlement.
PCR was again used, this time in identifying the true perpetrator of the crime, this in 2014 or so. It was amazing to behold, as they guy was arrested and plea bargained, part of that PB to give a DNA sample for the national crime database. Bingo! It matched with the crime scene DNA. Turned out the guy lived two blocks away from us at that time. Unfortunately, Statute had run its course, and the guy was set free. I have no idea where he is now.
This is what PCR is used for. Its use in the virus hoax is merely as window dressing, to make what they are doing appear to be scientific. They are identifying people with a strand of RNA claimed to be part of a virus that has never been sequenced as “testing positive”, quarantining them and anyone they have contacted for two weeks. It’s vicious and cruel, but we are dealing with fascists, so expect cruelty. Fascists love to regiment, get everyone in goose step harmony. Welcome to Germany, circa 1931.
For you to come along and claim that there is magic in the machine, that it can ID a virus, is simply nonsense. There is no other word for it. The machine is the virus. If they stop testing, the virus goes away. They know this, which is why they are going to ramp up the testing, test everybody, put maybe 10 or 15% of the population under house arrest at any given time, make us carry a Covid card, and strip away what few remaining freedoms we have. Soon it will be illegal to deny the existence of the virus. The rest if the 1st Amendment is in the trash can, why not freedom of speech too. This is all a fascist delight, using a fake emergency to seize power, never to be given back.
Your little spiel about Building 7, moon landings, all of that, was meant to ingratiate yourself to us. I’m not buying a word of it. You are dealing in mis/disinfo, exactly as you described, mixing some real with the fake to make the message more palatable.Kindly social distance yourself from me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Serious doubts about the moon landings?” haha. I don’t think anybody here needs your help. Mark is right to call BS, imo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Everybody has different interests and awakenings. If notanonymous wants to get up to speed with the bunnyhopping clowns in the sandpit, I can help out. Notanonymous and maybe others will profit from the research I have done and published on that, at the 50th “anniversary” last year.
That’s how we help each other out.
We have now seriously on POM Flat Earthers, who follow a geometrically impossible “model”, for everyone to be tested without relying on NASA et al., using the Orion test.
Agreed, we definitely should not ridicule people who have not gone far enough down the rabbit hole on certain issues to feel confident about their position.
Comments are closed.