Science, Public Health Policy & the Law has Accepted Dr. Sin Hang Lee's Study of the Flaws of Non-Quantitative RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Detection - Part 1
Science, Public Health Policy & the Law has Accepted Dr. Sin Hang Lee's Study of the Flaws of Non-Quantitative RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Detection - Part 1
Sanger Sequencing Provides Definitive Evidence that RT-PCR Use with No Internal Control Applied to the Problem of Diagnosis of COVID-19 is Fatally Flawed
Thanks. You're singing my song. This should have been a basic lesson in quantitative analysis in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum. Revoke the chemistry degrees of all these Pennsylvania and FDA officials! (That should disqualify them from whatever civil service ranks they wrongfully enjoy.)
>> I was astonished when I saw that the FDA had only requested that commercial suppliers provide data on the true positive rate, but no data on the false positive rate. <<
James, ALL COVID PCR positives are false! Because the test is 💯% bogus and meaningless.
The question is the provenance of the primers. Where did they come from? Something in the Real-world?
Nope! It was all Metagenomics, & CGI smoke and mirrors.
Corman/Drosten team didn't have the virus, so relied on "close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV virus" (from Digital Genomic Libraries like Genbank).
(Well, that sort of resembles something that they made up previously.)
It's like they were given a job to create a Unicorn detector. But at some point during the design process they needed an actual Unicorn specimen with which to calibrate their instrument.
But of course they couldn't find an actual unicorn specimen, because unicorns don't exist!
Those PCR primers are not based on anything in the Real-world, like viral isolates obtained from a patient supposedly sick "with COVID", a disease with no objective, unambiguous diagnostic criteria!!!
OMG 🤷♂️🤦♂️ How can anyone fall for this nonsense! They tell you about all their funny business right in the methods section of their paper.
What Team Corman/Drosten did was that since the didn't have a real Unicorn 🦄 with which to calibrate their instrument, they Drew a Picture of a Unicorn using computer CGI from a database of how Unicorns have been depicted in popular fiction, and calibrated their instrument to that.
Yes, it is that ridiculous.
The CDC did the exact same thing! They didn't have SARS-CoV-2 viral isolates (because none exist!), so they used "characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA" (a digital blueprint obtained from Genbank) which was somehow "spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of a549 [human lung cancer cells] and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic a clinical specimen". That is, the sample was contaminated by lots of foreign DNA, fetal bovine serum, "Vero" (monkey kidney) cells (Look up what VTM is made from).
In other words, these COVID PCR tests WERE NEVER CALIBRATED to any Real-world specimen!!! As Christine Massey says, it's all Monkey Business!
200+ institutions from 40 nations: Nobody's ever seen the virus that was at the root of locking down most of 8B people all over the world for 18 months, and subjecting us to all manner of ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (💯%) BOGUS and UNNECESSARY "COUNTERMEASURES".
$300,000 collected to fake-evaluate an impossible-to-validate test that has no true gold standard (no virus or viral disease), using the fake-gold-standard of sequencing RT-PCR amplicons. In other words, comparing one fraudulent, meaningless convid test to another.
Meanwhile, many of us explained for free that all positives are fake-positives, based on simple logic, FOI responses, and by refuting the bogus "SARS-COV-2 isolation and sequencing" studies. You're welcome.
A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition) -- Dr. Mark Bailey
Freedom of Information Responses reveal that health/science institutions around the world (211 and counting!) have no record of SARS-COV-2 (the alleged convid virus) isolation/purification, anywhere, ever:
FOIs reveal that health/science institutions have no record of any “virus” having been found in a host and isolated/purified. Because virology isn’t a science:
Thanks to Bill Huston for this list of rebuttals to Sin Lee's earlier paper titled Implementation of the eCDC/WHO Recommendation for Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Subvariants and Its Challenges.:
Warnings Signs You Have Been Tricked By Virologists…Again -- Dr. Mark Bailey:
>> The claim that the specimens were, “true-positive[s] for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant,” simply means some sequences that were previously deposited on genetic databases, and fraudulently declared to be “viral,” were being detected again. It doesn’t make any difference which sequencing technique is used, in this case bidirectional Sanger sequencing because the crucial issue is the provenance and clinical relevance of these detected sequences. This is the foundational issue in the entire COVID-19 fraud: there is no virus, simply sequences falsely claimed to be evidence of an actual virus. <<
>> If the foundational papers supplied as evidence for “SARS-COV-2” are not “irrefutable evidence” for the existence of “SARS-COV-2,” this means that the case for the existence of this “virus” was built upon a faulty and fraudulent foundation. As all other studies that have been conducted since are built upon this same faulty and fraudulent foundation, this means that they too share this very designation, including Dr. Sin Hang Lee’s paper which relied on previous fraudulent genomic data to produce his own results. <<
Kaufman, Cowan, Donio, Stone: VERY detailed analysis of Dr. Sin Lee's challenge:
>> To expose the problems of virology it is crucial to examine the methodology section of any publication and in this case it is no different…Those of us that dispute the virus narrative point out that no RNA (or DNA) sequences have ever been shown to come from inside any specific identifiable particle that fulfils the definition of a virus. Thus all RNAs can only be said to be expressed by a known organism, introduced artificially (e.g. synthetic mRNA injections) or be of unknown provenance. The “mutations” only exist within in silico models that have not been shown to be independent entities in nature. There are other reasons why RNA sequences can and do vary in dynamic biological systems and I can’t imagine that any virologist would disagree with this fact. Simply detecting RNAs is not enough to draw conclusions about their provenance. Other experiments are required to make this determination. Indeed, no amount of genomic or proteomic technology can escape the fact that with regard to such data being supposed evidence of viruses, it is turtles all the way down.<<
The phrase "evaluation that FDA should have required" can be used regarding mitigation efforts, treatments, and "preventive" products, as well.
Thanks. You're singing my song. This should have been a basic lesson in quantitative analysis in the undergraduate chemistry curriculum. Revoke the chemistry degrees of all these Pennsylvania and FDA officials! (That should disqualify them from whatever civil service ranks they wrongfully enjoy.)
>> I was astonished when I saw that the FDA had only requested that commercial suppliers provide data on the true positive rate, but no data on the false positive rate. <<
James, ALL COVID PCR positives are false! Because the test is 💯% bogus and meaningless.
The question is the provenance of the primers. Where did they come from? Something in the Real-world?
Nope! It was all Metagenomics, & CGI smoke and mirrors.
Corman/Drosten team didn't have the virus, so relied on "close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV virus" (from Digital Genomic Libraries like Genbank).
Source: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045
They just made something up!
(Well, that sort of resembles something that they made up previously.)
It's like they were given a job to create a Unicorn detector. But at some point during the design process they needed an actual Unicorn specimen with which to calibrate their instrument.
But of course they couldn't find an actual unicorn specimen, because unicorns don't exist!
Kevin Corbett makes this point very clear here: https://odysee.com/@OracleFilms:1/Dr.-Kevin-Corbett-Part-1_HD:f
Those PCR primers are not based on anything in the Real-world, like viral isolates obtained from a patient supposedly sick "with COVID", a disease with no objective, unambiguous diagnostic criteria!!!
OMG 🤷♂️🤦♂️ How can anyone fall for this nonsense! They tell you about all their funny business right in the methods section of their paper.
What Team Corman/Drosten did was that since the didn't have a real Unicorn 🦄 with which to calibrate their instrument, they Drew a Picture of a Unicorn using computer CGI from a database of how Unicorns have been depicted in popular fiction, and calibrated their instrument to that.
Yes, it is that ridiculous.
The CDC did the exact same thing! They didn't have SARS-CoV-2 viral isolates (because none exist!), so they used "characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA" (a digital blueprint obtained from Genbank) which was somehow "spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of a549 [human lung cancer cells] and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic a clinical specimen". That is, the sample was contaminated by lots of foreign DNA, fetal bovine serum, "Vero" (monkey kidney) cells (Look up what VTM is made from).
Source: https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/
In other words, these COVID PCR tests WERE NEVER CALIBRATED to any Real-world specimen!!! As Christine Massey says, it's all Monkey Business!
200+ institutions from 40 nations: Nobody's ever seen the virus that was at the root of locking down most of 8B people all over the world for 18 months, and subjecting us to all manner of ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (💯%) BOGUS and UNNECESSARY "COUNTERMEASURES".
http://tinyurl.com/NoRecordFound
There is no there there.
There is no virus.
There was never any virus.
What is up with your obsession over these fictitious pathogenic particles?
Where you also terrified by imaginary monsters hiding in your closet when you were young?
Big difference between detecting a sequence and detecting a virus, James. Especially when the virus doesn't even exist.
$300,000 collected to fake-evaluate an impossible-to-validate test that has no true gold standard (no virus or viral disease), using the fake-gold-standard of sequencing RT-PCR amplicons. In other words, comparing one fraudulent, meaningless convid test to another.
Meanwhile, many of us explained for free that all positives are fake-positives, based on simple logic, FOI responses, and by refuting the bogus "SARS-COV-2 isolation and sequencing" studies. You're welcome.
A Farewell To Virology (Expert Edition) -- Dr. Mark Bailey
https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement
https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/
End of Germ Theory - Steve Falconer
https://rumble.com/v1ak9zn-the-end-of-germ-theory-by-spacebusters.html
Freedom of Information Responses reveal that health/science institutions around the world (211 and counting!) have no record of SARS-COV-2 (the alleged convid virus) isolation/purification, anywhere, ever:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-around-the-world-have-no-record-of-sars-cov-2-isolation-purification/
FOIs reveal that health/science institutions have no record of any “virus” having been found in a host and isolated/purified. Because virology isn’t a science:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fois-reveal-that-health-science-institutions-have-no-record-of-any-virus-having-been-isolated-purified-virology-isnt-a-science/
Do virologists perform valid control experiments? Is virology a science?
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/do-virologists-perform-valid-control-experiments-is-virology-a-science/
Thanks to Bill Huston for this list of rebuttals to Sin Lee's earlier paper titled Implementation of the eCDC/WHO Recommendation for Molecular Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Subvariants and Its Challenges.:
Warnings Signs You Have Been Tricked By Virologists…Again -- Dr. Mark Bailey:
https://drsambailey.com/warnings-signs-you-have-been-tricked-by-virologists-again/
>> The claim that the specimens were, “true-positive[s] for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant,” simply means some sequences that were previously deposited on genetic databases, and fraudulently declared to be “viral,” were being detected again. It doesn’t make any difference which sequencing technique is used, in this case bidirectional Sanger sequencing because the crucial issue is the provenance and clinical relevance of these detected sequences. This is the foundational issue in the entire COVID-19 fraud: there is no virus, simply sequences falsely claimed to be evidence of an actual virus. <<
The Virus of Sin -- Mike Stone
https://viroliegy.com/2022/07/26/the-virus-of-sin/
>> If the foundational papers supplied as evidence for “SARS-COV-2” are not “irrefutable evidence” for the existence of “SARS-COV-2,” this means that the case for the existence of this “virus” was built upon a faulty and fraudulent foundation. As all other studies that have been conducted since are built upon this same faulty and fraudulent foundation, this means that they too share this very designation, including Dr. Sin Hang Lee’s paper which relied on previous fraudulent genomic data to produce his own results. <<
Kaufman, Cowan, Donio, Stone: VERY detailed analysis of Dr. Sin Lee's challenge:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/rekrHZ52IKZy/
A Farewell to Virology -- Dr. Mark Bailey
https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/
>> To expose the problems of virology it is crucial to examine the methodology section of any publication and in this case it is no different…Those of us that dispute the virus narrative point out that no RNA (or DNA) sequences have ever been shown to come from inside any specific identifiable particle that fulfils the definition of a virus. Thus all RNAs can only be said to be expressed by a known organism, introduced artificially (e.g. synthetic mRNA injections) or be of unknown provenance. The “mutations” only exist within in silico models that have not been shown to be independent entities in nature. There are other reasons why RNA sequences can and do vary in dynamic biological systems and I can’t imagine that any virologist would disagree with this fact. Simply detecting RNAs is not enough to draw conclusions about their provenance. Other experiments are required to make this determination. Indeed, no amount of genomic or proteomic technology can escape the fact that with regard to such data being supposed evidence of viruses, it is turtles all the way down.<<
Well done. 👍🏽