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
You BELIEVE that, I know (or at least you SAY you believe that). Yet you continue to use failed vaccines as if they protect, and deny vaccine harm because that would undermine your paycheck. And I bet everyone in your practice vaccinates against pertussis every ten years? Asymptomatic carrier much?
Hey, Dr Hickie -- how many of the mRNA Covid "vaccines" did you get, and have you taken all the recommended "boosters," too? You know, to "protect child[ren] and infants (and the public) from deadly diseases" like Covid? Did you get the bivalent one, too?
The difference between you and me is my supporters do so on a volunteer basis, and you have to force yours. They give me a gift; you rob the public of funds and their health.
You're the one who called for coercive tactics to keep kids from school to force their parents to accept unwanted vaccines. If you actually studied the issue of informed consent, coercion by law uses force. Yes, you're for forced vaccination. And in that regard, you and yours have gone off the rails. Since you seem obsessed with my fiduciary obligation to fundraise for IPAK, here, everyone, register your Hickie protest donation - https://ipaknowledge.org/How-to-Donate.php
Just published. THANK YOU, Chris Hickie - so far, $7 per month due to your effort! I'll keep you updated on how many new paid subscriptions have converted thanks to you.
We're just ten minutes in our Chris Hickie drive - EIGHT readers have converted to $7 per month - THANK YOU CHRIS! That's $56 more dollars a month so far! And thank you to the long-time readers upping their game!
Hey, Hickie - You are one of the best fundraiser assets we've ever had! Since this post was published 3 hours ago, we've had $210 in monthly support from Popular Rationalists, and a couple of annual subscribers as well. That's pretty good! Thanks, kiddo!
So I see you are NOT proposing to have a live debate with JLW, livestreamed and moderated by someone you both can agree on, with the fairest rules possible, where only facts matter and childish ad hominem bullshit is left aside, so you can make your case and he can make his.
Maybe it's just me, but not doing this and resorting to pointless spamming in his comment section instead could be seen as cowardly considering the magnitude of your claims.
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:
No. $10K was collected. $300K was the goal to do a much larger, definitive study with methods of validation As in "Science". Which is what you say you want.
You didn't conduct any "science" James, let's be real. An evidence-based evaluation of PCR diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 would require proof that SARS-CoV-2 exists and that it be available for use as the gold standard. People are waking up to this crap, just saying.
No, James. Sequencing amplicons from a PCR test for sections of a gene is not a valid gold standard for a diagnostic test for an alleged viral disease. And there is no gold standard, because the in silico "virus" was never shown to exist in the physical realm, nor even the alleged genome.
Yes, Christine, it absolutely is. You need to read closer what Dr. Lee has published. FDA specifically named Sanger sequencing as the gold-standard truth-test of PCR assays.
But, if, as you claim (incorrectly), that Sanger sequencing is not considered by the academic experts and by FDA as the gold standard against which PCR assays should be adjudicated, what is?
I noticed you doing that in your debate with David Rasnick too (wherein he wiped the floor with you). The CDC says this, the FDA says that... your trusted alphabet sources, when it suits you.
Don't put words in my mouth please, James. I never said that Sanger sequencing is not considered by (some) fake-experts and the FDA to be the accepted gold standard for assessing a PCR assay. You see, some of us make Truth our authority, while others make authority their truth (when it suits them).
When the assay is for part of an imaginary virus that has never even been sequenced let alone shown to cause any disease, the assay is automatically and blatantly fraudulent and shouldn't even exist let alone need a meaningless assessment. This is logic 101.
> Sanger sequencing is ... considered by the academic experts and by FDA as the gold standard against which PCR assays should be adjudicated
James, again you are not using the term "Gold Standard" correct.
A "Gold Standard" is NEVER a particular measurement device, or a machine, or a kind of test.
The "Gold Standard" is a REFERENCE STANDARD or a CALIBRATION STANDARD.
For measuring precise length, they use "Gauge Blocks" as the Gold Standard. A set of these at high precision could cost $10,000 to $30,000.
The "Gold Standard" used for calibrating a mechanical scale is a set of REFERENCE WEIGHTS, which again, can be $10,000 or more for high precision.
I mean, you've got a PhD, right? I am non-degreed, and a HS dropout, and even I have figured this out.
It's mindblowing to me how you do not understand these basic concepts which *you* are brandishing about (incorrectly).
Here's an article which explains the concept:
>> Where possible, suitable commercial reference standards, including certified standards such as compendial standards (EPCRS, USP, WHO, and NIBSC), or fully characterized standards prepared in-house or by an external noncommercial organization should be used. These are designed to improve lab-to-lab and method-to-method variability and consensus. ⚠️⚠️⚠️👉These standards are considered to be the “gold standard” against which regional, national, and international laboratories and manufacturers calibrate their own working standards 👈⚠️⚠️⚠️<<
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.<<
Dr. Lee is not doing science to prove the virus exists.
If these people "rebutted" Dr. Lee with the arguments you said they made, then they, and you, clearly do not know that Dr. Lee's science is focused on the technical accuracy of a molecular assay, not the clinical accuracy. He could have used non-quantitative RT-PCR to detect an elephant at high Ct value, and his sequencing results would have show that specific, particular TECHNICAL flaw. I do hope this clarification helps. Right church, wrong pew.
No kidding he's not doing science to prove the fake virus exists - no one has done that.
Everyone can read the rebuttals and see for themselves that the authors understand perfectly well that Sin's research is focused on meaningless, fraudulent tests for an in silico aka imaginary virus. And they can see in Mark Bailey's "Warning Signs" article that Sin is on record insisting that "I have a Preprint manuscript currently under peer review as follows. ://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202206.0192/v1 There is irrefutable Sanger sequencing evidence that the virus exists and keeps mutating." (I was copied by Sin on that email and can make it public if anyone wants to see it.) It's either intentional scientific fraud or delusion. Either way, not good.
Cry baby.
Funny. I feel PRECISELY the same way about you.
You BELIEVE that, I know (or at least you SAY you believe that). Yet you continue to use failed vaccines as if they protect, and deny vaccine harm because that would undermine your paycheck. And I bet everyone in your practice vaccinates against pertussis every ten years? Asymptomatic carrier much?
Vaccine Practice Payment Schedules Create Perverse Incentives for Unnecessary Medical Procedures – at What Cost to Patients? https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/21
Hey, Dr Hickie -- how many of the mRNA Covid "vaccines" did you get, and have you taken all the recommended "boosters," too? You know, to "protect child[ren] and infants (and the public) from deadly diseases" like Covid? Did you get the bivalent one, too?
The difference between you and me is my supporters do so on a volunteer basis, and you have to force yours. They give me a gift; you rob the public of funds and their health.
You're the one who called for coercive tactics to keep kids from school to force their parents to accept unwanted vaccines. If you actually studied the issue of informed consent, coercion by law uses force. Yes, you're for forced vaccination. And in that regard, you and yours have gone off the rails. Since you seem obsessed with my fiduciary obligation to fundraise for IPAK, here, everyone, register your Hickie protest donation - https://ipaknowledge.org/How-to-Donate.php
Just published. THANK YOU, Chris Hickie - so far, $7 per month due to your effort! I'll keep you updated on how many new paid subscriptions have converted thanks to you.
https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/calling-on-popular-rationalists-to
We're just ten minutes in our Chris Hickie drive - EIGHT readers have converted to $7 per month - THANK YOU CHRIS! That's $56 more dollars a month so far! And thank you to the long-time readers upping their game!
Hey, Hickie - You are one of the best fundraiser assets we've ever had! Since this post was published 3 hours ago, we've had $210 in monthly support from Popular Rationalists, and a couple of annual subscribers as well. That's pretty good! Thanks, kiddo!
Hey buddy, no one likes a troll. Get civil or get lost.
So I see you are NOT proposing to have a live debate with JLW, livestreamed and moderated by someone you both can agree on, with the fairest rules possible, where only facts matter and childish ad hominem bullshit is left aside, so you can make your case and he can make his.
Maybe it's just me, but not doing this and resorting to pointless spamming in his comment section instead could be seen as cowardly considering the magnitude of your claims.
The phrase "evaluation that FDA should have required" can be used regarding mitigation efforts, treatments, and "preventive" products, as well.
Yes, indeed.
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/
No. $10K was collected. $300K was the goal to do a much larger, definitive study with methods of validation As in "Science". Which is what you say you want.
Do you think Science is free?
You didn't conduct any "science" James, let's be real. An evidence-based evaluation of PCR diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 would require proof that SARS-CoV-2 exists and that it be available for use as the gold standard. People are waking up to this crap, just saying.
No, you're right, I didn't. Dr. Sin Hang Lee did.
No, James. Sequencing amplicons from a PCR test for sections of a gene is not a valid gold standard for a diagnostic test for an alleged viral disease. And there is no gold standard, because the in silico "virus" was never shown to exist in the physical realm, nor even the alleged genome.
Yes, Christine, it absolutely is. You need to read closer what Dr. Lee has published. FDA specifically named Sanger sequencing as the gold-standard truth-test of PCR assays.
But, if, as you claim (incorrectly), that Sanger sequencing is not considered by the academic experts and by FDA as the gold standard against which PCR assays should be adjudicated, what is?
Oh wow, well if the FDA says so.
I noticed you doing that in your debate with David Rasnick too (wherein he wiped the floor with you). The CDC says this, the FDA says that... your trusted alphabet sources, when it suits you.
Don't put words in my mouth please, James. I never said that Sanger sequencing is not considered by (some) fake-experts and the FDA to be the accepted gold standard for assessing a PCR assay. You see, some of us make Truth our authority, while others make authority their truth (when it suits them).
When the assay is for part of an imaginary virus that has never even been sequenced let alone shown to cause any disease, the assay is automatically and blatantly fraudulent and shouldn't even exist let alone need a meaningless assessment. This is logic 101.
> Sanger sequencing is ... considered by the academic experts and by FDA as the gold standard against which PCR assays should be adjudicated
James, again you are not using the term "Gold Standard" correct.
A "Gold Standard" is NEVER a particular measurement device, or a machine, or a kind of test.
The "Gold Standard" is a REFERENCE STANDARD or a CALIBRATION STANDARD.
For measuring precise length, they use "Gauge Blocks" as the Gold Standard. A set of these at high precision could cost $10,000 to $30,000.
The "Gold Standard" used for calibrating a mechanical scale is a set of REFERENCE WEIGHTS, which again, can be $10,000 or more for high precision.
I mean, you've got a PhD, right? I am non-degreed, and a HS dropout, and even I have figured this out.
It's mindblowing to me how you do not understand these basic concepts which *you* are brandishing about (incorrectly).
Here's an article which explains the concept:
>> Where possible, suitable commercial reference standards, including certified standards such as compendial standards (EPCRS, USP, WHO, and NIBSC), or fully characterized standards prepared in-house or by an external noncommercial organization should be used. These are designed to improve lab-to-lab and method-to-method variability and consensus. ⚠️⚠️⚠️👉These standards are considered to be the “gold standard” against which regional, national, and international laboratories and manufacturers calibrate their own working standards 👈⚠️⚠️⚠️<<
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3933579/
The same FDA that never validated the PCR "tests" against a clinical gold standard for Convid? They have destroyed the meaning of a gold standard.
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.<<
Dr. Lee is not doing science to prove the virus exists.
If these people "rebutted" Dr. Lee with the arguments you said they made, then they, and you, clearly do not know that Dr. Lee's science is focused on the technical accuracy of a molecular assay, not the clinical accuracy. He could have used non-quantitative RT-PCR to detect an elephant at high Ct value, and his sequencing results would have show that specific, particular TECHNICAL flaw. I do hope this clarification helps. Right church, wrong pew.
No kidding he's not doing science to prove the fake virus exists - no one has done that.
Everyone can read the rebuttals and see for themselves that the authors understand perfectly well that Sin's research is focused on meaningless, fraudulent tests for an in silico aka imaginary virus. And they can see in Mark Bailey's "Warning Signs" article that Sin is on record insisting that "I have a Preprint manuscript currently under peer review as follows. ://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202206.0192/v1 There is irrefutable Sanger sequencing evidence that the virus exists and keeps mutating." (I was copied by Sin on that email and can make it public if anyone wants to see it.) It's either intentional scientific fraud or delusion. Either way, not good.
Well done. 👍🏽