With the dawn of a new year, we find ourselves facing the third straight annual “Covid-19” fear propaganda extravaganza. If you thought back at the beginning of 2021 that the emergence of the rushed experimental vaccines would eradicate this “virus,” you now realize you were horribly, horribly wrong and you should probably feel a bit ashamed for being so easily duped. If now, at the beginning of 2022, you believe boosters will be your savior, please slap yourself across the face immediately and come to your senses so it will not be necessary to do so again come January 1st, 2023.
As we reflect back on the past 365 days while we set off to attempt to commit to our New Year’s Resolutions for the next 30 days, we must ask ourselves some very important questions. What new horrors will be unleashed upon the frightened and ignorant public this year? Which college fraternity variant will make itself known to terrify the masses? Will it be Pi, Sigma, Upsilon, Omega? What implausible theory for the creation of this “virus” will spread like wildfire throughout the “Truther” community? How many layers of masks will it take before we pass out from stupidity? What new contradictions, backtracks, and flip-flops will the CDC/WHO be embarrassing themselves with this year…and how many people will continue to fall for this hoax despite the numerous red flags?
If you want to free yourself from this cycle of insanity, it is important to keep some very critical information in mind in order to protect yourself from being swept back in. I have highlighted this information and provided a brief summary along with links to further flesh out what I am saying. My hope is that this will either help you to break the chain this year if you are still on the fence or that you may share this with someone who needs to hear this so that they may do the same. Together, we can end this theater of absurdity and get off this sick cycle carousel once and for all:
1. “SARS-COV-2” has never been purified/isolated directly from a sick human nor proven pathogenic in animal models.
While myself and others may sound like a broken record by continuing to harp on this point, it is absolutely essential and the key to ending this hoax once and for all. Like every “virus” before it, “SARS-COV-2” has never been purified/isolated directly from sick humans. No particles have ever been purified (i.e. freed from contaminants, pollutants, foreign material) by subjecting the human sample to accepted purification methods such as ultracentrifugation, filtration, precipitation, etc. BEFORE being exposed to the unpurified cell culturing process. There are no isolated (i.e. separated from everything else) particles which can be used as a valid independent variable in order to prove pathogenicity.
Cell Culture Soup
What you get with “SARS-COV-2” is unpurified bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) taken from the lungs of one person containing potentially billions of similar and/or identical particles. This sample was sequenced without purification/isolation which means the RNA used to create the genome is unknown and comes from numerous sources. The unpurified sample was added to toxic cell cultures and combined with monkey kidney cells, fetal bovine serum, antibiotics/antifungals, unknown “nutrients,” and various chemicals/additives.
Electron Microscope Images
The images you see of the “virus” were taken from this cultured concoction where researchers found particles similar to what they wanted to find after further alterations were done through the processes of fixation, embedding, and staining. The particles shown as “SARS-COV-2” are a representation of the “virus” as, without first purifying and isolating the particles assumed to be the culprit, there can be no claim that the particles are the “virus.” In fact, there are numerous identical particles said to resemble a “coronavirus” which are not considered one due to their location within the body.
This cultured soup is used to attempt to prove pathogenicity by experimentally recreating the same disease in animals which is seen in humans. However, researchers are still looking for a suitable animal model as they have been unable to cause the exact same symptoms of disease when injecting this poison into various animals. Keep in mind, injecting toxic culture goo into an animal is not a natural route of exposure yet this has not stopped these researchers from trying. The original “SARS-COV-2” papers all failed to even attempt animal studies and admitted to not fulfilling this essential evidence required in order to claim a new “virus.” Without this proof of pathogenicity, there is no “virus” despite the claims made.
2. PCR tests have never been calibrated and validated against the gold standard of purified/isolated “virus” particles.
Lack of “Virus” Isolates
Two of the main PCR tests used to (mis)diagnose cases of “Covid-19” were both admitted to be deigned without using the gold standard of purified/isolated “virus” to develop the tests.
The Drosten PCR Test:
“We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.”
The CDC Test:
“The analytical sensitivity of the rRT-PCR assays contained in the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel were determined in Limit of Detection studies. Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.”
Without any actual purified/isolated “SARS-COV-2,” the PCR tests currently being used and abused to diagnose one with a non-existent “virus” can not be calibrated and validated properly. This means that any claims of sensitivity and specificity are false. Why does this matter? A tests’ sensitivity is its true positive rate. This refers to a tests accuracy in regards to determining one positive when judged against the gold standard. Specificity is the true negative rate which refers to the accuracy of a test to determine one negative against the gold standard. See the problem yet? Without the gold standard of a purified/isolated “virus,” there can be no claims regarding accuracy for any of these tests.
The lack of a gold standard has been admitted repeatedly. Here are just two brief examples:
“RT-PCR assays in the UK have analytical sensitivity and specificity of greater than 95%, but no single gold standard assay exists.“
“No test gives a 100% accurate result; tests need to be evaluated to determine their sensitivity and specificity, ideally by comparison with a “gold standard.” The lack of such a clear-cut “gold-standard” for Covid-19 testing makes evaluation of test accuracy challenging.”
Not Suitable For Diagnosis
PCR has problems even beyond the lack of the gold standard. These “tests” were never intended for diagnosis. All that the manufacturers are allowed to claim is that the test can find small fragments of RNA assumed to come from a theoretical “SARS-COV-2” genome created by computer algorithms using unpurified BALF. Finding small fragments of RNA is not finding a “virus.”
From the CDC PCR Test:
“Results are for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA.”
“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.
• The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection.
• The performance of this test has not been established for screening of blood or blood products for the presence of 2019-nCoV.
• This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”
Cycle Threshold (Ct) Values
The PCR Cycle Threshold (Ct) values used to determine a positive/negative result are chosen by the manufacturers of each test, are entirely arbitrary (i.e. random), and vary from test to test and from lab to lab. A person with a Ct value of 36 could be positive on one test while considered negative on another. While these values are used to label one positive or negative, they can not be used to determine how infectious one is, how much “virus” is present, nor the severity of symptoms. This is because these values range from person to person. Someone requiring hospitalization may have a high Ct value (signifying low “viral” load) while someone asymptomatic may have a low Ct value (signifying high “viral” load). Thus, even though the CDC/WHO/FDA claim these values can determine one positive/negative, the results are essentially meaningless beyond this label.
The Prevalence Conundrum
Another glaring problem for the PCR tests is the issue of disease prevalence. In order for any PCR test result to be considered accurate, disease prevalence (i.e. how many cases are in a specific population) must be known first. This is normally determined clinically based on specific symptoms related to the disease. The problem for “SARS-COV-2” is that there are no specific symptoms related to this disease. Symptoms can range from none whatsoever to overlapping with allergies, the common cold, the flu, and pneumonia. Thus, “SARS-COV-2” can not be determined based on clinical symptoms alone and so the PCR test is used to identify cases in order to figure out disease prevalence. This creates the conundrum: if prevalence is needed to be known first in order to determine PCR accuracy, yet PCR is needed to identify cases to figure out prevalence, how can either measure which relies upon the accuracy of the other be considered valid?
3. Antibodies are theoretical, non-specific, and unreliable.
One of the main arguments in favor of vaccination and a measurement used to indirectly claim the existence of “viruses” is the existence of antibodies. It is believed that results from antibody tests are specific to the “virus” the researchers are looking for and that these results are reproducible and have meaning. Nothing could be further from the truth. Antibodies are entirely theoretical. There are at least five different theories attempting to explain how they work. Like “viruses,” proteins assumed to be antibodies have never been properly purified/isolated from a human. Also like “viruses,” the function of these invisible particles has never been observed. Researchers claim various chemical reactions signify the presence of so-called antibodies and then infer meaning from the results.
Non-specificity and Variability
There are numerous problems relating to the lack of purification/isolation of antibodies. For starters, antibodies are not specific. These particles are only supposed to react to a certain “virus” yet they often cross-react with various other unintended targets. While a certain antibody is meant to target protein X, these theoretical particles may instead target protein Y, ignoring X altogether. Related to this is the problem of batch-to-batch variability. Different batches of antibodies which are supposedly the same will produce differing outcomes from the previous batch. Together, this means that the results are unreliable and are certainly non-specific.
Because of the above issues with non-specificity and variability, antibody results are often non-reproducible and irreplicable. This has led to an avalanche of untrustworthy research that is referenced and used in future research by different teams. A crisis in the sciences has resulted as many studies are being built upon false and erroneous results. However, even though this problem has been known for the last decade plus, it has only grown worse with time. There continues to be a lack of standardization and quality control in antibody research while the manufacturers continue to be secretive in the creation of these substances and are not held accountable for defective products.
No Correlation of Protection
Even if we were to disregard the lack of purification/isolation of antibodies, the issues regarding specificity and variability, and the non-reproducible/irreplicable results, it has been admitted over and over again that there is no known correlation of protection for “SARS-COV-2.” This means that the measurement of antibodies is entirely meaningless as there is no known level for which antibodies would equal protection from disease. Just eliciting antibodies through vaccination is not a measurement of success as there is no meaning behind any of the numbers. Even more problematic is that while some may have a rise in antibodies after vaccination, others may not. The results vary from person to person and over different periods of time.
All of this is to say that, like the PCR test results, antibody measurements are inaccurate, untrustworthy, and meaningless. Due to a lack of purification/isolation of both the antibodies and the “virus,” there is no gold standard to calibrate and validate the tests against. It is admitted that these tests are even more unreliable than the PCR test, although the argument should be made that they are all equally unreliable.
The true accuracy of tests for COVID-19 is uncertain
“Unfortunately, it’s not clear exactly how accurate any of these tests are. There are several reasons for this:
- We don’t have precise measures of accuracy for these tests — just some commonly quoted figures for false negatives or false positives, such as those reported above. False negative tests provide false reassurance, and could lead to delayed treatment and relaxed restrictions despite being contagious. False positives, which are much less likely, can cause unwarranted anxiety and require people to quarantine unnecessarily.
- How carefully a specimen is collected and stored may affect accuracy.
- Because these tests are available by EUA, the usual rigorous testing and vetting has not yet happened, and accuracy results have not been widely published.
- A large and growing number of laboratories and companies offer these tests, so accuracy may vary.
- All of these tests are new because the virus is new. Without a long track record, assessments of accuracy can only be approximate.
- We don’t have a definitive “gold standard” test with which to compare them.”
The above section is from a Harvard article from January 2021 yet it still applies today. The “Covid-19” tests are entirely inaccurate until proven otherwise.
4. Vaccinations for a non-existent “virus” with unproven and rushed experimental mRNA injections is unnecessary, dangerous, and deadly.
When you take into account the lack of purification/isolation of “SARS-COV-2” as well as antibodies, the lack of the gold standard to calibrate and validate PCR and antibody tests, and the ensuing inaccuracy and meaninglessness of the tests used to label one positive, it should be a no-brainer to avoid the rushed, experimental mRNA injections based upon fraudulent information/methods. The fact that these mRNA injections have been shown to have negative effects in trials should also make anyone reconsider taking the toxic plunge. Everything relating to the use of mRNA vaccine relies on theories of how lab-created synthetic particles will work upon injection into the body. None of what is claimed, such as the mRNA creating a spike protein for the antibodies to attack, is observable. The vaccine requires that the theoretical “SARS-COV-2” exists so that the computer-generated sequence used to create the synthetic mRNA vaccine has relevance in order to promote the theoretical creation of the spike protein within the body which needs to be attacked by the theoretical antibodies. Again, none of this is observable.
Safe and Effective?
Previous experiments with nucleoside analogues have shown toxic effects on animals and humans involved in different trials such as myopathy (caused by mitochondrial toxicity), lactic acidosis, pancreatitis, lipodystrophy, liver steatosis, nerve damage, and death. mRNA vaccines have been shown to cause liver toxicity and adverse inflammatory responses as well. The ingredients used in the creation of these vaccines are known toxins with proven severe reactions. Warning labels have already been added for anaphylaxis, blood clots, and myocarditis. Guillain-barre syndrome has become associated with the use of these experimental injections. The long-term consequences of their use is unknown as is the data used to decide safety and efficacy. In fact, the FDA seeks to delay for 75+ years full production of Pfizer’s pre-licensure safety data while the CDC continues to hide the deidentified post-licensure safety data for the “Covid-19” vaccines in the CDC’s v-safe system as detailed in this article:
If these vaccines are safe and effective, why the secrecy? Why are vaccine makers immune from liability? Vaccination has a long history of being dangerous and ineffective. It should be obvious that they should be avoided at all costs.
Ring in the New Year Fear Free
The “SARS-COV-2” hoax should have ended before it ever began if the scientific community had been honest about the lack of a purified/isolated “virus.” Without this evidence, there can be no genome. Without the genome, there can be no PCR test. Without the PCR test, there can be no cases. Without the cases, there can be no lockdowns, quarantines, social distancing, masks, and restrictions. Without these measures, there will be no reminder of fear and no need for vaccines. Without this evidence, there can be no mandates and thus no control.
There is no reason to give up any of our freedoms for a false sense of security. There was never any threat from any “virus.” The only threat is a manufactured one created around the inaccurate results of what is the equivalent of a DNA Xerox machine never intended as an instrument of diagnosis. This has always been a Testing Pandemic and never a “viral” one. It’s time to stop believing the proganda fed to us by proven criminal organizations and to stand united together to say “We will not be fooled any longer.” Let’s make a New Year’s Resolution to finally pull back the curtain on this charade and hold the monsters behind it accountable so that we can finally heal together and move forward. Divided we fall but together we will prevail.