[–] Heebro 2 points 0 points 2 points (+2|-2) ago (edited ago)
If you are willing to research the intricacies of sarbecovirus strains, then you can begin to glean the understanding that the Wu Flu is a total sham from the ground up. It is as dangerous as the common cold, which are caused by coronavirus strains 20% of the time.
It's already obvious the Corona Narrative is a hoax. Almost no one is dying from it, and the dead they are counting all had other life threatening issues. The zombie apocalypse level response was not warranted for a common cold level threat. If you were to take into account the percentage of false positives, along with the comorbidity issues and the lack of willingness to share total number of people tested, you would see that the threat level is statistically insignificant.
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2020/march/16/the-coronavirus-hoax/
The Pandemic Bonds that included Coronavirus expired March 23rd, giving everyone a clue that this was all planned, especially when you take into account Fauci and Birx citing Bill Gates' model. On April 9, the neutral third party decided by the WHO and the World Bank officially declared that the coronvirus outbreak WAS NOT A PANDEMIC. It's time to go back to work, but the Deep State needs a market crash to oust Trump.
https://www.ft.com/content/b10e3758-07c0-4bc8-9569-018f1d5022a8
https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-warns-the-next-pandemic-disease-is-coming-2018-4
COVID-19 (novel coronavirus disease-2019) is the disease, SARS-CoV-2 is the virus.
https://www.hopkinsguides.com/hopkins/view/Johns_Hopkins_ABX_Guide/540747/all/Coronavirus_COVID_19__SARS_CoV_2_ http://archive.vn/2QJkH
"Naming the coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) and the virus that causes it". World Health Organization. Archived from the original on 28 February 2020. Retrieved 24 February 2020. From a risk communications perspective, using the name SARS can have unintended consequences in terms of creating unnecessary fear for some populations.... For that reason and others, WHO has begun referring to the virus as "the virus responsible for COVID-19" or "the COVID-19 virus" when communicating with the public. Neither of these designations are [sic] intended as replacements for the official name of the virus as agreed by the ICTV.
Human coronaviruses (HCoVs) were first described in the 1960s for patients with the common cold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coronavirus_virion.jpg
313 SARSr-CoV genomes have been sequenced (274 from human, 18 civets and 47 bats).
SARSr-CoV genomes of bats in Yunnan possess highest nt identity to those from civets.
The origin of human SARS-CoV was probably a result of multiple recombination events.
Recombination from a number of SARSr-CoV ancestors in different horseshoe bat species.
Compared with SARS-CoV collected from human during the 2003 epidemic, functional changes have been observed in the S protein of civet SARSr-CoV and the SARS-CoV isolated from the 2004 minor outbreak.
The genetics are showing that the WuFlu is a strain of SARS COV, from the outbreak in 2003. They call it SARS COV 2, but the genetic difference is miniscule. The common understanding of "molecular clock" has gone wrong in the sense that selective pressures will continue to select for changes that bring the strain back to equilibrium with its hosts. This means any similar virus strain is going to quickly become less dangerous and more easily spread. So, while you can use the molecular clock to track short term mutations, the truth is that, the more exotic the mutations get, the more that mutations will get selected back towards their original form. For this reason, a lot of basic assumptions about the coronavirus strains are wrong.
Strong purifying selection can maintain evidence of sequence homology long after saturation has occurred at synonymous sites; this phenomenon can lead to underestimation of the overall depth of a viral phylogeny. In the absence of strong purifying selection, nucleotide sequences would diverge more quickly, lose detectable homology, and become difficult to align and compare. Here, we asked if similar evolutionary patterns led to underestimation of the tMRCA of the coronavirus lineage. We employed evolutionary models that account for variation in the pressure of natural selection across sites in viral loci and lineages in their phylogenies. Our results indicate that coronaviruses are orders of magnitude older than suggested by previous molecular clock analyses.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3676139/
The testing is looking to react to three portions of the genome,two portions from the OFRP1b, and one from the N Gene. Two sequence regions (ORF1b and N) that are highly conserved amongst sarbecoviruses were selected for primer and probe designs. The primer and probe sequences for the ORF1b gene assay are: 5’-TGGGGYTTTACRGGTAACCT-3’ (Forward; Y = C/T, R = A/G), 5’-AACRCGCTTAACAAAGCACTC-3’ (Reverse; R = A/G) and 5′-TAGTTGTGATGCWATCATGACTAG-3′ (Probe in 5’-FAM/ZEN/3’-IBFQ format; W = A/T), whereas the primer and probe sequences for the N gene assay are: 5′-TAATCAGACAAGGAACTGATTA-3′ (Forward), 5′-CGAAGGTGTGACTTCCATG-3′ (Reverse) and 5′-GCAAATTGTGCAATTTGCGG-3′ (Probe in 5’-FAM/ZEN/3’-IBFQ format).
Lineage B (subgenus Sarbecovirus) includes SARSr-CoV (which includes all its strains such as SARS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2, and Bat SL-CoV-WIV1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacoronavirus
CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel:
“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans:
Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.
Protocol use limitations: Optional clinical specimens for testing has not yet been validated.
LabCorp COVID-19RT-PCR test EUA Summary: ACCELERATED EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) SUMMARYCOVID-19 RT-PCR TEST (LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA)
The Agent Detected may not be the cause of the disease.
SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit Instructions:
Can read false positive in cases of “non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”
https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
https://www.creative-diagnostics.com/sars-cov-2-coronavirus-multiplex-rt-qpcr-kit-277854-457.htm
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0966842X16000718-gr3.jpg
What’s more, there are still uncertainties around the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding, so the timing of the test may affect the result. It is also unclear still which types of clinical specimen are optimal. One recent study from Wuhan, which evaluated the performance of a fluorescence-based RT-PCR kit distributed by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, suggests that nasopharyngeal swabs offer greater consistency than sputum samples.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41587-020-00002-2
Another problem is that test results are wrong much more frequently than you might expect. While tests may truthfully say they are more than 90% accurate, in practical use they can often perform far below that level.
The test he's using, produced by Guangzhou Wondfo Biotech in China, boasts a specificity of 99%, which means it only falsely says a blood sample contains antibodies against the coronavirus 1% of the time. But despite that impressive statistic, a test like that is not 99% correct, and in fact in some circumstances could be much worse.
The most probable reason for false positive result is contamination of reagents, especially Taq DNA polymerase, with DNA which may be derived from a bacterial source. In bacterial cultures, nucleic acids (including ribosomal DNA sequences) are co-purified during enzyme production. Therefore, an enzyme may contain a source of contaminating DNA as a result of its manufacture and incomplete purification.
https://splice-bio.com/dna-contamination-of-pcr-reagents-a-great-risk-for-false-positive-signals/
When a screening test is positive, additional testing is needed to determine if the positive result was accurate or whether the screening test result was falsely positive. No one is doing a second round of testing, at this stage. As far as I can tell, they've only officially confirmed the complete sequencing of 300 or so cases, which are proving that the route of travel is very different than the model, indicating that the presence of the WuFlu may have been widespread for a long time with no pandemic like death toll.
The clear conclusion in all this is that the media mafia still cannot be trusted, they are still lying to you and it is a fool's errand to trust journalists when it comes to science and math. It's time for American to get back to work and preferably hang, as traitors, those in the media pushing fake narratives in order to steal your liberty.
[–] JohnGaltApproves [S] 2 points -1 points 1 point (+1|-2) ago
That’s a lot to get through, but if I’m gathering the gist of it, I wholeheartedly agree. This whole business has been a farce from the outset, and all intentionally involved in its propagation deserve a short drop and a sudden stop, including Trump if it turns out he’s complicit. Those unintentionally involved deserve to be ridiculed and permanently denied the ability to influence.
[–] kingdomhearts123 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Name the intel source that convinced you that Trump's trip on the LOLITA EXPRESS was a harmless one.
[–] JohnGaltApproves [S] ago
You keep forgetting to switch sock puppet accounts, rabbi.
I never exonerated Trump. I admitted I wasn’t on the plane, and anything could have happened during the one flight.
I also offered a logical counterpoint to the claim that anybody who rode one time on Epstein’s plane, which flew thousands of times, and, as far as I’m informed didn’t register at airports as “The Lolita Express,” wasn’t necessarily fucking kids, just like anybody who went for a ride in Ted Bundy’s Volkswagen Bug wasn’t necessarily helping him murder college girls. However, if somebody is logged as frequently hopping in the car and taking rides into the woods where the bodies are buried, it seems a little bit more likely.
I then added, that Trump was willing to also drop a dime on Epstein to the cops, something few if any others did.
Therefore, the burden falls back on you Bubbie, so put up or shut the fuck up.
[–] kingdomhearts123 ago
And you learned all those assertions where exactly?
What’s your source?
I’m not hiding my Alts dumbass. I advertise them.
[–] kingdomhearts123 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
https://voat.co/v/Worldnews/3767257/23409941
all the intel is bad, but you know what the billionaire equivalent of a taxi ride is right? You know things because you're literate yes?
[–] kingdomhearts123 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
so if all intel is tainted why were you so sure yesterday that Trump didn't fuck any babies on the Epstein Express?
because you're literate? I think that was your philosophy yesterday yea?
[–] kingdomhearts123 2 points -2 points 0 points (+0|-2) ago
GOSH I'M SO DEMORALIZED
I DON'T KNOW WHO TO TRUST
[–] superspathi 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
What if your post is jew-controlled?