Nostr Web Client

I pretty much agree with the sequence of actions needed in order to prove an existence of a virus that you outlined in the quoted note, the only thing is that one has to actually perform proper experiments to prove that the particle they isolated is indeed pathogenic. However, in the paper where they presented Wuhan HU-1 "isolate" it clearly states that no isolation/purification was conducted, they just sequenced patients fluids which always contain thousands of different particles including cell waste. Moreover, they did not prove that whatever they had in their sample was pathogenic.

"To investigate the possible aetiological agents associated with this disease, we collected bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and performed deep meta-transcriptomic sequencing. Total RNA was extracted from 200 μl of BALF and a meta-transcriptomic library was constructed."

They just ran a computer program on RNA they got from a "soup" of particles and virtually generated a lot of sequences which they then compared to other sequences from their database (which most certainly were generated in the same extremely questionable manner).

nakad.ai🔱🦁🛡️🏯📿 2y ago

That theory is not compatible with how you can trace variants of the spike protein and its evolution and also trace it back begore the pandemic to the lab and decades of research by DoD, Wuhan Institute of Virology and EcoHealth Alliance, ralph Baric, Peter Daszak, the US patents. The PRRA insert and furin cleavage site, The HIV GP120 insert, not found in any naturally occurring coronavirus. But i get why the culprits behind the engineering of this virus would love for the theory that there exist no virus to spread.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

The Guy That Looked Into It 2y ago

The idea that some random particle from the unfiltered BALF "soup" is pathogenic *IS* the theory until properly proven otherwise. On the other hand, what I described is not theory, but a highly questionable process documented in the scientific paper claiming to have found "new coronavirus".

It is very compatible with other previous virology research in a sense that all of it is based on bad practices, where they extract RNA from random cell debris and then computer generate the sequences using special software. In that particular paper that you mentioned, they did not even try to prove pathogenicity, but in others they kill starved cells injecting them with BALF "soup" along with antibiotics and without performing any control experiments claim that it was the virus that killed them. Which is utterly unscientific.