How to make up your own ” novel virus” using computer programs just like the WHO did. Please note this “virus” (string of rna) is not actual or real its CG. And WHOs afraid of a CG virus? Unfortunately almost everyone when they believe its real, people are afraid of media propaganda and of the unknown .
The story of how the 100% fictional virus “Sars CoV2” was created by multiple software programs.
On December 26, as Chinese authorities worried Wuhan residents as they locked up whistleblowing doctors and journalists, one Wuhan man got tested. The result came back as the start of PCR a meaningless tests B.S or “positive” – a swab from the back of his throat or the inside of his nose had detected the presence of the “new novel coronavirus”. But I ask you How could it as the PCR test hadn’t been developed and the new ” novel” virus had not even been isolated. Molecular tests require knowledge about the potential agent(s) to determine the correct test(s).
First genome sequence of “SARS-CoV-2”, Wuhan-Hu-1, was allegedly released on 10 January 2020 (GMT) by a consortium led by Zhang6, Summary
A complete genome sequence coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was computer generated, not isolated, using a sample of DNA, RNA, animal DNA, and culture additives from a South African patient who had returned to South Africa after traveling to Italy. By a consortium led by Zhang6 in China ??! A new genome was sequenced by computer model, a sars CoV2 genome was never isolated .It was generated.
Genome Report Virological.org .
COVID-19, an alleged & unproven new disease allegedly caused by an rna strand “SARS-CoV-2” (Zhou et al., 2020)was said to be spreading rapidly in South Africa (South African Department of Health and the NHI, 2020), the rest of the African continent (Africa CDC, 2020) and the world (World Health Organization, 2020).Wait thats not the same story/lie they told us .
The Next-generation sequencing of pathogens can provide Big Pharma aid in selling and marketing of drugs and vaccines (Gwrinn et al., 2019).. As of 01 April 2020, more than 3000 SARS-Cov-2 genomes( why do they all have different genomes ? GISAID say now have over 40,000 genomes for the same one bogeyman)they were globally created through sequencing models and uploaded to GISAID (The GISAID Initiative, 2020). The Nextstrain (The Nextstrain Team, 2020) website provides real-time monitoring .
“Virus”(CG rna strand) was prepared on computer models.
Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs from a “symptomatic individual” were collected and combined, contaminated with human and animal DNA.
The multitude of different computer software you will need to use to manufacture it (of course like Sars CoV2 just on the computer screen) and the govt will not let you .Its not a real “virus” an organism/rna strand that you can isolate and see on EM or nanoscope. All pictures used are also computer generated simulations or just molecules of rna in the body.It is important to note that although RT-PCR has been the most widely used diagnostic tool for detection a positive test result does not indicate infection or existence of “virus”. It can only indicates presence of certain RNA the primers are looking for and does not conclusively prove that the rna molecules found even have a tail and cap or are alive and transmissible molecules of rna. Since they did not know what agent they were looking for initially you can see how they could not know what agent( primers) to use ie which nucleic acid to look for and amplify.
Total nucleic acid extraction was performed using the MagNA Pure 96 DNA and Viral NA Small Volume Kit (Roche, Switzerland) as described by the manufacturer. SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid was detected ??? But what how did they know which nucleic acid was from Sars CoV 2 it if they did not have the genome yet?using the TIB Molbiol LightMix Sarbeco E-gene real-time polymerase chain reaction assay, which yielded a cycle threshold (Ct) value of 23.21 (Corman et al., 2012) Yet Another subsequent nucleic acid extraction, obtained using the QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (QIAGEN, Germany), was assessed with the Qubit RNA Assay Kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and Agilent 4200 TapeStation (Agilent Technologies, Germany). Host Ribosomal RNA depletion was performed using NEBNext rRNA depletion kit (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA, USA), followed by cDNA synthesis. The paired-end libraries were prepared using the Nextera DNA Flex library preparation kit, followed by 2×300 bp sequencing done on Illumina MiSeq (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). All above mentioned methods and techniques were done at the National Institute for Communicable Diseases, a division of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa.
The resultant metagenomic sequence reads (9,406,678 paired-end reads) -they said it was only 30,000- so 9,406,678 were trimmed to 23,489(Q>20) using Trim Galore (Felix Krueger, 2019) and subsequently FastQ Screen (Steven Wingett, 2019) was used to “filter out” . The remaining rna reads (23,489 reads) were then mapped to the complete genome of SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan-Hu-1 isolate
….7,000 short there is another program to fix that. Get computer to add 7,000 randoms. Put a tail on it and call it a weasel.
(Genbank accession number: MN908947.3) (Excuse me but how can you map the alleged first genome onto another ?) using CLC Bio (Qiagen, 2020) to generate the consensus sequence.Consensus science rears its ugly head.
The consensus sequence was combined with a collection of 965 SARS-CoV-2 genomes downloaded from GISAID ( HOLD ON THERE WERE NO GENOMES IF THIS WAS allegedly THE FIRST) and a multiple sequence alignment (MSA) was generated using MAFFT v7.042 (Katoh and Standley, 2013) running within Nextstrain (Hadfield et al., 2018) at the South African National Bioinformatics Institute (SANBI), University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa. The sequence reads used to generate the consensus were mapped against the MN908947.3 sequence using BWA-MEM v0.7.17 (Li, 2013) running in Galaxy (Afgan et al., 2018).
Variants in the consensus sequence were identified by inspecting the MSA, validated by inspecting the read mapping and visualised in IGV (Robinson et al., 2011). From an initial list of 74 variants, 6 were confirmed by the evidence from mapped reads and retained. Depth of coverage was computed using samtools (Li et al., 2009), and averaged over the genome, yielding an average depth of 10 reads. Regions of high (greater than 5 reads) coverage were identified using covtobed (Birolo and Telatin, 2020) and the resultant BED file used to mask variant positions (using Python and the intervaltree module in a Jupyter notebook (Thomas et al., 2016)). This masking confirmed that the previously mentioned 6 good quality variants were located within the 76% of the genome that was covered by reads to a depth greater than 5. Variants were inserted into the MN908947.3 reference sequence using BioPython (Cock et al., 2009).
The fake disease one pattern of symptoms “COVID-19” first presented as three distinct clinical patterns. Woops mistaken diagnostics.
It was reported in the earlier cases the “viral” RNA kinetics of two patients who developed late respiratory deterioration despite the disappearance of nasopharyngeal “viral” RNA. Tested negative, no ” virus” found in and deterioration and death without it.But they still insisted there was a new virus and new disease.
