COVID19 operation, pseudo $cience

How to create your own CG “novel virus” just like the WHO’s Sars CoV2= its not real.

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 .

So once you have taken the sample of animal DNA( fetal bovine), human DNA, other contaminants and  very delicate rna  you mix it up together and  just let computers make up a virtual virus.
And if you need to introduce it as real,  not as it really is simulated, you can go for  a fake computer generated morbidity chart, have it  launched by an  academic  like  Prof Neil Ferguson  and for his part in this criminal fraud later  he can  just  say it was an  “error of judgement”.
So you create  a fake virus , a predictive  fake simulation of deaths from this CG virus, then move on  to rolling out  wrong  tests for diagnosis  (RT  PCR ) which from a “positive” for a few rna you can also be positive for   a disease that doesn’t actually exist.  Test test test.https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/#comments

 

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.

“SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA was prepared by extracting total RNA from Vero cells (ATCC, CCL-81) infected with BetaCoV/Korea/KCDC03/2020 , at a multiplicity of infection (MOI) of 0.05, and cultured in DMEM (GIBCO) supplemented/contaminated  with 2% fetal bovine serum (GIBCO) and penicillin-streptomycin (GIBCO) at 37 C, 5% CO2. The rna is the fourth passage and not pla-que-isolated.
Transcriptomic architecture is unknown, there were  numerous discontinuous transcription events.
No proof   or evidence the patient( or the  bovine fetus  ) they used samples from to generate a ” virus”  had a disease called covid. No control.No gold standard.

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).

 Virological.orgRef Whole-Genome Sequence of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) obtained from a South African Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Patienthttps://virological.org/t/whole-genome-sequence-of-the-severe-acute-respiratory-syndrome-coronavirus-2-sars-cov-2-obtained-from-a-south-african-coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-patient/452

Reported  Lancet infectious disease findings support the theory there is no new virus and no new disease.
The fake disease one pattern  of symptoms  “COVID-19” first  presented as three distinct clinical patterns. Woops mistaken diagnoses based on a PCR test that was not suppose to be used for purpose of diagnosing disease .https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30237-1/fulltext

No new  disease as there were no new  set of symptoms .
Now the symptoms are  said to be the same as influenza = no new disease.
A paradox  that does not go with the virus baloney as the Lancet also said
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/is  a new virus and new  disease.
I am sorry if I bored you to tears but 1) They have not isolated a virus 2) this is ongoing fraud and total religious belief in a PCR test that was not suppose to be used to diagnose disease but is now fraudulently    being used to record cases of a disease that doesn’t even exist. This boggles the reasoning mind.
So relax the death from a fake virus is 0. Problem is to launch the virus hoax the UN’s WHO through the media  infected people with a mental virus, believing it made it real in minds.The mental virus   that uses fear as a receptor unlike a CG virus can be  harmful  as prolonged stress response is not good for the body/mind.
So question everything, investigate this for yourself in the spirit of curiosity and openness.
Further reading.
*Disclaimer you probably will not be able to get the lab, equip, agents ,  funding and permits to play around with dna. The purpose of the thread was to enlighten people that this Sars CoV2 isn’t real .That they are being mind manipulated .
Don’t forget the big question,  the inner search that is primary, finding out who you are beyond name and form.
Standard

6 thoughts on “How to create your own CG “novel virus” just like the WHO’s Sars CoV2= its not real.

  1. Pingback: Covid Recap | BDBinc

  2. Pingback: The Great Global Pandemic Swindle: WHO Deception - Rogue Male

  3. Pingback: SARS-CoV-2 is een geen virus maar een 'rekenmodel' made in Zuid-Afrika | Wakkeren

  4. Pingback: The rise of the Alt right MSM. | BDBinc

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s