Lancing Lancet’s covid19 hoax study

The corruption of science .
These Sars CoV2 studies are all unscientific from the get go  . This is a typical  lack of science in the study  which is wholly based on the reference-less and  fraudulent use of a PCR test that cannot be used to diagnose “covid19”.
Investigating and so pulling apart the  study on “Sars  CoV2 ” and you find there is no ” sars coV2″
This was a study on how the effects of the co morbid preexisting conditions and immune inflammation  are being (wrongly) attributed to ” sars cov2″( a molecule that in this study has notably not even been isolated or identified!)
First mistake in all these studies is they use a reference-less PCR test and  from a test that cannot even detect 1 whole transmissible “virus” they claim someone has “covid19” and “sars cov2 “.

“The framework of endotheliitis provides an explanation for the unique
predilection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
(SARS-CoV-2) in those individuals with preexisting diseases hypertension, diabetes, or
established cardiovascular disease, a group known to have pre-existing
endothelial dysfunction. “
How the effects of the co morbid preexisting conditions and  inflammation  are being wrongly attributed to ” sars cov2″ something they did not even isolate with EM in this study ( a molecule that in this study has notably not even been isolated or identified!)

“COVID-19-endotheliitis could also explain impaired
microcirculatory function across different organs and the frequently
observed prothrombotic state with in-situ clot formation. Endothelial
infection and injury by SARS-CoV-1 has been shown.

No. There is no such thing as “Covid19” endotheliitis and the study has not explained anything . How can an unknown (possibly dead) tissue sample from people with existing diseases / inflammation, diseases that cause impaired micro-circulatory function have the inflammation and impairments attributed to something that in this study that was never ever found or isolated.
2
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31185-5/fulltext#bib2&gt;
Our demonstration of viral particles using electron microscopy (EM) is
supported by several reports independently describing ultrastructural round
virus-like particles in the setting of a SARS-CoV-2 infection.“Particles are most likely exosomes from a lot of tissue breakdown with the listed ( pre morbid) diseases  and tissue death . Again the Sars CoV2  infection is wrongly declared by the PCR test so there is no actual setting of a Sars CoV2 infection .
<
“We demonstrated tubulo-reticular structures in the immediate vicinity of
the spherical particles that are strikingly identical to
SARS-CoV-1-associated membrane changes described by Goldsmith and
colleagues in 2004.” Particles  Identical to ” described” Sars CoV1 .. you don’t say.
7
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31185-5/fulltext#bib7&gt;
“In our EM thin-section images, the virus-like particles were relatively
large (mean diameter 180 nm [SD 10]). However, subsequent analysis of more
EM images has revealed a mean particle size of 67 nm (SD 15 nm, median 65
nm, 95% CI 41–102; n=33). Zhu and colleagues <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31185-5/fulltext#bib5&gt;
noted that SARS-CoV-2 virions ranged from “about 60 to 140 nm”. In another
recent study, 6
<https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31185-5/fulltext#bib6&gt;
virus-like particles in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were
70–110 nm in diameter. By comparison, SARS-CoV-1 viral particles analysed
with the same technique (ultrathin EM imaging) were 50–80 nm in diameter.”

Problems with measurements.
So these unidentified “virus- like particles” not “viruses” are all of different sizes.
How can that be… a set 30,000 rna genome does not fluctuate in size .A 50 nm and/ or  180 nm!They claim the ” virus” is 50nm but only sometimes as it can magically triple in size through a as yet unknown magic process. I know for a fact there is no actual measurable Sars Cov2 molecule as to start this hoax they(Zhu and cohorts) just computer generated the Sars CoV2 genome on 10th Jan 2020.

“our EM data of virus-like particles were obtained from a
post-mortem kidney allograft obtained during autopsy. Since most other
recent reports of patients with COVID-19 also describe postmortem findings,
it remains unclear to what extent tissue type (cell culture, fresh biopsy
material, or autopsy material), time to fixation, and postmortal autolysis
alter subcellular structures in preparation for EM.“

What a fine study this one is unclear about basic facts of the study sample material or tissue. WOW.
“This notwithstanding,these observed particles in patients with COVID-19″( Again they can’t be said to
have had covid19 as the PCR test they used to determine that cannot diagnose
disease) “should be best designated as *virus-like particles* because
definitive assignment of these structures as SARS-CoV-2 virions* requires
immuno-EM.“https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31185-5/fulltext#%20

*Ok so the final confession they don’t know what they are looking at!!!They are just  looking   at random  particles from an unknown tissue type in diseased (and possibly dead but they don’t know ) and they call them “Sars CoV2 virions”.

Which makes me think of this fitting letter, a quote from a retired medical professional protesting the corruption of science.

Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science

“ Re: Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science

Dear Editor

Congratulations on your excellent article drawing attention to how corruption and influence is ruining open discussion, which applies not only to the field of medicine but also climate and ecological sciences.

You ask how might science be safeguarded in these exceptional times? This is a very important question but with regard to the current Covid crisis, the runaway express train of criminally corrupt science has already left the station and reached its destination. The only sensible response therefore is to seek legal redress through the courts.

The German ‘Stiftung Corona Ausschuss’ (An extra-parliamentary committee of lawyers investigating the Corona Crisis) has been gathering evidence on the individuals and organisations responsible for the falsification of the the PCR test, which has been the main driver for government policy measures from the very beginning of this health emergency. The falsification of the test, starting with a protocol originally designed in Germany and then exported worldwide is considered by the inquiry to be a case of criminality which has resulted in damages to individual and businesses world wide.

Last week, two UK scientists Dr. Mike Yeadon (a former CSO at Pfizer company) and Dr. Clare Craig (an NHS pathologist) gave their evidence concerning the UK’s Testing programme to the Corona Committee.

The video of this can be seen on YouTube:

Livestream Sitzung 27 – Ein Rundumschlag. 13 November 2020. OVALmedia in English.

I hope that the UK will follow the German lead and pursue the criminals who have corrupted science for their own benefit. ” 16 November 2020 Helen J Steen Retired 61440 Oberursel, Germany