Saturday , February 27 2021
Home / Jon Rappoport /Covid Vaccine Secret, a Stunner

Covid Vaccine Secret, a Stunner

Summary:
From the off-guardian, January 3, 2021, “What Vaccine Trials?” by Iain Davis: “…the WHO protocols Pfizer used to produce the mRNA [for the vaccine] do not appear to identify any nucleotide sequences that are unique to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. When investigator Fran Leader questioned Pfizer they confirmed: ‘The DNA template does not come directly from an isolated virus from an infected person’.” And there we are, right back where I started, some time ago. If you don’t have the isolated virus, how can you claim you’ve sequenced it? And if you’ve sequenced it by ASSUMPTION and GUESS, how can you claim the sequence—or the virus—is real? Answer: You SAY the sequence and the virus are real, but you have zero proof. Because you’re a

Topics:
Jon Rappoport considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:

Tyler Durden writes Huawei Plans New Electric Car As US Sanctions Crush Cellphone Business

Tyler Durden writes Biden Gun Control Plan Would “Criminalize” Up To 105 Million People: Gun-Rights Group

Tyler Durden writes Artificial Intelligence Takes Over Drive-Thru Orders At This Fast-Food Restaurant

Tyler Durden writes The Coming Space-Race

From the off-guardian, January 3, 2021, “What Vaccine Trials?” by Iain Davis:

“…the WHO protocols Pfizer used to produce the mRNA [for the vaccine] do not appear to identify any nucleotide sequences that are unique to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. When investigator Fran Leader questioned Pfizer they confirmed: ‘The DNA template does not come directly from an isolated virus from an infected person’.”

And there we are, right back where I started, some time ago. If you don’t have the isolated virus, how can you claim you’ve sequenced it?

And if you’ve sequenced it by ASSUMPTION and GUESS, how can you claim the sequence—or the virus—is real?

Answer: You SAY the sequence and the virus are real, but you have zero proof. Because you’re a “scientific authority,” people automatically believe what you SAY.

A man visits a vast auto junkyard looking for parts. Over the office door, he sees a sign: “1972 Ferrari 365 GTB/4 Daytona Spider. Inquire within.”

The owner of the junkyard tells him, “We’re offering shares in the Ferrari. Three thousand a share. When we eventually sell it, you’ll make at least double your investment.”

The man says, “Where is the car? I’d like to see it.”

“Well,” the junkyard owner says, “look around you. We’ve got several square miles of cars and parts. The Ferrari is out there somewhere. We recently ran a test on exhaust fumes with a special instrument. It concluded that the ’72 Ferrari had recently been driven through the yard here…”

This is the sort of thing that happens in virology.

Of course, no mainstream virologist would admit it. He would talk about analogues and gene banks and PCR and representative samples and in silico (computer modeling).

But the stark reality is clear.

Assumption and guess and slippery inference do not carry the day.

You either have the isolated virus or you don’t. If you don’t, anything you say about “it” is useless. You can’t validly claim it exists.

As I’ve written and said dozens of times now, the virological meaning of the word “isolate” is quite different from the ordinary meaning.

In the technical world of the con and the hustle, “isolated virus” means: “We have the virus in a soup in a dish in the lab. The soup contains human and monkey cells, toxic drugs and chemicals, and other genetic material. Some of the cells are dying. This means the virus is killing them.”

That assertion is false. The drugs and chemicals can be killing the cells. And the cells are being starved of vital nutrients. That alone could explain the cell-death.

Furthermore, a supposed virus mixed in a soup in a dish in a lab is definitely not “isolated.”

Bottom line: there is no persuasive evidence that a virus is in the soup.

What’s in the COVID vaccine? Among other material, a supposed fragment from a supposed virus that hasn’t been proven to exist.

Consider the PCR test. Several levels of valid criticism have been aimed at the test.

First, different labs will come up with different contradictory test results. This is true.

Drilling down a little deeper, the test, when it amplifies the tissue sample taken from a patient, is useless and dangerous when more than 34 cycles or steps of amplification are deployed. Why? Because then, huge numbers of false-positives occur.

Down yet another level, we discover that the PCR doesn’t detect a virus at all. It identifies a piece of RNA presumed to come from a virus.

And finally, the test identifies a piece of RNA from a virus that hasn’t been proven to exist.

This is the root of the poisonous tree.

Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *