Excellent 😊 It’s always fear of the unknown (or what ‘the experts’ tell you to fear) that puts people into a position in which they are easily manipulated (behavioural psychology 101). ‘You have the breast cancer gene. Let’s hack your breasts off for your safety.’ ‘There’s a deadly pathogen flying around the world. Let’s lock you in your house and stick a toxic soup in your arm for your safety.’ ‘The Ruskies have the bomb ….’ Actually, could you do that one next, while you’re in the business of exploding the list of things to fear? 😉
Hi Jamie! I would say you can not logically start this experiment because there are no genome sequenced viruses at ATCC even if they are label as "purified".
Here I show a detailed investigative trail for ATCC rhinovirus:
I agree with the premise that is essentially the same issue addressed in my first post on Control Studies (There is no Independent variable in the first instance).
However this doesn't stop Virologists CLAIMING that repetition of fabricated In Silico sequences =Virus. The point to this project is to make sure that 2020 never happens again. 2020 was fully and totally enabled and hinged upon PCR testing.
This Benchmark test will enable us to falsify the genetics part even if there is NO Independent variable in the first place.
Tom Cowan explained what we were doing very well.. in that what the Control Experiments are doing actually has nothing to do with Viruses. They are irrelevant. What we are doing is falsifying the methodology and equipment that is claimed to provide evidence of Viruses.
Right! I completely agree with you on all your premises. I would add a small cherry on top of the PCR tart in that it is the "polygamous marriage of PCR with Fan Wu and the 2 other concubines" that contributed to the alphabet fictions called a genome and registered in GenBank that allow PCR to function as the "hinge". The $ and the deaths are the children of this marriage made in hell.
👉In Japan there is a phrase: "The children are what keeps the marriage together".
Speaking of benchmarks, what benchmark is used for claimed comparisons to the human genome? For instance, a list of more recent human genome reference sequence builds:
GRCh37 (February 2009)
GRCh38 (December 2013)
T2T-CHM13 (January 2022)
In Feb. 2020, Fan Wu, et. al. made their unscientific proclaimation of a novel SARS-CoV-2 virus sequence, claiming that all human sequences were excluded from their in silico alignment analysis- but now we have a revised reference sequence build in Jan. 2022? But surely, only minor changes were made in the T2T-CHM13 reference sequence build. A quick search results in the following:
"T2T-CHM13: The assembly corrects errors in prior references and introduces nearly 200 million base pairs of sequence containing 1956 gene predictions, 99 of which are predicted to be protein-coding."
Introduces 200 million bp of new sequence? The scientific flaws pointed out in in Jamie's Benchmark post are true even if the human genome sequence were known. But, the problems are that much worse when we realize that such a benchmark is impossible as the claimed "reference sequence" contains incorrect sequences and is incomplete. Madness!
The successful push of the virus hypothesis largely relies on the sheer number of scientific fallacies and errors (all nicely masked in technical jargon to fool the lay public,) which complicates their refutation.
It gets even more absurd when they sequence Cultures because they more often than not use completely different animal cells (Dog, Monkey,hamster etc) and all cultures certainly *should* contain "Cow Genetics" from the FBS.
I am not aware of them "filtering out" any of these mammalian genetics prior to sequencing...
More over it is very well known that accuracy rates steeply dip (not that they weren't rock bottom already) with mixed samples.
Yes, I would say it is impossible to get meaningful results from a mixed sample, especially when the organisms in the mixture are unidentified.
When we ran RNAseq experiments using a single, purified organism sample, to obtain statistically significant results, we compared 12 identical samples (6 test samples, and 6 control samples.) The fraudulent Fan Wu "experiment" not only used an indeterminant mixed organism sample, but had a sample size of 1 and used 0 controls.
Yet the resulting claimed "virus sequence" was used by the criminal enterprise to create the fake PCR test, shut down the world, design the Operation Warp Speed "vaccine," and inject billions with an untested, poisonous brew.
It boggles the mind that supposedly smart people in the "health freedom community" still push the delusional concept that SARS-CoV-2 ever existed. Call them knaves or call them fools- don't know which they are, but those are the only two options.
It seems that our genes are the new `invisible enemy' - the new, New Age superstition, all based on the hocus-pocus of charlatans. Looks like they are not only fooling the public but fooling themselves as well. Reminds of academia, where you can cite another published paper (without verifying the results or methodology) and know that if it is published then it definitely must be true! ; )
Hi Dawn, thank you for your idea. I know of and have read a fair amount of Miles' work but do not know him. Do you know him enough to send it on my behalf? Or was it just a suggestion? Cheers Jamie
> Benchmarking comes from the idea of construction, literally scoring a mark in a bench to set a level, or in its original design setting in stone.
REPLY - John (my brother) this is especially useful for movement studies in the Geysers. The US Geodetic survey ran precise levels along all roads through the Geysers and to some of the Geyser steam generating plants.
The G.O. Land Dept was tasked with determining movement of plants over time. If I remember correctly Unit 13 was of particular interest.
Problem is the vertical and horizontal control was also moving. The US Geodetic survey said there was nothing stable in the Geysers. They noted the most stable places would be along the ridge lines.
Though we did all we could to control the reference points that were used to determine movement of Unit 13, there was always doubt. There was enough noise in the measurements to confound any detected movement of Unit 13.
Short of a very large movement of Unit 13 (say several inches) that could almost be seen with the naked eye, there was no way to be sure it was moving as all the Geysers' is moving.
It's kind of a game with colors. It is likely that the kit manufacturers adjusted the colors to get the desired result.
Interestingly, one scientist said that when commercial primers give a negative PCR for sars-cov-2, then he makes homemade primers and gets the desired result. 😄
Excellent 😊 It’s always fear of the unknown (or what ‘the experts’ tell you to fear) that puts people into a position in which they are easily manipulated (behavioural psychology 101). ‘You have the breast cancer gene. Let’s hack your breasts off for your safety.’ ‘There’s a deadly pathogen flying around the world. Let’s lock you in your house and stick a toxic soup in your arm for your safety.’ ‘The Ruskies have the bomb ….’ Actually, could you do that one next, while you’re in the business of exploding the list of things to fear? 😉
Nice work 👍
Hi Jamie! I would say you can not logically start this experiment because there are no genome sequenced viruses at ATCC even if they are label as "purified".
Here I show a detailed investigative trail for ATCC rhinovirus:
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/cold-virus-on-ice
The simple conclusion was:
-The original sample VR-1645 was not clearly purified and characterized. No EM confirmation of purity, no pathogenicity confirmed, and no control.
-ATTC VR-1645PQ was said to be a purification of its non-purified forerunner.
-The genome was patched together by computer.
-no cold virus was proven to be found.
Hi PM,
I agree with the premise that is essentially the same issue addressed in my first post on Control Studies (There is no Independent variable in the first instance).
However this doesn't stop Virologists CLAIMING that repetition of fabricated In Silico sequences =Virus. The point to this project is to make sure that 2020 never happens again. 2020 was fully and totally enabled and hinged upon PCR testing.
This Benchmark test will enable us to falsify the genetics part even if there is NO Independent variable in the first place.
Tom Cowan explained what we were doing very well.. in that what the Control Experiments are doing actually has nothing to do with Viruses. They are irrelevant. What we are doing is falsifying the methodology and equipment that is claimed to provide evidence of Viruses.
Right! I completely agree with you on all your premises. I would add a small cherry on top of the PCR tart in that it is the "polygamous marriage of PCR with Fan Wu and the 2 other concubines" that contributed to the alphabet fictions called a genome and registered in GenBank that allow PCR to function as the "hinge". The $ and the deaths are the children of this marriage made in hell.
👉In Japan there is a phrase: "The children are what keeps the marriage together".
Speaking of benchmarks, what benchmark is used for claimed comparisons to the human genome? For instance, a list of more recent human genome reference sequence builds:
GRCh37 (February 2009)
GRCh38 (December 2013)
T2T-CHM13 (January 2022)
In Feb. 2020, Fan Wu, et. al. made their unscientific proclaimation of a novel SARS-CoV-2 virus sequence, claiming that all human sequences were excluded from their in silico alignment analysis- but now we have a revised reference sequence build in Jan. 2022? But surely, only minor changes were made in the T2T-CHM13 reference sequence build. A quick search results in the following:
"T2T-CHM13: The assembly corrects errors in prior references and introduces nearly 200 million base pairs of sequence containing 1956 gene predictions, 99 of which are predicted to be protein-coding."
Introduces 200 million bp of new sequence? The scientific flaws pointed out in in Jamie's Benchmark post are true even if the human genome sequence were known. But, the problems are that much worse when we realize that such a benchmark is impossible as the claimed "reference sequence" contains incorrect sequences and is incomplete. Madness!
The successful push of the virus hypothesis largely relies on the sheer number of scientific fallacies and errors (all nicely masked in technical jargon to fool the lay public,) which complicates their refutation.
Very good point David,
It gets even more absurd when they sequence Cultures because they more often than not use completely different animal cells (Dog, Monkey,hamster etc) and all cultures certainly *should* contain "Cow Genetics" from the FBS.
I am not aware of them "filtering out" any of these mammalian genetics prior to sequencing...
More over it is very well known that accuracy rates steeply dip (not that they weren't rock bottom already) with mixed samples.
A veritable shitshow!
Yes, I would say it is impossible to get meaningful results from a mixed sample, especially when the organisms in the mixture are unidentified.
When we ran RNAseq experiments using a single, purified organism sample, to obtain statistically significant results, we compared 12 identical samples (6 test samples, and 6 control samples.) The fraudulent Fan Wu "experiment" not only used an indeterminant mixed organism sample, but had a sample size of 1 and used 0 controls.
Yet the resulting claimed "virus sequence" was used by the criminal enterprise to create the fake PCR test, shut down the world, design the Operation Warp Speed "vaccine," and inject billions with an untested, poisonous brew.
It boggles the mind that supposedly smart people in the "health freedom community" still push the delusional concept that SARS-CoV-2 ever existed. Call them knaves or call them fools- don't know which they are, but those are the only two options.
Excellent stuff. Basically, which clauses are collected, observed, given to us, DATA (green stuff)
And which objects and clauses are just stories.
Separate the pink from the green
It seems that our genes are the new `invisible enemy' - the new, New Age superstition, all based on the hocus-pocus of charlatans. Looks like they are not only fooling the public but fooling themselves as well. Reminds of academia, where you can cite another published paper (without verifying the results or methodology) and know that if it is published then it definitely must be true! ; )
I think Mathis might post this article on his site, which gets a ton of traffic, if you sent it to him:
milesmathis@protonmail.com
Hi Dawn, thank you for your idea. I know of and have read a fair amount of Miles' work but do not know him. Do you know him enough to send it on my behalf? Or was it just a suggestion? Cheers Jamie
I don’t know him. The request would probably be better received from the author IMHO.
OK…. Got it …. Thanks.
Good day Jamie and commentariat,
> Benchmarking comes from the idea of construction, literally scoring a mark in a bench to set a level, or in its original design setting in stone.
REPLY - John (my brother) this is especially useful for movement studies in the Geysers. The US Geodetic survey ran precise levels along all roads through the Geysers and to some of the Geyser steam generating plants.
The G.O. Land Dept was tasked with determining movement of plants over time. If I remember correctly Unit 13 was of particular interest.
Problem is the vertical and horizontal control was also moving. The US Geodetic survey said there was nothing stable in the Geysers. They noted the most stable places would be along the ridge lines.
Though we did all we could to control the reference points that were used to determine movement of Unit 13, there was always doubt. There was enough noise in the measurements to confound any detected movement of Unit 13.
Short of a very large movement of Unit 13 (say several inches) that could almost be seen with the naked eye, there was no way to be sure it was moving as all the Geysers' is moving.
How many people are wrongly convicted based on DNA evidence alone? Terrifying that it all may once again be a house of cards.
Who knows... but yes, truely terrifying seeing how potentially corrupt the legal system could be.
It's kind of a game with colors. It is likely that the kit manufacturers adjusted the colors to get the desired result.
Interestingly, one scientist said that when commercial primers give a negative PCR for sars-cov-2, then he makes homemade primers and gets the desired result. 😄
Yes I can believe that.. there is so much human input in these techniques.