The Covid scheme was invented and the infrastructure was installed long before the "virus" was discovered. Once they manufactured the phony cases from the phony disease they had to invent phony "covid deaths" and they did so with ease:
April 8, 2020 Stephanie Buhle, a spokeswoman for the New York City’s Health Department, confirms change in in how Covid deaths will be recorded, “The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) and the NYC Health Department are working together to include into their reports deaths that may be linked to COVID but not lab confirmed that occur at home.” Death Counts Soar In NYC.
“The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) and the NYC Health Department are working together to include into their reports deaths that may be linked to COVID but not lab confirmed that occur at home.”
April 14 2020 report by Bloomberg News, ‘NYC Adds 3,800 Probable Virus Victims to Death Toll’ stating that “New York City added thousands of people to its coronavirus death toll to account for victims who died in recent weeks without a confirmed diagnosis.” The data according to Mayor Bill De Blasio’s administration titled ‘Confirmed and Probable COVID-19 Deaths Weekly Report’ defines probable as “A death is classified as probable if the decedent was a New York City resident (NYC resident or residency pending) who had no known positive laboratory test for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) but the death certificate lists as a cause of death “COVID-19” or an equivalent”.
The press secretary to Mayor Bill de Blasio, Freddi Goldstein said: “that the data include at-home deaths of people suspected of having Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That judgment is based on reported symptoms including cough, fever and shortness of breath.”
April 19 2020 Director of Illinois Department of Health, Dr. Ngozi Ezike, transcribed from Illinois Governor's health briefing on April 19th :
"I just want to be clear in terms of the definition of people dying of COVID. The case definition is very simplistic. It means at the time of death it was a COVID positive diagnosis. So that means if you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death. It means technically even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it's still listed as a COVID death. So, everyone who's listed as a COVID death doesn't mean that that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of the death."
April 20, 2020 — World Health Organization issues a guidance memo that allows nearly any deaths to be categorized as "COVID-19." This is similar to the CDC guidance that came out March 24, 2020.
If someone assumes "covid" may have contributed to the death, it is counted as the cause of death. Nowhere is there the requirement for a "positive" test result, or specific symptoms.
Quote: "COVID-19 should be recorded on the medical certificate of cause of death for ALL decedents where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death.”
April 21 2020 UK updates Death Certificate guidelines for COVID-19- the British Medical Association (BMA) changed their guidance to doctors in England and Wales, “on verification and certification of death and cremation for a temporary period during which emergency measures are in place to tackle the COVID-19 outbreak.” As a result of the Coronavirus Act 2020, this also indemnified doctors.
Doctors no longer had to be that sure a patient died from COVID-19, “to write COVID-19 on a death certificate”, which was “highly irregular“. Now UK doctors can “legally” write COVID-19 on the Medical Certificates of Cause of Death (MCCD) where it is assumed to be from COVID-19.
The guidance states: “In those cases where the doctor is confident on medical grounds that a particular cause of death is likely then that should be entered on the MCCD (Medical Certificates of Cause of Death). Covid-19 is an acceptable direct or underlying cause of death for the purposes of completing the MCCD, even without the results of a positive test, and it is important that likely Covid-19 deaths are reported as such via the registrar.”
"Social media users have been sharing screenshots purporting that the World Health Organization (WHO) released guidance to laboratories and incorrectly saying this was to reduce the positive test result count in PCR (polymerase chain reaction) COVID-19 tests. The social media users claim the WHO’s guidance amounted to an admission that the current PCR tests were inflating COVID-19 infection number. This claim is false. The WHO’s guidance was meant to remind labs to conduct the tests with the instructions provided in order to ensure accuracy in the results."
Gosh, that's a long article, and a lot to take in. But it makes sense.
Why don't we just admit that we don't know what viruses are out there, we cannot control them, they are mostly fairly harmless, and just get on with our lives, I wonder?
Or maybe viruses are actually a symptom of our own paranoia? A mental illness?
The 'origination' of Coronavirus is somewhat academic! The facts are Fauci took over the dubious DoD experimentation of diseases and their transmissibility in order to create diseases that would, in turn, require expensive 'cures' to be created by his Paymasters' within Big Pharma. Covid was all about profit and depopulation!
RFK will probably uncover the biggest lethal corruption cover-up in world history! Serves them right!
What we've learned about the dishonest medical and pharmaceutical fraternity since 2019 causes us to assume everything they told us was lies and had some profitable reason behind it.
Since the Scamdemic lies and coercion we now assume all medics and pharmaceutical companies are CORRUPT to the core. Sad that they've lead us to these unfortunate beliefs, but they brought it on themselves by letting the cat out of the bag with deadly but profitable injections and by trying to hide the dangers of their 'advanced' methods of 'curing' our ills!
Now, we suspect everything, we reject even the previous medicines and injections as assumed to be harmful. We now assume the OPPOSITE of every piece of medical advice they offer.
If Pfizer, Moderna, J&J had any confidence in their POISONS they would not shirk responsibility by denying ALL LIABILITY for injuries and DEATHS that follow their meds and injections (called VAX?).
Unjabbed Mick (UK) We'll all live longer by avoiding all medical advice and poisons they 'sell'.
Extended rebuttal to points. Gloss over any poorly worded sections. If you need me to present proof of a claim, please just ask.
Conflict of interest disclaimer to new readers: I proposed lab origins for the virus back in Feb 2020 (not a typo) back when the media called any such advocacy a "conspiracy theory" which would get you banned on Twitter for so-called "misinformation". Not is not a theory that has been sponsored by the government, far from it: a great many government agencies are liable if this theory is proven true, and it is not equal with zoonotic origin or 'no virus' theories (which gives them an "out" for zero culpability).
I've broken up my rebuttal into two parts due to Substack size limits (part 2 will be a comment on this). Part 1...
"The discovery of ‘novel’ viruses is a function of how determined we are to find them - the more we look the more we find"
- This would not be the case if there was no evidence. This seems to be a counterintuitive dishonesty. Finding more evidence indicates the truthfulness of something, not the untruthfulness of something. You could use this to brazenly dismiss vaccine harms.
"The features of SARS-CoV-2 do not appear to be as ‘special’ or ‘unique’ as claimed."
- This is an unevidenced statement, which appeals to ignorance. The furin clevage site is not found naturally in coronaviruses. You even quote a paper stating this, with the line: "a unique furin-like cleavage site (FCS) in the spike protein (S), which is absent in other lineage B [betacoronavirus], such as SARS-CoV"
"There is no good evidence that the many and complex hurdles in front of deliberately engineering viruses to become more pathogenic or transmissible in humans have been overcome."
- Appeal to ignorance. Evidence was offered and I got no replied.
"The theory that there was a long-standing but hitherto undetected virus endemic in animal (and possibly human) reservoirs is difficult if not impossible to falsify."
- The burden is on the 'natural origins' group to prove, not on others to disprove. They've failed to do this. See furin clevage site and the EcoHealth Alliance conflicts of interest.
"There are other explanations which could explain the sudden and rapid global appearance and spread of a specific sequence than the spread of a novel virus."
- You have not explained any.
"The available virological and epidemiological evidence does not adequately support either the lab leak or the wet market theories for the origins of the virus."
- Actually, the evidence (appeal to ignorance, again) strongly points to a lab origin for the virus. There's 250+ points of data, who knows how many entries in the genebank (you'd have to be accusing every single scientist submitting data of committing fraud), and the compiled investigations by The Daily Beagle which goes over it, **plus an entire prior history of countless other lab leaks by vaccine manufacturers go by**.
"Virological research with the intention of enhancing pathogenicity is, nevertheless, unethical and unnecessary and as such should cease"
- Concur. But the problem is if you acknowledge this research is ongoing, you're already acknowledging the engineering portion is occuring. So the only part you could dispute is whether or not a leak happened.
"many people respond with various formulations of ‘Fauci et al were covering it up, that surely proves a lab leak caused the pandemic’."
- Nobody has argued this. In-fact, I would argue you've rejected an honest discussion on the matter, which The Daily Beagle has offered. We have genealogical analyses, infection routes, eyewitness statements, data tampering by WIV in genebank, admitted public statements by those involved, and all the paperwork showing chimeric coronavirus research was occurring for half a decade before the event occurred.
"There is nothing novel about a novel virus"
- Except the furin clevage site which does not naturally occur in betacoronaviruses within the SC2 clade.
"Four known coronaviruses—HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, and HCoV-HKU1—are endemic in human populations."
- These do not have furin clevage sites. They also have a low genetic similarity to SARS-CoV-2, and variants such as RATG13 are closer.
"There are striking similarities between the histories of HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-HKU1 coronavirus and SARS-CoV-2"
- Similarity fallacy that does not explain the furin clevage site.
"The third possibility – pre-existing endemicity - is hardly discussed as a possibility"
- Actually, that's false, because zoonotic transmission is literally 'pre-existing endemicity'. You're advocating the same theories as Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak by essentially saying a coronavirus pandemic was inevitable.
"Why are some newly discovered coronaviruses (HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-HKU1) assumed to be already endemic, whereas others are assumed, upon discovery, to be entirely novel and capable of starting a pandemic?"
- SARS-CoV-2 has a number of unique GENETIC features, such as the furin clevage site, allowing for ACE-2 bindings that does not typically occur in commonly found coronaviruses. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 exhibited symptomology (such as people coughing for *months*) that was not mirrored in any pre-existing common cold.
"This should be an important scientific question, but it is one which few have bothered to ask"
- People have asked and answered this question already. Lack of research into evidence is not absence of evidence.
"Redondoviridae"
- This is a DNA virus, not an RNA virus. SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus.
"A single infectious agent should not manifest in such varied ways."
- Then how do you explain cancer?
I've skipped the parts discussing MERS-CoV and the original SARS as they're not about SARS-CoV-2.
"Infection is mainly acquired in hospital"
- Based on what source/evidence?
"Nothing was diagnostic."
- SARS had PCR tests, if you may or may not recall.
"Would we recognise a novel virus when we see it?"
- A virus being novel or not novel does not preclude it from being released from a lab. See the Smallpox and Foot and Mouth "outbreaks" in the UK which were both lab in origin.
"If the name had remained 2019-nCoV it would probably have been considered just another cold virus and nothing to worry about."
- Naming fallacy. 2019-nCoV was already deemed to be a pandemic threat, changing the name does not alter the classification. Ironically, the 'n' stands for 'novel', which undermines your point.
"differences in opinion about novelty are themselves not novel"
- I feel like this is an argument over semantics rather than a factual analysis of whether or not a virus originated from a lab. If they released an entirely known smallpox from a lab, would you refuse to call that a lab leak because it's not novel?
"This review by Liu et al identifies [...] Besides MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, two of five other CoVs known to infect humans (HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1) also have furin cleavage sites"
- This is a paper by a closely tied Chinese laboratory whose sole purpose is shilling the zoonotic theory (a theory you acknowledge cannot be possible) by attempting to paint the furin cleavage site as naturally occurring. But it misses a crucial aspect: the furin cleavage site is NOT present in RATG13 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-020-0184-0), the nearest genetic neighbour to SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, HCoV-HKU1 originated from China... HK stands for 'Hong Kong'. As did the original SARS (the originator of MERS-CoV). Odd how three furin-cleavage viruses all just popped out of the same country!
- The problem is Ralph Baric has an entire paper trail of his work on chimeric SARS viruses in mice that make use of both spike proteins and furin cleavage sites that happened to be shared work with WIV. The genetic code does not exist in a vacuum with zero context.
"gamma coronaviruses"
- Is a totally different clade and not relevant.
"So here we have another coronavirus, which was previously pronounced as being ‘deadly’ that also uses the ACE2 receptor"
- ...that was also reported as leaked from a Chinese lab (see The Daily Beagle investigations). How coincidential, a virus with a spike protein and furin cleavage site leaking from the exact same country as *another* virus with a furin cleavage site! What are the odds?
"Simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) has been identified as the progenitor to HIV, and in SIV it is present on the SIV spike protein."
- I would call into question the fact you're conflating different types of spike protein with the S-spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, or the fact you're appealing to a virus from a different species (simian).
"FCSs are common."
- 5 viruses, 3 of which originate from China, 2 of which have lab origins, is not the definition of 'common'.
"ACE-2 receptors are used by one other coronavirus, HCoV-NL63, that is not considered deadly."
- Whether or not a virus is deadly is a different point. Again, non-deadly viruses can also be released from labs. Moving the goalposts.
"Arguments that ‘unusual inserts’ must be man-made might be contradicted by parallel evolution or co-evolution between viruses ‘in the swarm’."
- This sounds like a Peter Daszak argument. The naturally occurring theory has been disproven. The fat wads of cash involved between Ecohealth, Daszak and WIV involving viral research should raise massive eyebrows.
" we see no reason to believe that the spike protein or FCS should be a source of special and unique concern in SARS-CoV-2."
- If you ignore any inconvenient evidence and conflicts of interest, maybe.
"Much of the argument about the origin hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 revolves around the novelty"
- Not really. This is another moving the goalposts moment. Lets say for a second you declare the virus novel; how does that preclude a release scenario? Would you say the Foot and Mouth outbreak in 2007 from a vaccine research institute did not happen because F&M is not a novel disease?
"An entertaining and robust article discussing the observational evidence supporting either of these has been written by PANDA."
- The same organisation with noticeable ties to advocating debunked US government theories about natural origins?
"Nass has documented 309 lab acquired infections and 16 escapes between the years 2000 and 2021, including some which caused several deaths. Yet caused no pandemics."
- So what? The fact they occur that frequently is damning evidence in support of lab leak, not against. Just because you had 309 near misses does not mean all will miss. Gambler's fallacy.
"enhanced is the important word here – creating equivalent pathogenicity or transmissibility to an existing virus isn’t the goal, the goal is to ‘gain’ this new functionality"
- Concluding a lab leak virus that involves chimeric virus research has parts of other viruses in it, isn't quite the smoking gun rebuttal you're looking for. Lab leak does not propose a 'from scratch' virus was written, but instead makes use of hybridised elements as is part for the course in genetic engineering. It's like saying GMO crops must be natural because fish genes placed in wheat are commonly found in the wild.
"The challenge of engineering a new virus is not about the approach or tool for genome assembly but is generating a sizable mutant library and developing an efficient high-throughput screening system to identify the most infectious clones"
- Ralph Baric was already conducting experiments on mice and if one infers from the data, had approximately 25 different chimeric versions, only of which two (versions 15 and 25) were posted on genebank.
"These experiments can and have been conducted"
- Then what are you arguing here? You're trying to argue the virus didn't come from a lab because it isn't novel, but then state novel virus experiments have been ongoing.
"if the requirements are for a virus pathogenic to humans8, challenge studies will be required"
- You do realise you're trying to argue that the likes of Ralph Baric who argued against a ban on GoF will follow 'standard procedure' and follow ethics on a "challenge study" testing a bioweapon, which sounds batshit. Why would they conduct challenge studies when they're unethical and have plenty of unwitting 'volunteers' in China? The viral research was outsourced to China for a reason, and it wasn't the high ethical standards.
"Is there actually any evidence that a viable virus has ever been engineered to match some pre-prepared functional specification and which could cause a pandemic?"
- Besides lab leak SARS, Foot and Mouth disease (animal vaccine testing facility), Smallpox (reportedly from a vaccine testing batch), Bird Flu (USDA vaccine research lab)? Uh... yes. The Daily Beagle documented numerous cases (https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/vaccine-manufacturers-are-behind).
"these ferrets were subject to serial passage numerous times rather than a single time as is the convention"
- Ralph Baric conducted chimeric virus experiments on mice. Numerous mice. Is 15 times enough serialisation to achieve infectivity? Note some animals share similarities to humans and, well... mice are one such creature.
"If these features make vaccine development for respiratory viruses difficult if not impossible then they also make virus development via Gain-of-Function equally, if not more, challenging (well, maybe actually just as impossible)."
- How on earth do you arrive at the conclusion that bioweapon viruses aren't possible if vaccines suck at their job of giving immunity? Are bioweapons supposed to induce immunity? I thought their purpose was to kill or to maim. mRNA shots seem to be doing an *excellent* job of that.
"Contradictory evidence on zoonotic origins"
- No objections here so I'll skip this section, as the rebuttal is long enough.
The kooks never purified 'the virus' from the broth, so there's no way to know if the nucleic acids are of human origin or arise from additives such as from the cow blood.
Instead of purifying 'the virus', they add all kinds of foreign material such as monkey cancer cells and cow blood. How could anybody possibly know the origins of the nucleic acids in such a mixture of animal species?
The 'virus hypothesis' would be more credible if the 'virus genome' were ever actually purified intact and then submitted to sequencing. Instead, what happens is that PURPORTED 'virus-associated' fragments of nucleic acid are cherry-picked for amplification from the bizarre mixture of animal species that comprise a cell culture. Not only that, the cells of the cell culture are cancer cells harboring double to triple the normal number of chromosomes - up to 99 aberrant chromosomes!
"Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. There are more than 50,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 300 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List — or our list of nearly 100 papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?"
Reads like a Controlled Opposition article meant to exonerate the perpetrators of a massive crime. Since publication of "Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag" by Prashant Pradhan et.al. a ton of evidence has come up that its not natural, its man-made, lab manufactured. GoF is not a claim but Fact, established and bragged about since long.
You’ve clearly not read the article, nor any of our other work.
Are we still pretending that deaths labeled as “covid” deaths have got anything (directly) to do with a sequence uploaded to a computer nearly 5 years ago?
That's exactly what I am saying. Its a computer programme only. Since viral spread can't be contained (all efforts to ethnically target ME or African populations failed), there was no CoVID 19. Death Certificate protocols were altered resulting in show of massive deaths due to non-existing virus and thus force people to take injectables, making them sick or die. (Deaths due to gun shots were also classified as Covid deaths).
Allen has clearly explained the same facts. That's why I liked it. Its not a virus and hence novelty lies in computer programme.
Your Story of The Decade Link starts with False Propaganda. There were no leaks from Wuhan (if its only computer programme). That was a diversion towards Bat Lady to throw researchers offscent so that nobody investigates what's coming in form of WhackSins.
It was man made pandemic. People like Craig PardeKooper brought us evidence of deaths due to injectable (who could imagine Bio-Statisticians or Patent lawyers would bring in evidence). Blank inserts and non-disclosure of ingredients was enough proof of foul play. After all this, the discussion of anything else is useless. GoF or not, Wuhan or not, Virus or not- are all diversions.
Your words "Hence it looks like these fingerprints are not unique to SARS-CoV-2 and are not necessarily associated with man-made interference." If we look at the preprint retracted paper by Pradhan it is clear that insertions specific to SARS CoV 2 were unique. Thats what you are saying thats its computer generated. If so then discussing GoF or unique insertions or not is futile. Its a unique sequence generated by computer only. May be they have it in lab..but never released openly. Instead it was injected into healthy people to make them sick.
Postscript: Is There Evidence for Endemicity Pre-Pandemic?
Evidence suggests the absence of sustained transmission of SARS-like viruses in humans prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies conducted by Shi Zheng-Li and her team at the Wuhan Institute of Virology provide crucial insights into this question. Despite extensive efforts to detect zoonotic spillover events, no evidence of endemic SARS-like virus circulation in human populations was found.
Evidence from Serological Studies
Shi Zheng-Li and her colleagues conducted comprehensive fieldwork, including visits to bat caves considered the putative origin of SARS-like viruses and serological surveys of nearby villagers. Their findings showed:
Wuhan Blood Donors (Control Group): A serological survey of 240 blood donors in 2015 from Wuhan, more than 1,000 km from Jinning, found no evidence of prior SARS-CoV or SARS-like virus infections. This urban population had minimal contact with bats, supporting the conclusion of no prior exposure (Ref 1).
High-Risk Villagers: In high-risk areas near bat colonies, 2.7% of individuals exhibited seropositivity, indicating rare spillover events. However, no evidence of sustained human-to-human transmission was detected, even in regions with frequent bat-human interactions (Ref 2).
These findings suggest that while occasional exposure to bat SARS-related coronaviruses may occur, such events are relatively rare and do not lead to widespread or sustained transmission.
Implications for SARS-CoV-2 Origins
The absence of evidence for pre-pandemic circulation of SARS-like viruses raises significant questions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Researchers dedicated considerable effort to identify zoonotic transmission risks and investigate potential health threats from emerging coronaviruses, yet found no indication of endemic human infections or transmission chains. Even in high-risk regions of southern China, the infections identified were either subclinical or mild, with no signs of broader outbreaks.
Conclusion
These findings pose a challenge to theories of zoonotic origins for SARS-CoV-2, as they highlight the lack of evidence for precursor viruses circulating among humans prior to the pandemic. While spillover events may occur sporadically, the absence of sustained transmission supports the notion that SARS-CoV-2's emergence involved unique circumstances requiring further investigation.
References
Wang N, Li SY, Yang XL, Huang HM, Zhang YJ, Guo H, Luo CM, Miller M, Zhu G, Chmura AA, Hagan E, Zhou JH, Zhang YZ, Wang LF, Daszak P, Shi ZL. Serological Evidence of Bat SARS-Related Coronavirus Infection in Humans, China. Virol Sin. 2018 Feb;33(1):104-107. doi: 10.1007/s12250-018-0012-7. Epub 2018 Mar 2. PMID: 29500691; PMCID: PMC6178078.
Li H, Mendelsohn E, Zong C, Zhang W, Hagan E, Wang N, Li S, Yan H, Huang H, Zhu G, Ross N, Chmura A, Terry P, Fielder M, Miller M, Shi Z, Daszak P. Human-animal interactions and bat coronavirus spillover potential among rural residents in Southern China. Biosaf Health. 2019 Sep;1(2):84-90. doi: 10.1016/j.bsheal.2019.10.004. Epub 2019 Nov 9. PMID: 32501444; PMCID: PMC7148670.
The kooks had every opportunity to submit for PCR analysis the millions of formalin-preserved human & animal tissue specimens dating from 1918 to the present day.
The 'virus' genome is a stupid computer construct. It's impossible to even know what a virus is made from cuz never purified prior to chemical & structural characterization . Likewise, 'viruses' have never been purified before sequencing for DNA or RNA. It's impossible to know whether any nucleic acid sequences detected in the 'virus' broth are of human origin or 'from inside the virus'.
The Covid scheme was invented and the infrastructure was installed long before the "virus" was discovered. Once they manufactured the phony cases from the phony disease they had to invent phony "covid deaths" and they did so with ease:
April 8, 2020 Stephanie Buhle, a spokeswoman for the New York City’s Health Department, confirms change in in how Covid deaths will be recorded, “The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) and the NYC Health Department are working together to include into their reports deaths that may be linked to COVID but not lab confirmed that occur at home.” Death Counts Soar In NYC.
“The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) and the NYC Health Department are working together to include into their reports deaths that may be linked to COVID but not lab confirmed that occur at home.”
April 14 2020 report by Bloomberg News, ‘NYC Adds 3,800 Probable Virus Victims to Death Toll’ stating that “New York City added thousands of people to its coronavirus death toll to account for victims who died in recent weeks without a confirmed diagnosis.” The data according to Mayor Bill De Blasio’s administration titled ‘Confirmed and Probable COVID-19 Deaths Weekly Report’ defines probable as “A death is classified as probable if the decedent was a New York City resident (NYC resident or residency pending) who had no known positive laboratory test for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) but the death certificate lists as a cause of death “COVID-19” or an equivalent”.
The press secretary to Mayor Bill de Blasio, Freddi Goldstein said: “that the data include at-home deaths of people suspected of having Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That judgment is based on reported symptoms including cough, fever and shortness of breath.”
April 19 2020 Director of Illinois Department of Health, Dr. Ngozi Ezike, transcribed from Illinois Governor's health briefing on April 19th :
"I just want to be clear in terms of the definition of people dying of COVID. The case definition is very simplistic. It means at the time of death it was a COVID positive diagnosis. So that means if you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live, and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death. It means technically even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it's still listed as a COVID death. So, everyone who's listed as a COVID death doesn't mean that that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of the death."
April 20, 2020 — World Health Organization issues a guidance memo that allows nearly any deaths to be categorized as "COVID-19." This is similar to the CDC guidance that came out March 24, 2020.
If someone assumes "covid" may have contributed to the death, it is counted as the cause of death. Nowhere is there the requirement for a "positive" test result, or specific symptoms.
Quote: "COVID-19 should be recorded on the medical certificate of cause of death for ALL decedents where the disease caused, or is assumed to have caused, or contributed to death.”
April 21 2020 UK updates Death Certificate guidelines for COVID-19- the British Medical Association (BMA) changed their guidance to doctors in England and Wales, “on verification and certification of death and cremation for a temporary period during which emergency measures are in place to tackle the COVID-19 outbreak.” As a result of the Coronavirus Act 2020, this also indemnified doctors.
Doctors no longer had to be that sure a patient died from COVID-19, “to write COVID-19 on a death certificate”, which was “highly irregular“. Now UK doctors can “legally” write COVID-19 on the Medical Certificates of Cause of Death (MCCD) where it is assumed to be from COVID-19.
The guidance states: “In those cases where the doctor is confident on medical grounds that a particular cause of death is likely then that should be entered on the MCCD (Medical Certificates of Cause of Death). Covid-19 is an acceptable direct or underlying cause of death for the purposes of completing the MCCD, even without the results of a positive test, and it is important that likely Covid-19 deaths are reported as such via the registrar.”
etc....
Also the CT (cycle threshold) was dramatically reduced immediately after the 'RNA' voodoo jabs were introduced, to create the illusion of efficacy.
Yes I remember that. Do you have any links about that? What were the dates when they started doing that?
"Social media users have been sharing screenshots purporting that the World Health Organization (WHO) released guidance to laboratories and incorrectly saying this was to reduce the positive test result count in PCR (polymerase chain reaction) COVID-19 tests. The social media users claim the WHO’s guidance amounted to an admission that the current PCR tests were inflating COVID-19 infection number. This claim is false. The WHO’s guidance was meant to remind labs to conduct the tests with the instructions provided in order to ensure accuracy in the results."
.
By Reuters
February 4, 2021
https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-who-released-guidance-on-proper-use-of-tests-it-did-not-admit-pcr-t-idUSKBN2A425C/
Thanks Pete.
.
This Has Been A 100 Year War
On Natural Immunity.
It Is High Time Someone Declare Victory
For Natural Immunity
And End This War.
.
Gosh, that's a long article, and a lot to take in. But it makes sense.
Why don't we just admit that we don't know what viruses are out there, we cannot control them, they are mostly fairly harmless, and just get on with our lives, I wonder?
Or maybe viruses are actually a symptom of our own paranoia? A mental illness?
Phenomenal piece of work - thank you!
Sars Cov 2 certainly wasn’t special or unique, it was same as every other virus in that it does NOT exist. Virology is 100% bullshit
Pfizer funds Baric and his lab to deliberately increase Lethality of Dengue Virus.
They brag about how many extra animals they can Kill by inserting the Furin Cleavage Site.
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/directed-evolution-gain-of-function
The 'origination' of Coronavirus is somewhat academic! The facts are Fauci took over the dubious DoD experimentation of diseases and their transmissibility in order to create diseases that would, in turn, require expensive 'cures' to be created by his Paymasters' within Big Pharma. Covid was all about profit and depopulation!
RFK will probably uncover the biggest lethal corruption cover-up in world history! Serves them right!
What we've learned about the dishonest medical and pharmaceutical fraternity since 2019 causes us to assume everything they told us was lies and had some profitable reason behind it.
Since the Scamdemic lies and coercion we now assume all medics and pharmaceutical companies are CORRUPT to the core. Sad that they've lead us to these unfortunate beliefs, but they brought it on themselves by letting the cat out of the bag with deadly but profitable injections and by trying to hide the dangers of their 'advanced' methods of 'curing' our ills!
Now, we suspect everything, we reject even the previous medicines and injections as assumed to be harmful. We now assume the OPPOSITE of every piece of medical advice they offer.
If Pfizer, Moderna, J&J had any confidence in their POISONS they would not shirk responsibility by denying ALL LIABILITY for injuries and DEATHS that follow their meds and injections (called VAX?).
Unjabbed Mick (UK) We'll all live longer by avoiding all medical advice and poisons they 'sell'.
Extended rebuttal to points. Gloss over any poorly worded sections. If you need me to present proof of a claim, please just ask.
Conflict of interest disclaimer to new readers: I proposed lab origins for the virus back in Feb 2020 (not a typo) back when the media called any such advocacy a "conspiracy theory" which would get you banned on Twitter for so-called "misinformation". Not is not a theory that has been sponsored by the government, far from it: a great many government agencies are liable if this theory is proven true, and it is not equal with zoonotic origin or 'no virus' theories (which gives them an "out" for zero culpability).
I've broken up my rebuttal into two parts due to Substack size limits (part 2 will be a comment on this). Part 1...
"The discovery of ‘novel’ viruses is a function of how determined we are to find them - the more we look the more we find"
- This would not be the case if there was no evidence. This seems to be a counterintuitive dishonesty. Finding more evidence indicates the truthfulness of something, not the untruthfulness of something. You could use this to brazenly dismiss vaccine harms.
"The features of SARS-CoV-2 do not appear to be as ‘special’ or ‘unique’ as claimed."
- This is an unevidenced statement, which appeals to ignorance. The furin clevage site is not found naturally in coronaviruses. You even quote a paper stating this, with the line: "a unique furin-like cleavage site (FCS) in the spike protein (S), which is absent in other lineage B [betacoronavirus], such as SARS-CoV"
"There is no good evidence that the many and complex hurdles in front of deliberately engineering viruses to become more pathogenic or transmissible in humans have been overcome."
- Appeal to ignorance. Evidence was offered and I got no replied.
"The theory that there was a long-standing but hitherto undetected virus endemic in animal (and possibly human) reservoirs is difficult if not impossible to falsify."
- The burden is on the 'natural origins' group to prove, not on others to disprove. They've failed to do this. See furin clevage site and the EcoHealth Alliance conflicts of interest.
"There are other explanations which could explain the sudden and rapid global appearance and spread of a specific sequence than the spread of a novel virus."
- You have not explained any.
"The available virological and epidemiological evidence does not adequately support either the lab leak or the wet market theories for the origins of the virus."
- Actually, the evidence (appeal to ignorance, again) strongly points to a lab origin for the virus. There's 250+ points of data, who knows how many entries in the genebank (you'd have to be accusing every single scientist submitting data of committing fraud), and the compiled investigations by The Daily Beagle which goes over it, **plus an entire prior history of countless other lab leaks by vaccine manufacturers go by**.
"Virological research with the intention of enhancing pathogenicity is, nevertheless, unethical and unnecessary and as such should cease"
- Concur. But the problem is if you acknowledge this research is ongoing, you're already acknowledging the engineering portion is occuring. So the only part you could dispute is whether or not a leak happened.
"many people respond with various formulations of ‘Fauci et al were covering it up, that surely proves a lab leak caused the pandemic’."
- Nobody has argued this. In-fact, I would argue you've rejected an honest discussion on the matter, which The Daily Beagle has offered. We have genealogical analyses, infection routes, eyewitness statements, data tampering by WIV in genebank, admitted public statements by those involved, and all the paperwork showing chimeric coronavirus research was occurring for half a decade before the event occurred.
"There is nothing novel about a novel virus"
- Except the furin clevage site which does not naturally occur in betacoronaviruses within the SC2 clade.
"Four known coronaviruses—HCoV-OC43, HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, and HCoV-HKU1—are endemic in human populations."
- These do not have furin clevage sites. They also have a low genetic similarity to SARS-CoV-2, and variants such as RATG13 are closer.
"There are striking similarities between the histories of HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-HKU1 coronavirus and SARS-CoV-2"
- Similarity fallacy that does not explain the furin clevage site.
"The third possibility – pre-existing endemicity - is hardly discussed as a possibility"
- Actually, that's false, because zoonotic transmission is literally 'pre-existing endemicity'. You're advocating the same theories as Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak by essentially saying a coronavirus pandemic was inevitable.
"Why are some newly discovered coronaviruses (HCoV-NL63 and HCoV-HKU1) assumed to be already endemic, whereas others are assumed, upon discovery, to be entirely novel and capable of starting a pandemic?"
- SARS-CoV-2 has a number of unique GENETIC features, such as the furin clevage site, allowing for ACE-2 bindings that does not typically occur in commonly found coronaviruses. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 exhibited symptomology (such as people coughing for *months*) that was not mirrored in any pre-existing common cold.
"This should be an important scientific question, but it is one which few have bothered to ask"
- People have asked and answered this question already. Lack of research into evidence is not absence of evidence.
"Redondoviridae"
- This is a DNA virus, not an RNA virus. SARS-CoV-2 is an RNA virus.
"A single infectious agent should not manifest in such varied ways."
- Then how do you explain cancer?
I've skipped the parts discussing MERS-CoV and the original SARS as they're not about SARS-CoV-2.
"Infection is mainly acquired in hospital"
- Based on what source/evidence?
"Nothing was diagnostic."
- SARS had PCR tests, if you may or may not recall.
"Would we recognise a novel virus when we see it?"
- A virus being novel or not novel does not preclude it from being released from a lab. See the Smallpox and Foot and Mouth "outbreaks" in the UK which were both lab in origin.
"If the name had remained 2019-nCoV it would probably have been considered just another cold virus and nothing to worry about."
- Naming fallacy. 2019-nCoV was already deemed to be a pandemic threat, changing the name does not alter the classification. Ironically, the 'n' stands for 'novel', which undermines your point.
"differences in opinion about novelty are themselves not novel"
- I feel like this is an argument over semantics rather than a factual analysis of whether or not a virus originated from a lab. If they released an entirely known smallpox from a lab, would you refuse to call that a lab leak because it's not novel?
"This review by Liu et al identifies [...] Besides MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, two of five other CoVs known to infect humans (HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-HKU1) also have furin cleavage sites"
- This is a paper by a closely tied Chinese laboratory whose sole purpose is shilling the zoonotic theory (a theory you acknowledge cannot be possible) by attempting to paint the furin cleavage site as naturally occurring. But it misses a crucial aspect: the furin cleavage site is NOT present in RATG13 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-020-0184-0), the nearest genetic neighbour to SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, HCoV-HKU1 originated from China... HK stands for 'Hong Kong'. As did the original SARS (the originator of MERS-CoV). Odd how three furin-cleavage viruses all just popped out of the same country!
(Continued...)
(...Continued, part 2)
"the FCS could have been created naturally"
- The problem is Ralph Baric has an entire paper trail of his work on chimeric SARS viruses in mice that make use of both spike proteins and furin cleavage sites that happened to be shared work with WIV. The genetic code does not exist in a vacuum with zero context.
"gamma coronaviruses"
- Is a totally different clade and not relevant.
"So here we have another coronavirus, which was previously pronounced as being ‘deadly’ that also uses the ACE2 receptor"
- ...that was also reported as leaked from a Chinese lab (see The Daily Beagle investigations). How coincidential, a virus with a spike protein and furin cleavage site leaking from the exact same country as *another* virus with a furin cleavage site! What are the odds?
"Simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) has been identified as the progenitor to HIV, and in SIV it is present on the SIV spike protein."
- I would call into question the fact you're conflating different types of spike protein with the S-spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, or the fact you're appealing to a virus from a different species (simian).
"FCSs are common."
- 5 viruses, 3 of which originate from China, 2 of which have lab origins, is not the definition of 'common'.
"ACE-2 receptors are used by one other coronavirus, HCoV-NL63, that is not considered deadly."
- Whether or not a virus is deadly is a different point. Again, non-deadly viruses can also be released from labs. Moving the goalposts.
"Arguments that ‘unusual inserts’ must be man-made might be contradicted by parallel evolution or co-evolution between viruses ‘in the swarm’."
- This sounds like a Peter Daszak argument. The naturally occurring theory has been disproven. The fat wads of cash involved between Ecohealth, Daszak and WIV involving viral research should raise massive eyebrows.
" we see no reason to believe that the spike protein or FCS should be a source of special and unique concern in SARS-CoV-2."
- If you ignore any inconvenient evidence and conflicts of interest, maybe.
"Much of the argument about the origin hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2 revolves around the novelty"
- Not really. This is another moving the goalposts moment. Lets say for a second you declare the virus novel; how does that preclude a release scenario? Would you say the Foot and Mouth outbreak in 2007 from a vaccine research institute did not happen because F&M is not a novel disease?
"An entertaining and robust article discussing the observational evidence supporting either of these has been written by PANDA."
- The same organisation with noticeable ties to advocating debunked US government theories about natural origins?
"Nass has documented 309 lab acquired infections and 16 escapes between the years 2000 and 2021, including some which caused several deaths. Yet caused no pandemics."
- So what? The fact they occur that frequently is damning evidence in support of lab leak, not against. Just because you had 309 near misses does not mean all will miss. Gambler's fallacy.
"enhanced is the important word here – creating equivalent pathogenicity or transmissibility to an existing virus isn’t the goal, the goal is to ‘gain’ this new functionality"
- This is not what 'gain-of-function' means. The Daily Beagle covered the misconception (https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/i-melt-my-laptops-cpu-to-find-no).
"these fingerprints are not unique to SARS-CoV-2"
- Concluding a lab leak virus that involves chimeric virus research has parts of other viruses in it, isn't quite the smoking gun rebuttal you're looking for. Lab leak does not propose a 'from scratch' virus was written, but instead makes use of hybridised elements as is part for the course in genetic engineering. It's like saying GMO crops must be natural because fish genes placed in wheat are commonly found in the wild.
"The challenge of engineering a new virus is not about the approach or tool for genome assembly but is generating a sizable mutant library and developing an efficient high-throughput screening system to identify the most infectious clones"
- Ralph Baric was already conducting experiments on mice and if one infers from the data, had approximately 25 different chimeric versions, only of which two (versions 15 and 25) were posted on genebank.
"These experiments can and have been conducted"
- Then what are you arguing here? You're trying to argue the virus didn't come from a lab because it isn't novel, but then state novel virus experiments have been ongoing.
"if the requirements are for a virus pathogenic to humans8, challenge studies will be required"
- You do realise you're trying to argue that the likes of Ralph Baric who argued against a ban on GoF will follow 'standard procedure' and follow ethics on a "challenge study" testing a bioweapon, which sounds batshit. Why would they conduct challenge studies when they're unethical and have plenty of unwitting 'volunteers' in China? The viral research was outsourced to China for a reason, and it wasn't the high ethical standards.
"Is there actually any evidence that a viable virus has ever been engineered to match some pre-prepared functional specification and which could cause a pandemic?"
- Besides lab leak SARS, Foot and Mouth disease (animal vaccine testing facility), Smallpox (reportedly from a vaccine testing batch), Bird Flu (USDA vaccine research lab)? Uh... yes. The Daily Beagle documented numerous cases (https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/vaccine-manufacturers-are-behind).
"these ferrets were subject to serial passage numerous times rather than a single time as is the convention"
- Ralph Baric conducted chimeric virus experiments on mice. Numerous mice. Is 15 times enough serialisation to achieve infectivity? Note some animals share similarities to humans and, well... mice are one such creature.
"If these features make vaccine development for respiratory viruses difficult if not impossible then they also make virus development via Gain-of-Function equally, if not more, challenging (well, maybe actually just as impossible)."
- How on earth do you arrive at the conclusion that bioweapon viruses aren't possible if vaccines suck at their job of giving immunity? Are bioweapons supposed to induce immunity? I thought their purpose was to kill or to maim. mRNA shots seem to be doing an *excellent* job of that.
"Contradictory evidence on zoonotic origins"
- No objections here so I'll skip this section, as the rebuttal is long enough.
Nobody ever found a virus.
Let it go, Bro.
.
"If you get 'covid' twice, call the police!"
Categorically false.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/datasets/genome/?taxon=2697049
Numerous entries for it.
The kooks never purified 'the virus' from the broth, so there's no way to know if the nucleic acids are of human origin or arise from additives such as from the cow blood.
Instead of purifying 'the virus', they add all kinds of foreign material such as monkey cancer cells and cow blood. How could anybody possibly know the origins of the nucleic acids in such a mixture of animal species?
The 'virus hypothesis' would be more credible if the 'virus genome' were ever actually purified intact and then submitted to sequencing. Instead, what happens is that PURPORTED 'virus-associated' fragments of nucleic acid are cherry-picked for amplification from the bizarre mixture of animal species that comprise a cell culture. Not only that, the cells of the cell culture are cancer cells harboring double to triple the normal number of chromosomes - up to 99 aberrant chromosomes!
Lysenko strikes again!
Imagine not knowing the difference between RNA and DNA.
Do you invent nonsense for free or for money in order to discredit people for the pharmaceutical industry?
Big Pharma doesn't need lil' ol' me to discredit them.
"Our list of retracted or withdrawn COVID-19 papers is up past 400. There are more than 50,000 retractions in The Retraction Watch Database — which is now part of Crossref. The Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker now contains more than 300 titles. And have you seen our leaderboard of authors with the most retractions lately — or our list of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers? What about The Retraction Watch Mass Resignations List — or our list of nearly 100 papers with evidence they were written by ChatGPT?"
.
https://retractionwatch.com/2024/11/16/weekend-reads-rfk-jrs-retraction-the-great-ai-witch-hunt-scientific-misconduct-in-switzerland/
Reads like a Controlled Opposition article meant to exonerate the perpetrators of a massive crime. Since publication of "Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag" by Prashant Pradhan et.al. a ton of evidence has come up that its not natural, its man-made, lab manufactured. GoF is not a claim but Fact, established and bragged about since long.
Fear and Force was used to inject bio-weapons.
Please read the article and make a considered response on the basis of the evidence presented.
Also, this isn't about the injectables.
You’ve clearly not read the article, nor any of our other work.
Are we still pretending that deaths labeled as “covid” deaths have got anything (directly) to do with a sequence uploaded to a computer nearly 5 years ago?
That's exactly what I am saying. Its a computer programme only. Since viral spread can't be contained (all efforts to ethnically target ME or African populations failed), there was no CoVID 19. Death Certificate protocols were altered resulting in show of massive deaths due to non-existing virus and thus force people to take injectables, making them sick or die. (Deaths due to gun shots were also classified as Covid deaths).
Allen has clearly explained the same facts. That's why I liked it. Its not a virus and hence novelty lies in computer programme.
Your Story of The Decade Link starts with False Propaganda. There were no leaks from Wuhan (if its only computer programme). That was a diversion towards Bat Lady to throw researchers offscent so that nobody investigates what's coming in form of WhackSins.
It was man made pandemic. People like Craig PardeKooper brought us evidence of deaths due to injectable (who could imagine Bio-Statisticians or Patent lawyers would bring in evidence). Blank inserts and non-disclosure of ingredients was enough proof of foul play. After all this, the discussion of anything else is useless. GoF or not, Wuhan or not, Virus or not- are all diversions.
Your words "Hence it looks like these fingerprints are not unique to SARS-CoV-2 and are not necessarily associated with man-made interference." If we look at the preprint retracted paper by Pradhan it is clear that insertions specific to SARS CoV 2 were unique. Thats what you are saying thats its computer generated. If so then discussing GoF or unique insertions or not is futile. Its a unique sequence generated by computer only. May be they have it in lab..but never released openly. Instead it was injected into healthy people to make them sick.
Postscript: Is There Evidence for Endemicity Pre-Pandemic?
Evidence suggests the absence of sustained transmission of SARS-like viruses in humans prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies conducted by Shi Zheng-Li and her team at the Wuhan Institute of Virology provide crucial insights into this question. Despite extensive efforts to detect zoonotic spillover events, no evidence of endemic SARS-like virus circulation in human populations was found.
Evidence from Serological Studies
Shi Zheng-Li and her colleagues conducted comprehensive fieldwork, including visits to bat caves considered the putative origin of SARS-like viruses and serological surveys of nearby villagers. Their findings showed:
Wuhan Blood Donors (Control Group): A serological survey of 240 blood donors in 2015 from Wuhan, more than 1,000 km from Jinning, found no evidence of prior SARS-CoV or SARS-like virus infections. This urban population had minimal contact with bats, supporting the conclusion of no prior exposure (Ref 1).
High-Risk Villagers: In high-risk areas near bat colonies, 2.7% of individuals exhibited seropositivity, indicating rare spillover events. However, no evidence of sustained human-to-human transmission was detected, even in regions with frequent bat-human interactions (Ref 2).
These findings suggest that while occasional exposure to bat SARS-related coronaviruses may occur, such events are relatively rare and do not lead to widespread or sustained transmission.
Implications for SARS-CoV-2 Origins
The absence of evidence for pre-pandemic circulation of SARS-like viruses raises significant questions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. Researchers dedicated considerable effort to identify zoonotic transmission risks and investigate potential health threats from emerging coronaviruses, yet found no indication of endemic human infections or transmission chains. Even in high-risk regions of southern China, the infections identified were either subclinical or mild, with no signs of broader outbreaks.
Conclusion
These findings pose a challenge to theories of zoonotic origins for SARS-CoV-2, as they highlight the lack of evidence for precursor viruses circulating among humans prior to the pandemic. While spillover events may occur sporadically, the absence of sustained transmission supports the notion that SARS-CoV-2's emergence involved unique circumstances requiring further investigation.
References
Wang N, Li SY, Yang XL, Huang HM, Zhang YJ, Guo H, Luo CM, Miller M, Zhu G, Chmura AA, Hagan E, Zhou JH, Zhang YZ, Wang LF, Daszak P, Shi ZL. Serological Evidence of Bat SARS-Related Coronavirus Infection in Humans, China. Virol Sin. 2018 Feb;33(1):104-107. doi: 10.1007/s12250-018-0012-7. Epub 2018 Mar 2. PMID: 29500691; PMCID: PMC6178078.
Li H, Mendelsohn E, Zong C, Zhang W, Hagan E, Wang N, Li S, Yan H, Huang H, Zhu G, Ross N, Chmura A, Terry P, Fielder M, Miller M, Shi Z, Daszak P. Human-animal interactions and bat coronavirus spillover potential among rural residents in Southern China. Biosaf Health. 2019 Sep;1(2):84-90. doi: 10.1016/j.bsheal.2019.10.004. Epub 2019 Nov 9. PMID: 32501444; PMCID: PMC7148670.
"The absence of evidence for pre-pandemic circulation of SARS-like viruses raises significant questions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2. "
Did you read the article? Or the section "Contradictory evidence on zoonotic origins" within the article.
The kooks had every opportunity to submit for PCR analysis the millions of formalin-preserved human & animal tissue specimens dating from 1918 to the present day.
The 'virus' genome is a stupid computer construct. It's impossible to even know what a virus is made from cuz never purified prior to chemical & structural characterization . Likewise, 'viruses' have never been purified before sequencing for DNA or RNA. It's impossible to know whether any nucleic acid sequences detected in the 'virus' broth are of human origin or 'from inside the virus'.
One big Tower of Babels.