Deus Ex Machina and the Invention of “SARS-CoV-2”
by Dr. Mark Bailey
February 6, 2022
A German mathematician working with Dr Stefan Lanka has just published a report titled “Structural analysis of sequence data in virology – An elementary approach using SARS-CoV-2 as an example.” It provides even more evidence that the virologists are caught up in a world of computer simulations – simulations that are unreliable even on their own terms, not to mention being disconnected from reality. The analysis is an important contribution exposing another element of the anti-science being used to sustain this fake pandemic. Further, it is a technical dismantling of how all “viruses” are being invented and then “found,” in an ongoing game of deception.
The paper is very technical and requires some understanding of how the virologists create a “genome,” starting with a crude sample from an alleged infected “COVID-19” patient. To make it easier, I’ve produced a summary of the main findings as outlined below:
- None of the genetic sequences used in producing the “SARS-CoV-2” genomes were shown to come from inside any viruses. It is unclear where the genetic fragments originated from.
- The original de novo “SARS-CoV-2” computer-constructed sequence published by Fan Wu, et al could not be reproduced by the methodology described in their paper, raising questions about how they produced it and announced the new “virus” to the world.
- The PCR protocols are calibrated to sequences of unconfirmed origin that are clearly found in many humans and apparently other things as well. The PCR process was not shown to detect a “virus,” let alone diagnose an invented illness called “COVID-19”.
- The virologists are fooling themselves by running amplifications at 35 to 45 cycles, as it can result in “detecting” sequences that are not even present in the sample. In effect, the methodology can result in “detecting” whatever sequences they are hoping to find.
- Fan Wu, et al could have found better matches for “HIV” and “Hepatitis D virus” than “a new coronavirus” in their 41-year-old man from Wuhan, who presented with pneumonia as one of the first claimed “COVID-19” cases. If they want to find a “virus”, it all depends on what they ask the computer to look for.
Of course, it makes much more sense when you get to the root of the problem: “SARS-CoV-2” is nothing more than a computer simulation and there was never a virus to start with – the entire thing is a global fraud. Virology seems to be unaware that it is sinking further into an epistemological crisis and no more so than in the area of genomics, as outlined in this article by Mike Stone. In Stone’s article, I noticed in the comments section that Dr Valendar Turner of The Perth Group pointed out that the late Sir John Maddox, former editor of Nature, had issued a pertinent warning in 1988. It seems that those who become immersed in the world of indirect molecular detection techniques risk no longer seeing the wood for the trees as he presciently stated:
“Is there a danger, in molecular biology, that the accumulation of data will get so far ahead of its assimilation into a conceptual framework that the data will eventually prove an encumbrance? Part of the trouble is that excitement of the chase leaves little time for reflection. And there are grants for producing data, but hardly any for standing back in contemplation”.
Maddox, J. Nature 335, 11 (1998)
We will endeavour to keep exposing these anti-scientific methodologies and encourage others to ask themselves if the multi-billion dollar virology industry and the associated bogus “treatments” coming from the behemoth pharmaceutical complex are actually helping anyone with their health. For those of us that can see there is no sound basis to any of it, there is no way we would heed any advice from the doctors and scientists who promote these sick models. And perhaps more importantly, we know not to take any of the fraudulent and increasingly perverse pharmaceuticals that are products of this pseudoscience, and used as vehicles to deliver nefarious and undeclared constituents. Once again, you can avoid all of these problems by pointing out:
Where is the virus*?
*A tiny particle that is an obligate intracellular parasite (i.e. replication competent and transmissible) containing a genome surrounded by a protective, virus-coded protein coat.
Connect with Dr. Mark Bailey and Dr. Sam Bailey
cover image credit: PixxlTeufel / pixabay
See related:
Truth Comes to Light highlights writers and video creators who ask the difficult questions while sharing their unique insights and visions.
Everything posted on this site is done in the spirit of conversation. Please do your own research and trust yourself when reading and giving consideration to anything that appears here or anywhere else.
