This is excellent, thank you so much Michael for summarizing and highlighting this incredibly important paper. I'm sending your article to hundreds of people who think they're "authorities", plus lamestream media, etc :)
Okay cool, thanks for your reply! Were you invited because someone else has your same name and your email (with your real name and address of course) is in sooooooo many peoples email address books? And they just messed up and invited you? Is that how it happened? Just asking because I can see how people would get suspicious if they don't know you and if they don't know how it got leaked....
If you watch Sam's video or look here (http://www.bccdc.ca/about/leadership) you will see that a Christine Massey is listed as "Executive Vice President, Population Health and Wellness, Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA)" at BC's CDC, so it seems pretty clear that they meant to invite her instead and made an auto-fill error. I have no way of knowing for sure what happened (unless I file an FOI about it, which I've not done but anyone can do).
I've not looked up the other Christine's email address but it's probably nothing like mine (cmssyc@gmail.com). But in many email programs if you start typing the person's name i.e. Christine, the associated addresses will come up.
I've sent many "germ"-related FOIs in Canada, so no surprise if I'm in some email address books. No-virus people get treated suspiciously by "truthers" who go along with the fake-virus narratives all the time (to the benefit of pharma and the surveillance state), so nothing new there.
This is the final shredding of SARS-CoV2.......sadly, it will never make it out to the mainstream....BUT, we can use it to destroy the main virology gatekeepers on X like Debunk the Funk..
Awesome, thanks for sharing. What's even crazier to me is that all the other so called virus discoveries are equally or even more absurd. The "polio" story still has me shaking my head at how tragic and obviously stupid the official narrative is.
Stopping the fear to get ill from others and stopping the only harmful injections is the goal.
When we start with asking for evidence for any transmissible disease and show none of the 60+ experiments could do it, we can conclude that no 'vaccine' has ever been proven to be effective. Done!
You have to look at this from their point of view: the best way for you to create a codependent relationship with the governed is to convince them they need product X and you are the only seller.
Thank you for this. # 8 in the steps they use with computer to "identify" I found particularly funny, because of how much effort I put into trying to understand the logical methods they were using to "identify" viruses way back. The truth is, there never was any logic. Its as if someone instead worked on the question, "What can we use to break this sample down into many small pieces of DNA so that we can sew them back together in a sequence that matches a previously made-up sequence that we called a virus. This will give the people in lab coats a repeatable method and a way to obtain "results", and a way to make it look very scientific and of course throw in some big words and photos and put it in really small print with lots of footnotes mentioning labs and prestigious universities etc.
Mike, what proof do we have that these alphabets were actually assembled into a supposed genome to begin with? Is there any proof that it wasn't just printed out from Illumina Inc? Illumina can boast taking on a bunch of staff from Theranos btw, but I digress.
What they write in a paper is no more proof of anything than what the WEF puts on their web site is it?
👉 I will explain why it must have been a pre-written script and result:
1. This is a large enterprise fraud on a tight timeline where no mistakes can be made. Nothing can be left to chance.
2. All the scary fake virus parts of the genome must be there to fit with the story: HIV seqs, furin cleavage site seqs, capsid etc.
3. I asked Fan Wu et al,. for the raw data and software data and code, the make, serial numbers, specs, and settings of the machines used, and got no reply-and put that in a post 2 yrs ago. How can any of this be verified besides stating it is what they spout in their papers?
👉I strongly opine that none of these sequencing procedures were done anywhere and that it is a show and request actual proof they were done as stated. If we can't prove that it was done then any discussion of the math or seq procedure needs to be prefaced with the fact that it has not been proven exactly what was done and that it is clearly possible it is all a fabrication.
What you are saying certainly could be true. We don't know. But, I actually lean in the other direction. I think how they work is to build institutional pseudo-knowledge step by step, until they have built great cities of bull-sh*t which they can lean on anytime they need. But more specifically, we can see what they did. They came in (Illumina, that is) and they had a sequence in mind which they wanted to "find." Then they went ahead and tested for the contigs on that sequence through pcr amplification until they scored a hit on the contigs they needed. This happens, Lanka once explained, through the heating and cooling involved in repeated cycles, which makes the fragment markers light up without any specificity. So in a way it is entirely manufactured, but its manufactured not by just writing it on a piece of paper, but through a technological process that is ultimately discernible - and that to me is what is so interesting about this Hamburg paper - he was able to discern the sleight of hand used in this process and to pinpoint it mathematically.
Thanks for reply Mike. Look at the basis of the paper again, "we performed some reference-based assemblies with additional genome sequences such as SARS-CoV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Hepatitis delta virus, Measles virus, Zika virus, Ebola virus, or Marburg virus to study the structural similarity of the present sequence data with the respective sequences."
-Where do they get this data from? We don't know if that was pre-scripted even if based on human seqs. It certainly wasn't taken from a biologic object proven to be a virus. So with the source of the data of the math unknown the math based on that does not itself prove Sars was assembled by metagenomics. Just like we can not make reification fallacies about viruses we should not make reification fallacies of these seq origins. They could also be from metagenomics then airbrushed to fit. We just don't know-though it wasn't reproducible right?
I'm taking two further steps, 1. we dont have raw data of the machines and metagenomic settings/basis, and 2. It is now clear this is an enterprise project where nothing can be left to chance-that is crystal clear. Do you think the events of 9.11 were planned meticulously in advance or they decided to wing it adjusting "a little to the left" or a "little to the right" as they went along?
So my advice to you-as you once gave to me on the child abuse post which I took to heart and revised, is that you should have a caveat/disclaimer statement on the possibility of pre-writing which is entirely possible and actually more logical from a planning point of view.
Thanks Proton. I think we disagree on this in terms of HOW this data is manufactured. I think the evidence points to manufacturing all of these sequence data through manipulating the technological processes through which "accepted" knowledge is accepted. I think that is how they play this game. Yes, there are some moments where they make stuff up whole cloth, but it appears that in this as in most areas, they have a deep understanding of how to get the data they want and then go get it. As for the data, we do have the raw data, or much of it - that is the data the Hamburg fellow used to re-run the processes. As for 9-11, i think it's similar - they didn't make up 9-11 and tell everyone it happened. they manufactured explosions and then told everyone the story they wanted about how and why those explosions happened. no?
"I think the evidence points to manufacturing all of these sequence data through manipulating the technological processes through which "accepted" knowledge is accepted."
-maybe but that is the story in the paper for public consumption. You have no proof of that and the logic of crucial timeline and leaving nothing to chance is hard for your logic to overcome. Just simmer on it slowly, I'm not your logic enemy, take it easy.
yeah no worries. i like thinking this through with you. but remember - they needed a "discovery" which was repeatable by other people around in the world in independent labs. e.g. other labs who could generate this "whole genome" and thus they needed a PROCESS by which those labs could generate this. I think that's an important aspect of how they work.
"they needed a "discovery" which was repeatable by other people around in the world"
because in the body of your post you say the opposite:
"the non-replicable nature of the SARS-CoV-2 sequencing goes far beyond that...we are talking about a computer running the same software upon the same data-set not being able to replicate what was claimed to have happened on another computer running the same software on the same data-set!"
In conclusion the mathemagcian😹 finds:
"that the final (SARS-CoV-2) sequence claimed to match “corona viruses” didn’t even match these theoretical sequences"
-I wonder, does that suggest the original was just printed out of thin air like fiat currency?
yes. and here i think its clear they came in with a (mostly if not entirely) pre-determined sequence they wanted and then used pcr "amplification" to generate the markers they needed to make the sequence they needed. i think a close reading of the hamburg paper shows that to be the case.
Wow Michael - this is huge. All that genetic sequencing stuff is bizarre. Actually, everything to do with virology is so weird - what are they thinking?
if only we knew what they are thinking. But as the great Dr. Nancy Turner Banks once said: I don't know what they are thinking, because I am not a sociopath.
Yip a mathematical and complex way to expose the fraud of 1) taking a soup of dna contaminated rna and then 2) CG - sequencing it - into what has not at any stage been physically isolated ( ie its non existing).
I am pleased to note that Chistine Massey has already commented as she will find this analysis most useful when she continues to spread the word that no pathogenic virus has ever been found or identified in human history.
I should, however, like to make what I regard as the most important point. It is futile to criticise the use of vaccines and their efficacy ad nauseam. Vaccines are irrelevant and so is virology. This "scientism" is complete nonsense. Consequently, all the opponents should concentrate on driving home the fact that - as stated above - no virus has ever been found or identified in human history. The acceptance of this truth spells the end of the efforts of the WHO, its associated bodies and governments to create pandemics and related control measures. It amounts to "Checkmate", but do not forget that the pharmaceutical industry is currently creating more and more "vaccines" for all sorts of afflictions. Every one of these "vaccines" ist not merely useless but also extremely dangerous, but the media and the politicians tell us that this is the only way to ensure population health. Only yesterday, the shadow prime minister of the UK, Keir Starmer, said that he would have to deal with vaccine conspiracists, if elected. These people are either completely brainwashed or stupid or in the pocket of Big Pharma and its owners.
PS. One more observation: when they tell you that the "new Vaccines" have an effectiveness of, say, 47% or so it is a blatant lie. Pharmaceutical companies always quote the "relative risk reduction", which is meaningless and never the "absolute risk reduction", which invariably is zero or even negative.
Many thanks! I did read the "journal article" from Jan. 7, 2020 and Jan. 20, 2020 published Feb. 3. I did try to follow the details, but I am not a scientist. I found myself sceptical of their claims of a novel virus, but could not fault their method.
I have been a fan of Mr. Lanka for some time. And am delighted he was able to shoot this story down. I have recently begun asking who verified the existence of SARS-CoV-2. I concluded the WHO was a party as well as the Chinese. The rest of us were had.
FWIW, I tried to send the URL of your story to a friend in the UK. My email was returned as spam. The censors are still on the job.
Dear Michael, thank you for your excellent and important synopsis. I recall the first time I read this paper a few years ago, I couldn't believe my eyes. Two different software (Trinity and Megahit) generated about 1 million seven hundred thousand variations of the digital SarsCov2 virus. And, they decided to go with the longest one! I recall thinking at that time, with this approach, likely any digital virus can be found and a control would have shown this. Currently, GISAID is showing 16,788,878 variants of the digital virus. The good news is they seem to only "infect" people one at a time. lol
Fantastic article. I knew the 'virus' only existed as a compter genrated model but this really highlights the whole scam. I recently wrote an article on how the efficacy of the covid 'vaccines' was actually based on testing them against a pseudovirus not the actual 'virus', briefly mentioning the fact that the virus had never been isolated and was only ever a computer sequence. Please see below if you are interested.
Let me first say that I understand the gist of the explanation, but after a few pages the paper itself completely lost me because of all of the scientific jargon. I understand that experts speak to other experts in specialized language. I'm glad this came with the explanation first.
In light of this, and other, papers attempting to debunk the whole enterprise of virology, I now see the Fauci show in front of the House as being possibly irrelevant if there is no virus. It doesn't matter how the virus came to be if there is no virus.
Sometimes I wonder if these spectacles are meant more to reinforce the current narrative rather than get to the truth. Everybody is asking, "Where did the virus come from?", not, "Is there a virus at all?"
So, in layman's terms, it appears what they really "discovered" was a way to create the biggest crime against humanity in history. We all know the "cure" ie ventilators, BS experimental injections, Isolation of our elderly who desperately needed love and attention were the "real" cause of deaths, along with, of course, "stealing" the death numbers from the traditional flu (and natural causes and accidents and...well just about every other cause of death) that somehow miraculously vanished during that time inexplicably.
Hi Michael, bravo! This is excellent. Thanks for getting this out there. So glad this came out to the public and your summary was ....uh.... necessary, since personally I really don't want to read the original paper and give myself a brain ache. The great thing is that having "followed" you and all the other amazing researchers for several years now (!!) I have a very high level of trust that this mathematician did good work and that your summary points are indeed accurate. I hope others who are newer to this very deep and important rabbit hole take this information seriously. To say that it is essential for this level of information/debunking to be taken seriously is a huge understatement. All the smoke and mirrors of "the math" was absolutely necessary to pull off this plandemic. The very basic and grossly flawed methodologies that virology employs were able to be kept in place and largely left unexamined due in part to the deeply held belief (assumption) that the computer programs and the math are infallible, or at least of very high integrity, and always illuminating instead of obscuring. Pretty funny assumptions. And tragic. Like you said, it's hard to know whether to laugh or cry. Basically, "the math ain't mathin'" and the crime goes undiscovered by the public. The computer programs seem more like intellectual fog machines to me! Spewing out a hypnotizing fog of confusion, while being lauded as a tool of clarification!
This is excellent, thank you so much Michael for summarizing and highlighting this incredibly important paper. I'm sending your article to hundreds of people who think they're "authorities", plus lamestream media, etc :)
Awesome. Thanks Christine!
Here it is, they can't say they didn't know:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-05-31-Reveal-the-SARS-COV-2-sequencing-sham-Michael-Wallach.pdf
I saw someone posted your leaked video on X, is the video getting traction? Just curious.
Sam Bailey did a video about it and provided the link, and it was even mentioned on zero hedge, so it is def getting some traction.
Okay cool, thanks for your reply! Were you invited because someone else has your same name and your email (with your real name and address of course) is in sooooooo many peoples email address books? And they just messed up and invited you? Is that how it happened? Just asking because I can see how people would get suspicious if they don't know you and if they don't know how it got leaked....
If you watch Sam's video or look here (http://www.bccdc.ca/about/leadership) you will see that a Christine Massey is listed as "Executive Vice President, Population Health and Wellness, Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA)" at BC's CDC, so it seems pretty clear that they meant to invite her instead and made an auto-fill error. I have no way of knowing for sure what happened (unless I file an FOI about it, which I've not done but anyone can do).
I've not looked up the other Christine's email address but it's probably nothing like mine (cmssyc@gmail.com). But in many email programs if you start typing the person's name i.e. Christine, the associated addresses will come up.
I've sent many "germ"-related FOIs in Canada, so no surprise if I'm in some email address books. No-virus people get treated suspiciously by "truthers" who go along with the fake-virus narratives all the time (to the benefit of pharma and the surveillance state), so nothing new there.
This is the final shredding of SARS-CoV2.......sadly, it will never make it out to the mainstream....BUT, we can use it to destroy the main virology gatekeepers on X like Debunk the Funk..
Awesome, thanks for sharing. What's even crazier to me is that all the other so called virus discoveries are equally or even more absurd. The "polio" story still has me shaking my head at how tragic and obviously stupid the official narrative is.
In my view all official narratives are uniformly stupid, probably due to the fact that those who come up with them are uniformly arrogant idiots.
Same.
No disease could EVER be proven to be transmissible!
.
Therefore viruses by definition (disease causing particle) have never been proven to exist.
.
AND no 'vaccine' has EVER been proven to be effective to prevent dis-ease.
.
Therefore ALL 'vaccines' are only harmful injections!
https://telegra.ph/Youve-been-lied-to-by-experts-who-dont-know-any-better--the-hard-virus-truth-05-20
Only need to ask them how "patient-0" contracts a virus...and then watch what they present as the hypothesis....hahahahahaha
⚠️ We can skip the whole virus discussion.
Stopping the fear to get ill from others and stopping the only harmful injections is the goal.
When we start with asking for evidence for any transmissible disease and show none of the 60+ experiments could do it, we can conclude that no 'vaccine' has ever been proven to be effective. Done!
You have to look at this from their point of view: the best way for you to create a codependent relationship with the governed is to convince them they need product X and you are the only seller.
Cynicism has an unfair bad reputation.
Thank you for this. # 8 in the steps they use with computer to "identify" I found particularly funny, because of how much effort I put into trying to understand the logical methods they were using to "identify" viruses way back. The truth is, there never was any logic. Its as if someone instead worked on the question, "What can we use to break this sample down into many small pieces of DNA so that we can sew them back together in a sequence that matches a previously made-up sequence that we called a virus. This will give the people in lab coats a repeatable method and a way to obtain "results", and a way to make it look very scientific and of course throw in some big words and photos and put it in really small print with lots of footnotes mentioning labs and prestigious universities etc.
bingo.
Mike, what proof do we have that these alphabets were actually assembled into a supposed genome to begin with? Is there any proof that it wasn't just printed out from Illumina Inc? Illumina can boast taking on a bunch of staff from Theranos btw, but I digress.
What they write in a paper is no more proof of anything than what the WEF puts on their web site is it?
👉 I will explain why it must have been a pre-written script and result:
1. This is a large enterprise fraud on a tight timeline where no mistakes can be made. Nothing can be left to chance.
2. All the scary fake virus parts of the genome must be there to fit with the story: HIV seqs, furin cleavage site seqs, capsid etc.
3. I asked Fan Wu et al,. for the raw data and software data and code, the make, serial numbers, specs, and settings of the machines used, and got no reply-and put that in a post 2 yrs ago. How can any of this be verified besides stating it is what they spout in their papers?
👉I strongly opine that none of these sequencing procedures were done anywhere and that it is a show and request actual proof they were done as stated. If we can't prove that it was done then any discussion of the math or seq procedure needs to be prefaced with the fact that it has not been proven exactly what was done and that it is clearly possible it is all a fabrication.
Hey Proton,
What you are saying certainly could be true. We don't know. But, I actually lean in the other direction. I think how they work is to build institutional pseudo-knowledge step by step, until they have built great cities of bull-sh*t which they can lean on anytime they need. But more specifically, we can see what they did. They came in (Illumina, that is) and they had a sequence in mind which they wanted to "find." Then they went ahead and tested for the contigs on that sequence through pcr amplification until they scored a hit on the contigs they needed. This happens, Lanka once explained, through the heating and cooling involved in repeated cycles, which makes the fragment markers light up without any specificity. So in a way it is entirely manufactured, but its manufactured not by just writing it on a piece of paper, but through a technological process that is ultimately discernible - and that to me is what is so interesting about this Hamburg paper - he was able to discern the sleight of hand used in this process and to pinpoint it mathematically.
Thanks for reply Mike. Look at the basis of the paper again, "we performed some reference-based assemblies with additional genome sequences such as SARS-CoV, Human immunodeficiency virus, Hepatitis delta virus, Measles virus, Zika virus, Ebola virus, or Marburg virus to study the structural similarity of the present sequence data with the respective sequences."
-Where do they get this data from? We don't know if that was pre-scripted even if based on human seqs. It certainly wasn't taken from a biologic object proven to be a virus. So with the source of the data of the math unknown the math based on that does not itself prove Sars was assembled by metagenomics. Just like we can not make reification fallacies about viruses we should not make reification fallacies of these seq origins. They could also be from metagenomics then airbrushed to fit. We just don't know-though it wasn't reproducible right?
I'm taking two further steps, 1. we dont have raw data of the machines and metagenomic settings/basis, and 2. It is now clear this is an enterprise project where nothing can be left to chance-that is crystal clear. Do you think the events of 9.11 were planned meticulously in advance or they decided to wing it adjusting "a little to the left" or a "little to the right" as they went along?
So my advice to you-as you once gave to me on the child abuse post which I took to heart and revised, is that you should have a caveat/disclaimer statement on the possibility of pre-writing which is entirely possible and actually more logical from a planning point of view.
Thanks Proton. I think we disagree on this in terms of HOW this data is manufactured. I think the evidence points to manufacturing all of these sequence data through manipulating the technological processes through which "accepted" knowledge is accepted. I think that is how they play this game. Yes, there are some moments where they make stuff up whole cloth, but it appears that in this as in most areas, they have a deep understanding of how to get the data they want and then go get it. As for the data, we do have the raw data, or much of it - that is the data the Hamburg fellow used to re-run the processes. As for 9-11, i think it's similar - they didn't make up 9-11 and tell everyone it happened. they manufactured explosions and then told everyone the story they wanted about how and why those explosions happened. no?
"I think the evidence points to manufacturing all of these sequence data through manipulating the technological processes through which "accepted" knowledge is accepted."
-maybe but that is the story in the paper for public consumption. You have no proof of that and the logic of crucial timeline and leaving nothing to chance is hard for your logic to overcome. Just simmer on it slowly, I'm not your logic enemy, take it easy.
yeah no worries. i like thinking this through with you. but remember - they needed a "discovery" which was repeatable by other people around in the world in independent labs. e.g. other labs who could generate this "whole genome" and thus they needed a PROCESS by which those labs could generate this. I think that's an important aspect of how they work.
Agreed! Pre-written and put into software are not mutually exclusive. See we are really buddies after all!
Mike not sure what you mean about,
"they needed a "discovery" which was repeatable by other people around in the world"
because in the body of your post you say the opposite:
"the non-replicable nature of the SARS-CoV-2 sequencing goes far beyond that...we are talking about a computer running the same software upon the same data-set not being able to replicate what was claimed to have happened on another computer running the same software on the same data-set!"
In conclusion the mathemagcian😹 finds:
"that the final (SARS-CoV-2) sequence claimed to match “corona viruses” didn’t even match these theoretical sequences"
-I wonder, does that suggest the original was just printed out of thin air like fiat currency?
I said I 2020 that the "pandemic" was exactly like 911. Same smoke and mirrors
We mean the same thing, 911 was a plan written in advance not happening as it unfolded.
yes. and here i think its clear they came in with a (mostly if not entirely) pre-determined sequence they wanted and then used pcr "amplification" to generate the markers they needed to make the sequence they needed. i think a close reading of the hamburg paper shows that to be the case.
Ok we differ on a few points, still neither me nor you have any proof of actually what happened, I admit that and you should too! Keep in touch.
Okay, that's a TON OF WORK!
That mathematician from Hamburg... who would've thought that a Hamburger would save us!
Wow Michael - this is huge. All that genetic sequencing stuff is bizarre. Actually, everything to do with virology is so weird - what are they thinking?
if only we knew what they are thinking. But as the great Dr. Nancy Turner Banks once said: I don't know what they are thinking, because I am not a sociopath.
Yip a mathematical and complex way to expose the fraud of 1) taking a soup of dna contaminated rna and then 2) CG - sequencing it - into what has not at any stage been physically isolated ( ie its non existing).
https://notpublicaddress.wordpress.com/2020/08/08/how-to-create-your-own-novel-virususing-computer-software/
I am pleased to note that Chistine Massey has already commented as she will find this analysis most useful when she continues to spread the word that no pathogenic virus has ever been found or identified in human history.
I should, however, like to make what I regard as the most important point. It is futile to criticise the use of vaccines and their efficacy ad nauseam. Vaccines are irrelevant and so is virology. This "scientism" is complete nonsense. Consequently, all the opponents should concentrate on driving home the fact that - as stated above - no virus has ever been found or identified in human history. The acceptance of this truth spells the end of the efforts of the WHO, its associated bodies and governments to create pandemics and related control measures. It amounts to "Checkmate", but do not forget that the pharmaceutical industry is currently creating more and more "vaccines" for all sorts of afflictions. Every one of these "vaccines" ist not merely useless but also extremely dangerous, but the media and the politicians tell us that this is the only way to ensure population health. Only yesterday, the shadow prime minister of the UK, Keir Starmer, said that he would have to deal with vaccine conspiracists, if elected. These people are either completely brainwashed or stupid or in the pocket of Big Pharma and its owners.
PS. One more observation: when they tell you that the "new Vaccines" have an effectiveness of, say, 47% or so it is a blatant lie. Pharmaceutical companies always quote the "relative risk reduction", which is meaningless and never the "absolute risk reduction", which invariably is zero or even negative.
Many thanks! I did read the "journal article" from Jan. 7, 2020 and Jan. 20, 2020 published Feb. 3. I did try to follow the details, but I am not a scientist. I found myself sceptical of their claims of a novel virus, but could not fault their method.
I have been a fan of Mr. Lanka for some time. And am delighted he was able to shoot this story down. I have recently begun asking who verified the existence of SARS-CoV-2. I concluded the WHO was a party as well as the Chinese. The rest of us were had.
FWIW, I tried to send the URL of your story to a friend in the UK. My email was returned as spam. The censors are still on the job.
Dear Michael, thank you for your excellent and important synopsis. I recall the first time I read this paper a few years ago, I couldn't believe my eyes. Two different software (Trinity and Megahit) generated about 1 million seven hundred thousand variations of the digital SarsCov2 virus. And, they decided to go with the longest one! I recall thinking at that time, with this approach, likely any digital virus can be found and a control would have shown this. Currently, GISAID is showing 16,788,878 variants of the digital virus. The good news is they seem to only "infect" people one at a time. lol
Fantastic article. I knew the 'virus' only existed as a compter genrated model but this really highlights the whole scam. I recently wrote an article on how the efficacy of the covid 'vaccines' was actually based on testing them against a pseudovirus not the actual 'virus', briefly mentioning the fact that the virus had never been isolated and was only ever a computer sequence. Please see below if you are interested.
https://stephenmcmurray.substack.com/p/pseudoviruses-for-a-pseudo-pandemic
Let me first say that I understand the gist of the explanation, but after a few pages the paper itself completely lost me because of all of the scientific jargon. I understand that experts speak to other experts in specialized language. I'm glad this came with the explanation first.
In light of this, and other, papers attempting to debunk the whole enterprise of virology, I now see the Fauci show in front of the House as being possibly irrelevant if there is no virus. It doesn't matter how the virus came to be if there is no virus.
Sometimes I wonder if these spectacles are meant more to reinforce the current narrative rather than get to the truth. Everybody is asking, "Where did the virus come from?", not, "Is there a virus at all?"
yes indeed.
So, in layman's terms, it appears what they really "discovered" was a way to create the biggest crime against humanity in history. We all know the "cure" ie ventilators, BS experimental injections, Isolation of our elderly who desperately needed love and attention were the "real" cause of deaths, along with, of course, "stealing" the death numbers from the traditional flu (and natural causes and accidents and...well just about every other cause of death) that somehow miraculously vanished during that time inexplicably.
Hi Michael, bravo! This is excellent. Thanks for getting this out there. So glad this came out to the public and your summary was ....uh.... necessary, since personally I really don't want to read the original paper and give myself a brain ache. The great thing is that having "followed" you and all the other amazing researchers for several years now (!!) I have a very high level of trust that this mathematician did good work and that your summary points are indeed accurate. I hope others who are newer to this very deep and important rabbit hole take this information seriously. To say that it is essential for this level of information/debunking to be taken seriously is a huge understatement. All the smoke and mirrors of "the math" was absolutely necessary to pull off this plandemic. The very basic and grossly flawed methodologies that virology employs were able to be kept in place and largely left unexamined due in part to the deeply held belief (assumption) that the computer programs and the math are infallible, or at least of very high integrity, and always illuminating instead of obscuring. Pretty funny assumptions. And tragic. Like you said, it's hard to know whether to laugh or cry. Basically, "the math ain't mathin'" and the crime goes undiscovered by the public. The computer programs seem more like intellectual fog machines to me! Spewing out a hypnotizing fog of confusion, while being lauded as a tool of clarification!
Thanks Carolyn!
it’s hard to say whether one should laugh or cry. laugh. its good for us and it shrivels fascists.