Work of power - entry into the refutation of the virus claim- Part 2

No votes yet
 Work of power - entry into the refutation of the virus claim -Part 2
  • The so-called cytopathic effect (CPE)
  • What is alignment in virology

The so-called cytopathic effect (CPE), which is to be induced in the laboratory, serves as the first indirect proof. What is this effect, which virologists equate with a detection of a disease-causing virus?
What is a cytopathic effect and how do you recognise it?
Virologists kill tissue unnoticed in the laboratory
Virologists do not use the word "isolation" in the true sense of the word isolation and get suspiciously nervous when asked about it. They understand "isolation" to mean the production of an effect in the laboratory, the so-called cytopatic effect, which they at the same time call
a) infection
b) proof of the presence of a virus
c) proof of its multiplication
d) proof of the destructive power of the supposed virus.
In reality, they kill tissues and cells in the laboratory unnoticed and unknowingly - by starvation and poisoning. This circumstance causes morphological changes in the supposedly "infected" cells. 
The alleged cultivation of the virus
This confluence (see picture above) is called giant cell formation and a "cytopathic effect". This result of many violent and insane steps (in vitro) is interpreted as central evidence of the "presence, isolation, multiplication, etc." of the presumed virus. Those involved then claim that they have succeeded in cultivating the virus.
How did the method (CPE) come about that every virologist uses in the laboratory to claim that he has found a virus?
The misinterpretation with which it was believed that a virus had been detected (the so-called cytopathic effect) manifested itself on 10.12.1954, when John Franklin Enders was awarded the Nobel Prize for a long-standing misinterpretation surrounding the suspected polio virus. With the Nobel Prize of 10.12.1954, however, his speculation (the cytopathic effect was virus-specific) about the suspected measles virus, published on 1.6.1954, became a scientific fact overnight, which has not been doubted to this day. Doubt is the most important scientific commandment and rule to avoid misinterpretations and to recognise and correct existing misinterpretations.
On 1.6.1954 Enders and his colleagues publish observations according to which the death of tissues in the test tube could be regarded as a result of the action of presumed viruses, but at the same time refutes this presumption, since he reports that the same death of tissues in the test tube also occurs without the addition of presumably infected material. He explicitly warns that the assumption that this effect could prove the presence of a virus must be researched and investigated in the future. As a result of the Nobel Prize awarded to him on 10.12.1954, for a different matter, the admonition and request to check this technique and precisely not to equate it with the presence of a virus has not been made to date,  and in particular the controls to this day have not been included.
Important notes on the scientific publication by John Franklin Enders and his collaborator Thomas Chalmers Peebles
Nobel Laureate John Franklin Enders and his collaborator Thomas Chalmers Peebles published a report on their work with the putative measles virus entitled "Propagation in tissue cultures of cytopathogenic agents from patients with measles" in June 1954 in the journal Proceedings of the Society of Experimental Biology and Medicine, No. 86(2), pages 277-286. [9] As described on the bottom left of page 278 of this publication, the authors use, among other things, the antibiotic streptomycin to "sterilise" the throat swabs of measles patientsbefore the cells are "infected" in the test tube with the presumed measles viruses in them.
Although the authors of this study pointed this out several times (on page 283, left column in the middle and on page 285, right column three times),
Page 283
Page 285
that the death of the cells is also caused by unknown factors and unknown viruses, the authors claimed two years later that their 1954 work was fundamental for the production of all future measles vaccines. Despite these weaknesses and refutations, this study is considered by all measles virus supporters to be the fundamental study that succeeded in isolating and propagating the measles virus. This publication is also worth reading for another reason: the authors admit on page 286 that there is no reason to believe that their observations in the test tube have anything to do with the changes in humans that are defined as measles. That is how it has remained to this day.
Page 286
Today it is known that streptomycin damages and kills cells [10] [11] [12] by killing the vital bacteria inside the cells - the mitochondria, which metabolise oxygen, among other things.
Another aspect we would like to mention is that in science there is a recognition that the addition of antibiotics creates exosomes (RNA sequences) that were not present before. (Wikipedia 26.10.2020) [13].
You can find the study on this in Nature [14].
By the way:
Exosomes cannot be distinguished from claimed viruses, according to scientists. [15]
So what we do know is that this very effect - the so-called cytopathic effect - can be caused by various other causes unrelated to a suspected virus.
In the unique and unprecedented court case known as the "measles trial" [16] [17][18], one of the most important facts was suppressed by the expert witness and the court: it is the fact, documented in this publication, that cells in the test tube regularly die in exactly the same way, even if nothing is done to them at all. This refutes the claim that the way cells die in the test tube, which is passed off as a specific "cytopathic effect" (cell-destroying effect) of the alleged measles virus, is in fact a completely normal death of cells in the test tube under these conditions.
This misinterpretation was thus recognised by Prof. John Franklin Enders in his own work and attention was actively drawn to it. Nevertheless, this very method of a proof became the basis of all until today. 
Four years later, the speculations of Prof. John Franklin Enders were confirmed 
In the publication by Bech, V. & von Magnus, P. (1958) Studies on measles virus in monkey kidney tissue cultures. [19] Acta Pathologica Microbiologica Scandinavica 42(1):75-85 it is described that the cytopatic effect is not measles-specific, but is caused by other factors.
Thus, the publication states on p.80:
"cytopathic changes similar to those caused by measles virus may be observed also in uninoculated cultures of monkey kidney tissue (Fig. 4-5). These changes are probably caused by virus-like agents, so called 'foamy agents', which seem to be frequently present in kidney cells from apparently healthy monkeys".
This sentence is remarkable, as it points to the non-specificity of the very pathological changes that served as the starting point for the visual evidence of infection in the first publication by Enders & Peebles.
More of these control experiments were carried out, which showed that the cytopathic effect is not virus-specific.
We will now give you two examples (important in order to be able to interpret the significance of individual scientific publications) where the necessary control results have shown that precisely the effect, called cytopathic effect (CPE), serves as evidence for the presence of a disease-causing virus, is precisely not virus-specific, but is based on other causes. However, it is precisely this effect that is erroneouslyused by virologists as direct evidence.
  1. One of the expert reports, which was carried out within the measles virus trial and presented to the court, proved that the experimental set-up alone, i.e. the pre-treatment of the cell cultures themselves, leads to the cytopathic effect. (see expert opinion 3 - cytopathic effect in monkey kidney cells is not measles virus specific). [16]
  2. Prof. Karlheinz Lüdtke, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Early History of Virology, Special Paper 125, 89 pages, 1999. i. K. (A 2) Preprint 1999. [20]
This reading is so important because it shows how important control experiments are in order to recognise that one was wrong. It shows that by 1953 it was clear and well known to every virologist and the scientific community that all the components that had previously been interpreted as components of viruses turned out, through control experiments, to be components of dead tissues and cells. This is why it is so important to keep insisting on the lack of control experiments in the publications presented.
Sequence alignment serves as a second indirect evidence, but is the easily recognisable and essential refutation of all viral assumptions
What is alignment in virology?
Sequence alignment is a tool in which a computer uses developed software algorithms to calculate a theoretically long gene sequence from a very large number of unrelated short gene sequences. This calculated fictitious value is claimed as the hereditary strand, the so-called genome of a virus.
Why do virologists have to use this alignment process when there is supposed to be a whole structure, isolated?
The fact of alignment
Virologists have never isolated a complete strand of genetic material of a virus and directly presented it in its full length. 
They ALWAYS use only very short pieces of nucleic acids (gene sequences). From a multitude of millions of such specific, very short sequences, virologists mentally assemble a fictitious long strand of genetic material with the help of elaborate computational and statistical methods. They call this process alignment. 
The result of the complex alignment, the fictitious and very long genetic strand, is presented by virologists as the core of a virus and they claim to have proven the existence of a virus. However, such a complete strand never appears as a whole in reality or in the scientific literature, although the simplest standard techniques have long been available to determine the length and composition of nucleic acids simply and directly. By the fact of alignment rather than directly presenting an appropriately long nucleic acid, virologists have disproved themselves.
How to imagine the alignment
Imagine a sea of genetic material containing remnants of nucleic acids (genetic information) from all possible sources, where the origin of this genetic material can be human, plant, microbial (microorganisms) and many more.
In summary, the diversity of different gene sequences in a sample taken from a patient can be so incredible that millions of them have not been stored in any database. They can also be quite ordinary gene sequences that have nothing whatsoever to do with so-called "disease". 
For the computer that calculates this alignment, however, the simple input of the very many short gene sequences alone is not sufficient to be able to calculate anything on this basis, since this diverse material also appears incoherent to it.
Therefore, the user, in this case the virologist or bioinformatician, must provide the computer with a template, a kind of template. In other words: the computer needs some gene sequence, a genetic strand of another "virus", which can be found in the global database. In the case of Corona (SARS-CoV-2), the Chinese scientists decided to use a genetic strand from a harmless Corona bat virus.[36] Only by using this template is it possible to find the virus. 
Only on the basis of this template does the computer succeed in aligning the particles and generating a new genetic strand from the many short gene segments (from the patient sample) - by adding them up and forcing them to match the template (Corona bat virus). 
Gaps occur in this process because the gene sequences used (from the patient's sample) are not sufficient to construct a complete new genetic strand based on the template. For this purpose, further computer algorithms were programmed - so-called gap-filling programmes,[37] with which gene sequences can be freely invented ad hoc, out of nothing. 
The template that the virologist or bioinformatician has now decided on is fundamental for what kind of genetic strand the computer constructed will be in the end. 
This means nothing other than: Although the same gene sequences are used, a completely different constructed genetic strand would be calculated for a template, such as a genetic strand of the measles virus. What I want to say to you is that if the Chinese virologists had chosen a completely different template, we would be confronted today with a completely different allegedly mutated virus.
The following supplementary note is elementary:
Even the templates that the virologist/bioinformatician decides on are only a theoretical and fictitious construct whose complete strand (hereditary strand) never appears in reality and in the scientific literature as a whole.
This process, which today is carried out within a short time by modern tools such as fast computers and their developed algorithms, used to be carried out much more laboriously, by hand, in the early days of the alleged gene virology. 
In the case of the measles virus, the "discovery process" took decades.
Anyone who is familiar with English can directly recognise the fact that the "viral genome" (complete genome) was only constructed in thought in this publication, in which the RKI was significantly involved: "Complete Genome Sequence of a Wild-Type Measles Virus Isolated during the Spring 2013 Epidemic in Germany", to be found at: RKI [21]
To clarify: never in the publications of the scientists or other literature does the claim appear that from a (viral) structure or even from an "infected" liquid an even approximately complete nucleic acid (in the case of SARS-CoV-2: 29903 nucleotides long) [22] was found, whose determination of its molecular sequence would correspond to the whole nucleic acid constructed only in thought. [23] It is even the case that gaps (missing gene sequences) have to be freely invented, since the many very short gene sequences are not sufficient to construct a new genome.
Why can such an alignment, as just described, never be presented as scientific evidence?
A method such as alignment to calculate a theoretically long gene sequence (pool from the patient's sample) from a very short one, which is not backed up by control experiments, cannot be called scientific. Here, scientificity is pretended, which, however, obviously, comprehensibly and verifiably for everyone is not present at all.
The reason for this is, of course, obvious, simply from the knowledge that 95% of the microbes observed are visible but cannot be cultivated, which is why their RNA and DNA sequences are not known. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] Because even cell cultures (e.g. Vero E6 cells) are never free of microbes and innumerable impurities of any kind, there is an absolute obligation to isolate the suspected "virus" and to obtain its own nucleic acid (in this case RNA) in pure form from it, since otherwise there is no way of ruling out the possibility that another nucleic acid within the sample taken from the patient is not used in the construction within the alignment process on the computer and thus falsifies the final result. 
It has been known for a long time that the enzymes that produce gene sequences not only constantly generate new gene sequences through the well-known mechanism of "template switching", which cannot be recorded in any database, and that the enzymes that produce RNA gene sequences also do this without gene templates. This means that new gene sequences are constantly being created that have not been recorded with previous methods. This alone results in the obligation to carry out control experiments immediately, because it is obvious that the genome of SARS-CoV-2 was constructed computationally in whole or in part from such unspecific sequences.
A simple example explains it quite vividly
From the word alignment, every layman recognises directly that - as with all so-called pathogenic viruses - no whole and intact genome strand, i.e. the complete genome, which is assigned to SARS-CoV-2, was found and isolated, but only very short snippets of nucleic acid were constructed into something new on the basis of an alignment.
The complete genome strand of the claimed SARS-CoV-2 consists of 29903 nucleotides according to the mental-computational alignment (Fan Wu et. al.) [22].
Imagine being handed a pile of thousands of individual disjointed letters.
But they claim that these must come from a very specific book. 
Since you don't know this book, you can't do anything with the letters, you can't write a chapter.
So the client gives you a very specific and well-known book - so you now know which book it is and also know its first chapter.
You now place these letters in the corresponding order with the intention of reproducing the complete first chapter. 
Now two problems arise:
  • Your letters are different in some places,
  • There are some gaps.
So you had to change some words, but you tried to keep the sense of the chapter that serves you as a template.
When constructing the chapter, you were missing some letters and this created gaps in the words.
By using various words from your own vocabulary, you create the missing, non-existent letters ad hoc from nothing, so that words and sentences make sense.
You notice yourself that the letters that were available
  • were not enough to write an entire chapter based on the template
  • Maybe they did not even belong to the chapter that was given to you as a template. 
It is therefore a purely theoretical and fictitious end result. The letters that were thrown together on the table could have come from a variety of sources. One third could be from a cookbook, the second third from a children's book and the third from a newspaper. The same letters are used in each book; the only thing that differs is the way these individual letters are strung together. We ourselves are the architects who create a construct from individual building blocks.   
The technical steps of the alignment in a slightly abbreviated form
I would like to describe the steps slightly abbreviated, using the case of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2):
The genome of Fan Wu et. al. = 29903 base pairs long [22], has only been constructed mentally on the basis of an alignment. [23] This is done using many computational steps, in which very many short RNA sequences are added up from a BALF (genetic material) of a patient.
  • In the process, everything from the BALF was sequenced.
  • The human sequences "known" to us (matching of a database) in the mixture of genetic material are calculated out.
  • Then the overlapping sequences are filtered out of the remaining set.
  • Before the overlapping sequences are extracted from the whole set of BALF for further utilisation, the sequenced 150 nucleotide pieces are computationally divided into 21 pieces: 1-21, 2-22, 3-24 ... 129-150.
  • With these 21-kMers (in the alignment programme Megahit; 25-kMers in the alignment programme Trinity), a search is made for overlaps, which are naturally found many times. 
  • Everything that overlaps is called a contig. Everything that does not overlap is filtered out of the alignment.
  • Then those sequences that fit the given genome (bat corona virus) (using the BLAST programme) are used for the alignment.
  • What percentage of the entire genome has gaps (1% to almost all??) is not specified.
  • A gap-filling programme [37] closes these open gaps by calculating which type of gene (for a protein of the virus) would fit at this position.
  • Then further smoothing is done to comply with the rules of ORFs (Open reading frames).
Logical consequence: What has been artificially created here in all kinds of steps, all under merely believed, never verified "assumptions", has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality!
The mutation assertions are nothing more than a re-alignment.
Each re-sequencing creates another genome sequence (gene snippets attributed to the genome). The GISAID database currently (14.02.2021) already lists almost 530,000 [33] different such genome sequences for one and the same claimed virus (SARS-CoV-2).
These deviations are wrongly called mutations.
Just like the motto, sequenced 1000 times, mutated 1000 times :).
Since these - according to the nature of DNA (constant change of the structure independently of each other) - deliver different results with each sequencing process, these naturally constantly occurring changes were passed off as mutations of a virus. 
The genome strand (Fan Wu et. al 29903bp) [22], which the virologists of the CCDC constructed and proposed on the basis of an alignment [23], became the template for all others worldwide. 
To date, no team has succeeded in reconstructing the identical composition of the genome proposed by the team of Fan Wu et. al. 
The reasons are obvious:
  • The body is constantly generating new gene sequences. 
  • Human genes are in a constant state of flux and not, as once thought, a fixed and unchanging blueprint (See article in the Zeit of 12.6.2008: Genome in Dissolution). [34]
  • 95% of the observed microbes are visible but cannot be cultivated, which is why their RNA and DNA sequences are not known. [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
Information on the photos of viruses claimed to be isolated: When does a picture say nothing about the existence of the person pictured and can only be interpreted as unscientific or even fraudulent?
  • when there is no scientific publication that at least states and describes that the nucleic acid was determined from a structure shown as evidence in a picture,
  • no control experiments have been carried out to confirm that the structure is not different from the one assumed,
  • if that structure has not been isolated from all other constituents,
e.g. the so-called HIV, measles and smallpox virus images clearly show, as the captions themselves already state, that these are cells in which viruses are supposed to be - so nothing has been isolated!
Measles virus in vero-cells
Publikation Luc Montagnier - Quelle [30]
Decisive things must be said about EM images in general 
Structures shown in EM images and published as images of viruses have never been biochemically characterised. No nucleic acid was ever taken from such particles and determined. 
These particles are only passed off as viruses, omitting the information that the same particles of this type are also produced every time "uninfected" cell cultures are treated in the same way as cell cultures defined as "infected". Non-virologists refer to these particles as e.g. phagosomes, endosomes, exosomes, transport vesicles and in cross-section as villi etc. pp. 
 You will see the same representation to many different claimed structures. 
 EM images always show dead, chemically fixed things. [31] The image depicts soap micelles made of detergents, fats and proteins, preserved by freezing and perhaps only created by this freezing process.
Detergent-Protein Interaction
The only important message to the outside world: only "artefacts" are depicted - the decisive factor here is:
  • that these images only come from cell cultures, i.e. dying tissue in a test tube, and definitely show nothing that comes from a human being,
  • that these structures have never been biochemically characterised (sic!),
  • nucleic acids, which are supposed to be the core of the virus, have never been obtained from these structures (i.e. nucleic acids have never been obtained from a specific structure that is claimed to be a virus).
A motionless image from electron microscopy never shows the living biological process. What one examines under the EMs has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on in the biological organism of the human being. Any result from the laboratory can give absolutely no conclusions about the processes within a living organism.