How a single misinterpretation on January 10, 2020 led the whole world astray

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on pinterest
Pinterest
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on telegram
Telegram

How a single misinterpretation on January 10, 2020 led the whole world astray.

By Jorg Berg

This article was written for laymen and especially for the experts among you, meaning all virologists, biochemists, microbiologists, cell specialists and especially the bio-computer scientists who calculate the long sequence of the claimed viruses from very short gene sequences. Each of them has not only the duty to act morally-ethically, but should also follow the professional code of honour, the clear scientific rules.

The binding scientific rules (1) prescribe strict doubting and checking of scientific statements before they are published. This has demonstrably not happened at Corona.

The opposite happens: The virologists who have been contacted up to now evade the clear questions with constant evasion, ignoring visible contradictions and refutations, violating laws of thought and logic. It is clear that it can be difficult to admit mistakes. But here it is clearly a matter of life and the preservation of society and economy.

Therefore and herewith all are asked to check the following in peace and above all carefully. We will show how a momentous error in December 2019 could have led to the kind of aberration we are currently experiencing.

What was the exact trigger and where did the mistake happen that everyone was sitting on and that hardly anyone seemed to notice? In other words, a mistake that no one took “for full” and which nevertheless led to the whole world going into that panic mode that led to a collective disregard for the most basic scientific tasks and duties?

It would be easy for us to show and expose a number of virologists and experts in related fields, simply by means of the e-mail correspondence in which we involved those responsible.

But this is not our basic concern, because we still believe in the good in people, we believe in inner honesty and scientific truthfulness. We want everyone to have the opportunity to save face.

Each of these decision-makers and scientists in the relevant authorities, institutions and universities now have the chance to go down in history as a hero and not just to put an end to the momentum that has been set in motion, which endangers the lives of many people, the cohesion of society and the functioning of the economy. If overcome, the Corona crisis holds a huge opportunity for everyone.

How did the Corona panic actually begin? We will show you!

The beginning of the corona crisis in China

On December 30, 2019, the ophthalmologist (eye doctor) Li Wenliang informed professional colleagues via Whatsapp that 7 people with pneumonia were in his hospital who might be suffering from SARS.

These were only seven patients, by the decisive Januar 20, 2020 there were only 49 in the 11 million metropolis of Wuhan – please keep this ratio in mind when we remind you that China has a population of around 1.4 billion people.

Now something happened that should not have happened like this: One of the seven recipients of the private WhatsApp message published – without being aware of the possible consequences – a screenshot of this message on the Internet!

This was the birth of panic: Seven supposed SARS cases, with infectiologists hiding the numerous known causes of atypical pneumonia!


On December 31, 2019, exactly one day later, the government in Beijing sent an “intervention force” consisting of virologists and epidemiologists to support the matter in Wuhan and to check and verify the claim of the existence of an epidemic situation!

This is where it starts to get tricky: We are getting closer to the important facts that led to all the misguided panic – and only those who at least noticed!

On January 1, 2020, Prof. Christian Drosten of the Charité immediately started to develop a PCR test before it was or could even be clarified whether the report from China about SARS was true and proven, and above all before the Chinese virologists had made their results available to the public! He testified that since January 1, 2020, he has been developing a genetic detection method (2) to reliably prove the presence of a new corona virus in humans. How could he know that it was not the old SARS virus from 2003 or countless non-corona viruses, which are also thought to cause atypical pneumonia?


When preliminary compilations of sequences appeared on the Internet on January 10 and 12, 2020, which were subsequently modified and re-published on January 24 and February 3, 2020 (3|4), this was the result of the first two attempts to identify the as yet unknown virus. The virologists of the CCDC had theoretically assembled the sequences of short gene fragments into a possible genetic strand using computer programs. What does this mean exactly?

The publication of Fan Wu et al, in Nature, Vol 579 of February 3, 2020 (5), in which the genome (complete genome strand) of SARS-CoV-2 was introduced for the first time and used for the template for all further alignments, showed that the entire RNA obtained from a bronchial lavage (BALF) of a patient had clearly been used without any prior isolation or enrichment of viral structures or nucleic acids.

This RNA was then converted into cDNA and molecules with a length of just 150 nucleotides were sequenced to construct the complete genome, which is about 30,000 nucleotides long, purely by calculation.

So that you can really understand what happened here, once again in plain language:

Prof. Christian Drosten from the Charité in Berlin had the reagents (primers) for the SARS-CoV-2 virus PCR test synthesized at the company Tib Molbiol even before the Chinese scientists around Fan Wu had presented their preliminary sequence proposals for the virus online to the world in the night from January 10, 2020 to January 11, 2020.

Because this astonished us, we checked their publication (6) and had to face the fact that the Chinese virologists had created the genome of the virus, which was later renamed SARS-CoV-2, only purely mathematically, by adding up very short sequence pieces.  The complete genome, let alone larger parts of it, was not found by them!

What’s more, they have not isolated a virus or viral structures and the viral nucleic acids from them, but only the entire RNA obtained by means of a lung lavage.

And from very short pieces of usually 21 to 25 nucleotides (bases), among them very isolated ones with a length of about 100 nucleotides, the genome of the virus, consisting of 30,000 bases, was created, only computer-aided, by aligning it to a given genome.

If there had been no genome (genome strand) template, no one would have been able to create a new virus. Existing gaps were mathematically closed by Fan Wu et al, assuming the probable shape of the assumed proteins of the assumed virus and their assumed genes (in the case of SARS-CoV-2 there are 10 genes) and their probable RNA products.

The extent of these gaps – whether they were 10 % or 90 % of the genome – cannot be seen from the publication.

In addition, RNA is usually transformed into c(opy)DNA in order to be able to sequence it (using the NGS techniques). Direct RNA sequencing (Third Generation Sequencing, e.g. Nanopore) is not a routine, as this technique produces 10 % errors (or the previous techniques produced 10 % errors!).

What has been done here is to create a model of a “virus” on the computer, which is thought to exist in reality because an algorithm that has been programmed beforehand considers this model to be “correct”.

But it is important to understand that this virus model has never been isolated as a whole and intact by anyone in the world.

If many viruses were present, they could easily be isolated in large numbers in the density gradient, photographed in large numbers in isolated form and completely biochemically characterized, just like bacteriophages.

The presence of long nucleic acids can be detected directly in gel electrophoresis (7), including RNA, which has not been done with any disease-causing virus to date.

The next elementary error:

The Chinese virologists did not perform control experiments to rule out

  • that even with human/microbial RNA from a lung lavage of a healthy person,
  • of a person with another lung disease,
  • of a person who has been tested SARS-CoV-2 negative,
  • or from such RNA from reserve samples from the time when the SARS-CoV-2 virus was still unknown

exactly the same addition of a virus genome from short RNA fragments is possible!

Not only would these control experiments prove that the same genome (genome model) can be generated from normal human/microbial RNA by means of an alignment,  but these control experiments are scientific practice and have been mandatory since 1998 by the German Research Foundation (8)!

This misconduct alone and the misinterpretation by all virologists, due to

a) ignorance

b) insufficient research of the studies

c) panic

d) political pressure

e) or simply ignorance

led us into this false pandemic.

To date, not a single virologist in the world has seen a whole and intact SARS-CoV-2 virus in reality.

If it weren’t so sad, we could all laugh about this mistake, but unfortunately this has already passed us by.

Already in 1951 the Virology had dissolved and retired:

Prof. Karlheinz Lüdtke, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Zur Geschichte der frühen Virusforschung (Early History of Virology), reprint 125, 89 pages, 1999. i. K. (A 2) Preprint 1999 (9)

It shows that until 1953 it was clear and known to every virologist and the scientific community that all components that had been interpreted as components of viruses until then, turned out to be components of dead tissues and cells through control experiments.

These important and elementary control experiments have not been performed with the SARS-CoV-2 virus until today!

Therefore there is not a single proof that we have found a novel virus!


On January 21, 2020 (3 days before the first publication of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention [CCDC]) the WHO recommended (10) all nations to use the “safe” test procedure developed by Prof. Drosten.

Here again the facts: Prof. Drosten used scientifically NOT verified data for his rapidly globalized PCR test of the 2019 nCOV virus, which was renamed SARS-CoV-2 on February 7, 2020 with his participation. This gave the impression that the Chinese had actually discovered a new type of virus, but this was never the case (11)!

The claim that he had developed a reliable test procedure is therefore completely impossible!


On January 23, 2020: Publication (12) of the development of the test procedure by Prof. Drosten. On page 3 of this article, left column, 8 lines from below, he describes the first and decisive step of his approach:

Before public release of virus sequences from cases of 2019-nCoV, we relied on social media reports announcing detection of a SARS-like virus. We thus assumed that a SARS-related CoV is involved in the outbreak.

Screenshot of the mentioned passage from the publication by Christian Drosten

At that time, no clinical data were available to support this assumption.

On page 2, left column, it says:

In the present case of 2019-nCoV, virus isolates or samples from infected patients have so far not become available to the international public health community. We report here on the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.

Screenshot of the mentioned passage from the publication by Christian Drosten

It was not until January 24, 2020 (13) and February 3, 2020 (14), that the authoritative virologists of the Chinese Disease Control Commission (CCDC) published their results. They report on the isolation of “many” short gene sequences, which, when strung together, could represent a genetic strand of a new type of virus (model, based on an alignment).  The authors explicitly pointed out (also all other virologists involved to date “as of October 9, 2020” (15)) that the absolutely necessary control experiments have not yet been carried out that would allow the assertion to be made that this is indeed a genetic strand of a pathogenic viral pathogen.

On the contrary: Chinese virologists even explicitly point out that the constructed genetic strand bears up to 90% similarity to genetic strands of harmless corona viruses in bats that have been known for decades.

This 90% similarity results from the fact that exactly such a “genome” of a harmless bat “corona virus” was used as a template for aligning the numerous very short gene sequences (= alignment). It must be said that this bat genome, like all “genomes” of disease-causing “viruses”, was only calculated, i.e. mentally composed of very short endogenous gene sequences and/or of gene fragments of numerous microbes, which in reality as a whole genome strand was never found and as a whole “viral genome” does not appear anywhere in scientific literature.

This is what the study of January 24, 2020, under Discussion, states “our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates” (16).


These facts and figures clearly show that at no time was there any evidence of a pathogenic virus. The panic that has been and is being created by the media and others cannot be justified. In an interview between Swiss Prof. Tanner (Head of the Corona Task Force and President of the Academies), Samuel Eckert and Jorg Berg, Prof. Tanner confirmed

“that Prof. Drosten’s test did not meet the necessary scientific standards and produced a great many false-positive results, so that we were able to get into this corona panic in the first place. Prof. Tanner then reassuringly explained that one should let the past – i.e. the trigger – rest, because one cannot turn back the wheel.”


Conclusion

If you have understood that the following things have happened to date:

  • No control experiments have been conducted.
  • It is only a mental model of a new virus, which was created mathematically by adding up and aligning.
  • At no time was a whole and intact virus isolated.
  • A PCR test was developed by Prof. Christian Drosten, which is based on assumptions that had no scientific basis at all at that time and today only has an obviously pseudo-scientific justification that turns out to be erroneous and refutes itself during the test.
  • All virologists worldwide are victims of this same misconception, because they disregarded, or failed to verify, fundamental scientific practice.
  • The media created a panic for which there was no basis at any time.
  • The knowledge of how the symptoms that are attributed to viruses actually occur is available and awaits application. This is just one of the dimensions why the Corona crisis is an opportunity for everyone.
Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on pinterest
Pinterest
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on telegram
Telegram

Never miss any important news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

Related News

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

McIntyre Report

Top 10 Crypto

Current Price of Bitcoin 2.0 -

ANR Meme Report

with Nadine Roberts

Episode 002

21st Century Political System

Play Video

Enter email to receive ANR News articles ,2 free ebooks, plus the Global Health Organisation Report

Editor's Pick

Enter email to receive ANR News articles, 2 free e-books, plus the Global Health Organisation Report

Donate Now to Help Take Back Our World

$1000 Donation Turns Into $4000 of the New Global Currency

Donate Now to Help Take Back Our World

$1000 Donation Turns Into $4000 of the New Global Currency

OWC (Our World Coin) Sponsorship Offer

If you donate to the Resistance you will receive major incentives.

Such as the following in Our World Coin which lists early 2022.

Plus if you donate over $2500 you will also receive 20% in Bitcoin 2.0