The WHO (World Hoax Organisation) is suddenly telling us as the article says, what anyone who is awake has known for some time.
However, the BS runs deeper than that as Iâm sure anyone here (and Kit Knightly) knows. To identify a new disease until now, Kockâs Postulates were the standard. Step 1. Have a defined set of symptoms. Iâm not sure Covid-19 has even met step 1!
And as the PCR âtestâ was even a test, its for (I believe) a 97% match to the virus that allegedly causes the disease. Sorry for the rant but itâs just so bloody frustrating that the sheep and goats stay in the flipping pen!
Some more useful stuff on the background to how the PCR âtestâ came to be used. Itâs from William Engdahl who is amongst the best informed writers on science based subjects (for dummies like me). While he deals with cycles, there is a lot more behind the scandal.
" In simple English, the entire edifice of the Gates foundation, the Merkel government, the WHO and WEF as well as the case for de facto forced untested vaccines, rests on results of a PCR test for coronavirus that is not worth a hill of beans. The test of Drosten and WHO is, more or less, scientific crap."
Funny! Reading the account of the Drosten/Eurosurveillance shenigans, I had a distinct memory of the sudden obvious flurry of âputâ options on the NY stock exchange just before the 11/9 false-flag erupted. There too, insiders had fore-knowledge of the impending attack and used it to make big profits. The Drosten scandal feels like yet another snowflake on the heap of avalanche fodder building up towards the idea that the whole covid thing was pre-arranged, with malicious hidden agenda aforethought.
That would help to explain the - quite blatant - panic-manipulation thatâs clearly still going on: chancers on the make, as usual. Is the whole covid upheaval another classic case of that? Various very obvious chancers have been discussing pandemics amongst themselves for some years nowâŚ
And thereâs no denying that 11/9 was indeed used to change realpolitik in the world drastically. Is the covid scam something similar? This idea also obliges the further question: did some clique of would-be pandemic-manipulators agree to just wait until a wild disease pathogen came along to serve as the excuse for their plot? I did they perhaps gof it along a littleâŚ?
Oh wait! I forgot: in our world, conspiracies never happen. Of course not!
And now, Drosten himself (the guy whose protocols set off PCR testing scam worldwide) says, âWe are now losing public trust ⌠Weâll because the disease is not existing, it is not there, even though the numbers go up, there are no dead people âŚâ
On the UK Column, watch from 27:30 minutes.
Loved that Drosten clip from UK Column of him saying: âWe arenât seeing the de-e-e-e-adâŚâ, like Larry the Lamb, of hallowed âChildrenâs Hourâ memory; though as I remember, it was his buddy Dennis the Dachshund who sported the cod-Deutscher accent. Bit of a mixing of metaphors there. To enhance the black comedy of it all, perhaps he should have said: âVe are nod seeink der Todâ. Either way, the onlie begetter of the fraudulent PCR âtestâ is right: weâre not, not to any significant degree. As Mike Robinson comments: âThe âall-causesâ death figures are hardest to fiddle.â
Once again, that flat assertion of one of those repeating collections of dissident doctors featured in Off-G puts it very clearly:
âThere is NO global medical emergency!â
And by now there are at least six effective, non-vaccine CURES for covid.
Altogether for Xmas, now: âNew variant! New variant! New varia-a-a-a-ant!â (Well, I suppose it sounds more alarming than âFlatten the curve!â Remember that panic-of-the-month sloganâŚ?)
Iâm really looking forward comments, especially of @Dimac and @Evvy_dense on the following. This is an extract (albeit a long one) from a comment on an article on Unlimited Hangout about Pfizers rather infamous past. Iâve highlighted the parts I find really interesting.
"Hereâs a quote from the research purporting to have isolated and sequenced the covid virus:
âThe virus was called nCoV-2019 BetaCoV/Wuhan/WIV04/2019 and grew in Vero E6 (grivet, or African green monkey kidney cell line which lack genes to encode type I interferon, so they mount a defective antiviral response) and Huh-7 (human adult liver cancer-derived cell line) cells. Virus-induced cellular changes (cytopathic effect or CPE) were observed.
Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) was used to identify the unique genetic sequence of the cultured virus and a specific real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-rPCR) designed to allow screening of more sensitive and rapid screening of more samples. The RT-rPCR was tested against human endemic CoVs (229E, OC43, HKU1) as well as MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV and others, and was found to be highly specific for SARS-CoV-2. (note what they say below that bit in the article regarding the methodology used to arrive at this purported gene sequencing, their reference to the Jukes-Cantor model)
https://www.virologydownunder.com/sigh-yes-the-covid-virus-is-real/
Here is another view of that Jukes-Cantor âgene sequencingâ process:
âDr Cowan: âTo me, this computer-generation step constitutes scientific fraud. Here is an equivalency: A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicornâs hair, hooves and horn.
The researchers claim they decided which is the real genome of SARS-CoV-2 by âconsensus,â sort of like a vote. Again, different computer programs will come up with different versions of the imaginary âunicorn,â so they come together as a group and decide which is the real imaginary unicorn.â
He then goes on to say this about their âisolationâ of the purported covid virus:
âThe real blockbuster finding in this study comes later, a finding so shocking that I had to read it many times before I could believe what I was reading. Let me quote the passage intact:
âTherefore, we examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH 7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T). In addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells. ⌠Each cell line was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24h post-infection. No CPE was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells, which grew to greater than 10 to the 7th power at 24 h post-infection. In contrast, HUH 7.0 and 293T showed only modest viral replication, and A549 cells were incompatible with SARS CoV-2 infection.â
What does this language actually mean, and why is it the most shocking statement of all from the virology community? When virologists attempt to prove infection, they have three possible âhostsâ or models on which they can test. The first is humans. Exposure to humans is generally not done for ethical reasons and has never been done with SARS-CoV-2 or any coronavirus. The second possible host is animals. Forgetting for a moment that they never actually use purified virus when exposing animals, they do use solutions that they claim contain the virus. Exposure to animals has been done once with SARS-CoV-2, in an experiment that used mice. The researchers found that none of the wild (normal) mice got sick. In a group of genetically modified mice, a statistically insignificant number lost some fur. They experienced nothing like the illness called Covid 19.
The third method virologists use to prove infection and pathogenicity â the method they most rely on â is inoculation of solutions they say contain the virus onto a variety of tissue cultures. As I have pointed out many times, such inoculation has never been shown to kill (lyse) the tissue, unless the tissue is first starved and poisoned.
The shocking thing about the above quote is that using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions containing SARS-CoV-2 â even in high amounts â were NOT, I repeat NOT, infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this ânew coronavirusâ is not infectious to human beings. It is ONLY infective to monkey kidney cells, and only then when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin), known to be toxic to kidneys, to the mix.
My friends, read this again and again. These virologists, published by the CDC, performed a clear proof, on their terms, showing that the SARS-CoV- 2 virus is harmless to human beings.â https://www.drtomcowan.com/only-poisoned-monkey-kidney-cells-grew-the-virus/?fbclid=IwAR0Fmx5gczHOkdA8_iKHWVifGdzxM8f_02g0sXtHQIHyyzyZVJ8sV1VY0iE"
The full Pfizer article is here (not nearly as interesting as the above comment)
That harvested comment is a beaut, Pat! Thanks for the find.
We mere groundlings find ourselves in a weird situation: there are at least two straightforwardly-incompatible narratives being exposed to us right now:
âNew variant! New variant! Aaaargh! We all going to starve, and get killed in our millions by the covid monster! Aaaargh! Everybody lockdown and jump the moment authority tells you!â
And -
What âvirusâ? Show us an actual electron-micrograph, not one of these damnfool spiky-ball âartistâs impressions. Till then, itâs all bleedinâ unicorns!â.
Omnishambling hyper-cockup barely seems to cover it! Meanwhile quite a lot of vulnerable people continue to die - though maybe not in unusually excessive numbers; that appears not to be clear - to die of⌠well, something rather nasty. Very nasty according to Pierre Koryâs anguished description. WTF is going on?
So, as far as Iâm aware, RG, electron-microscope pics have been published. Indeed Iâve linked to them here already.
And on the âkiller quoteâ about whether the virus can infect those specific cell types, I"ve already discussed this point before from an off-guardian article. Here is the relevant full quote:
No cytopathic effect was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells which grew to >107 PFU at 24 hours post infection. In contrast, both HUH7.0 and 293T cells showed only modest viral replication and A549 cells were incompatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection. These results are consistent with previous susceptibility findings for SARS-CoV and suggest other common culture systems including MDCK, HeLa, HEP-2, MRC-5 cells, and embryonated eggs are unlikely to support SARS-CoV-2 replication (14â16). In addition, SARS-CoV-2 failed to replicate in the bat EFK3B cells which are susceptible to MERS-CoV. Together, the results indicate that SARS-CoV-2 maintain a similar profile to SARS-CoV in terms of susceptible cell lines.
and my comment on this from last time:
In other words, contrary to what the off-g article implies, these scientists were not surprised by what they found, rather it was exactly what they were expecting to find. It adds evidence to the fact that SARS-CoV-2 indeed behaves very similarly, and is closely related to, SARS-COV.
What a shame that people canât bring themselves to quote the full passage when trying to go for a quick shotâŚ
Mm-hmm. I still donât see any clarity. Just a lot of speculation, tribally-competing speculation at that between rival factions of scientists, wrapped up in techno-speak which most of us - pols and mediawhores included - donât understand. I do see competing, and clearly incompatible narratives though. I reckon âWTF is going on!â is still the most appropriate response.
BTW, I donât believe that this conundrum canât be expressed in plain language. But no-one seems particularly keen to do that. Perhaps the realities are too stark for anyone to want to grasp the nettle - apart from the easily dismissable unknowns down amongst the BTL cospithirries. 
Well Iâll finally butt in here⌠(thanks Pat B for invitation). I do rather go with your WTF point RG, as something Fâing weird IS going on. I actually think that the ânew variantâ is a major false flag, specifically targeting Christmas, in part because itâs also happening HERE in Sydney - as somehow it had to. Victoria had its âsecond waveâ leading the world and finally eliminating it till we are all like prisoners in a gated community, paranoid about people creeping around in the dark out of sight of the CCTV cameras and automatic machine gun posts.
Thing is, the âhighly contagiousâ and ânewâ âvariantâ - is not new, and no more contagious than it was, because they always said it was highly contagious and could spread in the air from people singing, and it is nonsense now just as it was then. This variant - which seems a bit like the âMarseillesâ variant that came there from Africa in September, first appeared in Kent in September, and probably came from France, and has been building up to dominate the strains till now itâs up to 60% of those in the SE. And then one week before Christmas it is suddenly a âmutantâ ârampagingâ through communities, and so dangerous and different that 40 countries have closed their borders, as if by order from central command⌠AS IF!
Larry Romanoff thinks that the rapid and sudden growth of new outbreaks is a result of them being seeded there, and I canât help thinking this is the case in Sydney, as there are 90 odd cases (only!) which are almost all linked to one bowling club, and despite about 100,000 tests of people who had been to all the shops and places possibly contaminated, only one or two people appear to have acquired the infection secondarily. But as a result of this, half of Sydney is under lock-down, with limits on gatherings for Christmas, the Sydney to Hobart yacht race cancelled because IT JUST HAPPENS to have people from the area of Sydney where the virus struck, out of the blue. And âitâs still unclearâ how it got there in the first place. Perhaps it was in the Salmon canapes for lunch?
And this happens just as the global hysteria over vaccines is taking off, with demands for it to be available here sooner, and constant injection porn on the news, and never an acknowledgement that all the people who were lucky enough to get infected AND SURVIVE (99.99%) are now IMMUNE, so donât need a vaccine, or that no-one under 30 should have it as it would be more dangerous than getting the infection. Meanwhile today there is a report that âup to 40%â of people who had COVID still have symptoms 2 months later, with some 4 months. This was out of 78 self selected symptomatic âpatientsâ.
There are other things going on in the world, but this beats it all, and sucks the air out of it.
Lastly, on the question of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, Iâm afraid there is a hopeless disjunction here, as we canât talk about all the things that would cure the infection or the means of operation of different vaccines, or the different strains, without acknowledging that there IS a virus of this general description, which was genetically engineered by Peter Daszakâs team from a bat and human virus chimaera. I also have a problem with false positives, as I donât understand how Victoria has done over 400,000 tests over the last month and not found ONE SINGLE positive case! I dont think there is any virus, but where were the false positives? No one admits and noone asks where or why!
Interesting discussion.
Iâve no straightforward way of evaluating claims based on genetics. I would accept that it looks as if there was quite likely some leaping going on to "identify the unique genetic sequence of the cultured virus ". Also that the old belt-and-braces Koch principles were not followed in the rush to get a good position in the clamour. So it may well be that liberties were taken at the fundamental level.
Why not just trust the scientists? âScienceâ to a significant extent is compromised by competing for money. Eg I recall some establishment scientists, called upon to explain why EMFâs appeared to weaken the blood-brain-barrier, acknowledging that there were âgaps in their knowledgeâ regarding the chemicals operating there. Well a little easy digging quickly discovered that that was the understatement of the year - at the time research scientists, when talking to each other, were saying that there were about 30,000 such chemicals - most of which had biological functions. It wasnât possible to know them all! Yet when pinned down on issues of inconvenience, establishment scientists would not admit that their knowledge in this area was practically âall gapsâ.
But just because corners have been cut and their certainty is dubious doesnât mean the chances are that they are wrong. Even if they are wrong Iâm not sure what follows; there is a âvirusâ or something similar (I base this on excess deaths which seem to match the Covid-19 death figures).
Having said that (on the OTHER other hand 
) there is reason to view the recent developments with a little healthy suspicion. Central to that suspicion is that everything that rests on the PCR test may simply be adding to a house of cards. The fact that the number of cycles (Ct) is not reported even to the medical establishment is telling - they do not want to know whether the positive tests are likely to genuinely indicate Covid-19 infection, or indeed infectiousness. Not bothered about the problem of the meaning of the test, then.
[Itâs not wholly meaningless though - for people with Covid-19 symptoms, a positive PCR test is like1y to mean they genuinely have Covid-19, that was the original purpose of the test, as indicated by itâs creator.]
A rising number of cases could indicate that more and more people have been âinfectedâ - likely with low viral loads, as the Ct values used remain too high to conclude much more then yes, there is a viral fragment. If so then cases will continue to rise and there will be nowhere to hide from the establishment and media chorus of ârising infectionsâ. Until these translate into deaths this will not be a very reliable interpretation.
All four UK home nations agreed to put the Xmas shutters down in extraordinary circumstances. The govts had already announced easing of restrictions over a five-day Xmas period, albeit with strongly expressed concerns and a likelihood of post-Xmas tightening. They may have been regretting the easing after criticism from scientists, especially mathematical modellers and other specialists in infinity.
The fact is, in Scotland, N Ireland and Wales at least, even if there was a new Sars2-Cov variant there was not any justification for pulling back the (only just released) lever throwing everyone who had made Christmas plans up in the air and pushing thousands of businesses even closer to the wall.
Despite the new variant the graphs âDaily hospital admissionsâ in this ongoing BBC link
do not suggest an urgent problem outside England. They are of hospitalisations but they could equally be deaths or cases. Whatever the situation in England, the numbers do not suggest an emergency in Scotland, N Ireland and Wales. So why the rush to inflict the most sudden lockdown misery so far, shortly after inviting people to make other plans?
And it was a rush. When Matt Hancock announced that the new variant is out of control he must either be the biggest eejit in the government or he was exaggerating for a reason. Both explanations are compelling. The announcement immediately led to the problems at the French border and 40 countries predictably banning UK flights.
Given this and the massive problems caused by sudden reverse-lockdown, itâs a mystery why the four governments didnât wait for a clearer picture.
The population and media are now evidently well-primed for further repressive measures, and baying for quicker vaccines - to which opposition will not be popular. To me it stands out that the idea of the sudden lockdown must have been appealing for other reasons.
So for the less scientific of us (me that is), are you agreeing with or disagreeing with the comment I posted saying " My friends, read this again and again. These virologists, published by the CDC, performed a clear proof, on their terms, showing that the SARS-CoV- 2 virus is harmless to human beings.â?
A Crimbleve bonus for us all! âBrexit is done!â brays the beebâs covid-consolidated ânewsâ bulletin at 8AM today (with added broken-English audio-clip from a Portuguese trucker stranded in Kent (poor trucker).
Also, at about the same time, I received Dmitry Orlovâs latest subscriber-mailout, commenting on ânewvariantnewvariantaaaaaaaaargh!â, in which heâs following the line of published conclusions about the covid pathogen from Russian scientists. I venture to suspect that they may be a bit more objective about this than their Western counterparts, because - as Dmitry points out - theyâre not so compromised by a desperate struggle to get funding, as are the scientists of the Anglozionist empire, who - inevitably - have to recognise which side their bread is greased, and get in line accordingly; thus eventually screwing up the whole credibility of scientists.
Aprpos of this, JMGreer, wearing his veteran futurist storyteller hat, predicts that the stratospheric esteem in which scientists are currently (supposed to be) held is due for quite a serious nose-dive in the near future; a consequence of the failure of the scientific community as a whole to foresee, and to urge preparing for, the now-commenced Long Descent of human society away from hitech industrialism. The scientific shambles of the covid incident fits very well into this LD sequence, if you think about it; predictable, at least in outline, and predicted. Yet weâre unready.
Here in Britain, Iâd say that the credibility of both the pocket-pols and the big-public-career-scientists are nose-diving in tandem right now.
Briefly off-topic, but cued by a throwaway in Evvyâs post: Interesting that the beeb has now started to speak of âthe four nationsâ of the ukstate - and weâve started to follow suit. More pretzelling of reality, of course: The FOSCOE - the foreign-occupied six counties of Eire - comprises of roughly half itâs people who regard themselves as members of the Irish nation, and another colonialist half whose only options left are to go fully native Irish at last - as quite a few of the younger ones are considering - or to go âbackâ to a Britain of which their tribe havenât been natives for several centuries. The âfourâ nations of uk, indeed! 
Hi Pat
Iâm disagreeing with that. As far as I understand it, the paper that was quoted showed that itâs difficult to grow a culture of the SC2 virus in certain cell lines. The behaviour they discovered was similar to that of original Sars, which was similarly difficult to grow in vitro. More than anything, the experiment showed that the two viruses behave in a similar fashion and have to be cultured in vitro in a similar way.
I donât think that itâs possible to draw a lot conclusions about the dangerousness or otherwise of the virus from that. After all, original Sars had similar characteristics and was very dangerous to humans.
Cheers
EDIT: So, Iâve continued to look into this over the last couple of days, and got a bit more clarity on whatâs going on here. The cell line that is mentioned in the CDC article (and several others Iâve now found) is a very widely used cell line called A549 - a cell taken from cancerous lung tissue. This is the cell that showed little propensity to be attacked by SC2. A different lung cell line - Calu-3 - on the other hand is easily overrun by the virus and can be used to grow SC2 like thereâs no tomorrow. Why? Whatâs the difference between them? The primary difference seems to be that Calu-3 expresses a protein called the ACE2 receptor, and the A549 cell line doesnât. It has been shown in many studies now that the way SC2 infects a cell is via the ACE2 receptor (as did regular Sars) and so it really is no surprise at all that the A549 cells were not affected by SC or SC2. Calu-3 on the other hand is easily infected by both (actually more by SC2).
Hereâs a bit from a Lancet paper published back in April:
Notably, SARS-CoV-2 grew in Calu3 cells, but not in A549 cells, although both cell lines derive from lung adenocarcinoma. This finding accords with previous results in A549 cells, which were infectable only on overexpression of ACE2 [6], whereas use of Calu3 cells has been reported elsewhere [7]. SARS-CoV-2 was shown to grow faster and at a higher titre than SARS-CoV in Calu3 cells, in agreement with findings of earlier work by Chu and colleagues [8], in which the susceptibility of ex-vivo human lung tissues to both SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV was assessed.
Hope this helps to clarify things somewhat.