{"id":78424,"date":"2021-08-10T07:18:53","date_gmt":"2021-08-10T11:18:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=78424"},"modified":"2021-08-10T07:19:16","modified_gmt":"2021-08-10T11:19:16","slug":"the-covid-19-hoax-is-rapidly-unravelling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=78424","title":{"rendered":"The COVID-19 Hoax Is Rapidly Unravelling<\/b>"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Covid-19 hoax is rapidly unravelling \u2013 CDC documents admit they have never isolated the virus<\/strong><\/h1>\n

By Daily Expose<\/p>\n

Last year when Covid sceptics were saying \u201cthere\u2019s no such thing as a covid virus,\u201d I strongly disagreed. As a published food scientist, laboratory owner and inventor of two published patents based on mass spectrometry analysis, I was aware that SARS-CoV-2 had been genomically sequenced. Surely, I mistakenly thought, it had been isolated, purified and determined to be the cause of covid-19 sickness.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A year later, it turns out the sceptics were right. And the warnings of people like Dr. Thomas Cowan, Sally Fallon, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Jon Rappoport, David Icke and others were right on the mark.<\/p>\n

By Mike Adams<\/em><\/p>\n

How did I come to realize the medical and scientific establishment has fabricated all this? And what\u2019s the explanation for the very real sickness that people are experiencing?<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll share that story here, but in short,\u00a0common cold viruses and monkey virus fragments found in flu shots are being mislabelled \u201ccovid,\u201d and there is a weaponized spike protein bioweapon that\u2019s being distributed via vaccine injections<\/strong>. That\u2019s all real. But there\u2019s no such thing as a real, physical, isolated covid-19 virus that has been harvested from sick people and shown to infect other people and make them sick. What we\u2019re really witnessing here, it now seems, is three distinct things:<\/p>\n

1) A cocktail of common cold viruses labeled \u201ccovid\u201d which are circulating and causing sickness in some people, most likely because of the lack of immune system exposure to wild type viruses during all the global lockdowns.<\/p>\n

2) A weaponized\u00a0spike protein toxic nanoparticle\u00a0that\u2019s being injected into people as a \u201cclot shot\u201d \u2026 and it\u2019s likely shedding, causing harmful side effects in other, unvaccinated people.<\/p>\n

3) A wholly fraudulent PCR \u201ccasedemic\u201d scheme that\u2019s designed to flag almost anyone as \u201cpositive\u201d based almost entirely on how many cycles the PCR sample prep instruments are instructed to carry out, thereby amplifying instrument noise to the point of a \u201cpositive\u201d hit. Almost anything can be flagged as \u201cpositive,\u201d including genetic material fragments from previous years\u2019 flu shots.<\/p>\n

These three things \u2014 combined with the media\u2019s mass hysteria programming \u2014 have achieved a level of global fear and psychological terrorism that the world has never seen before. But it\u2019s all based on lies, it turns out. And here\u2019s how we know.<\/p>\n

No certified reference materials for isolated SARS-CoV-2 \u201ccovid-19\u201d virus<\/h2>\n

As a lab owner, published scientist and mass spec analyst myself, I am extremely familiar with the process of using certified reference materials (CRMs) to validate analysis methods and instrument calibration sequences. (I\u2019ve spent far too many evenings creating serial dilutions of standards using a Gilson pipette, trust me\u2026)<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s how the process normally works in a legitimate science lab:<\/p>\n

Step 1)<\/strong>\u00a0Acquire the CRM of the thing you want to test (\u201canalyte\u201d). This means acquiring a purified, isolated standard with a known concentration, usually in a carrier such as water, or as a dry powder. For example, when I\u2019m testing for mercury in food, I have a certified mercury standard with a known concentration of mercury, dissolved in water, nitric acid and hydrochloric acid.<\/p>\n

Step 2)<\/strong>\u00a0Run the CRM as a sample, at different concentrations, to build a \u201ccurve\u201d that effectively teaches the instrument what the analyte looks like and how the instrument detector responds to different concentrations of the analyte. The end result is a \u201cquant curve\u201d that will be used in step 3.<\/p>\n

NOTE: Instruments will \u201cmatch\u201d the thing you\u2019re looking for by a variety of methods, filtering out all other things that don\u2019t match. In mass spec work, molecules are identified by their molecular mass, ion fragmentation patterns, and elution time on chromatography columns. For a substance to match, it has to hit all these parameters. In PCR testing, a \u201cmatch\u201d is a genomic sequence made of base pairs, defined in a digital library that may or may not have ever been run against a real, physical standard in the real world.<\/p>\n

Step 3)<\/strong>\u00a0Run unknown samples through the instrument (of blood serum, urine, saliva, water, food sample extracts, etc.) and see if the unknown sample contains any of the thing you were looking for (the analyte). Because you built a quant curve, you can also then determine the concentration of the analyte in the original sample. This is typically described as mass over volume, such as ng \/ ml (nanograms per milliliter). A nanogram is a billionth of a gram. When we test foods for glyphosate, we can detect as little as 1 nanogram per milliliter, which tells you something about the extreme sensitivity of high-end instruments.<\/p>\n

This is the process to test something and identify\u00a0how much<\/em>\u00a0of something is found in something else. For example, if you were going to determine if someone was sick with \u201ccovid,\u201d you would need to determine the concentration of covid-19 viruses in their blood (i.e. the \u201cviral load\u201d). This is science \/ biology 101.<\/p>\n

So what\u2019s the problem, then?<\/p>\n

You\u2019d be stunned to realize how deep the science fraud really goes. Consider these critical points:<\/p>\n

Point #1: There appear to be no isolated, purified Certified Reference Materials available for SARS-CoV-2 \u201ccovid\u201d<\/strong>. I\u2019ve seen companies that claim to be selling \u201cisolates\u201d containing covid viruses, but in their own description, they explain that their vials contain genetic material from \u201chost cells\u201d (human cells) as well as bovine serum cells, which means it\u2019s a cocktail stew of who-knows-what. Yet it\u2019s called an \u201cisolate.\u201d<\/p>\n

Case in point: BEI Resources, which offers something they call an \u201cisolate\u201d of covid-19,\u00a0that you can find at this link<\/a>. As the description states for this covid-19 \u201cisolate:\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2026[T]his product is not suitable as a whole cell antigen preparation because the protein content is largely contributed by the host cell and the fetal bovine serum used during virus propagation.<\/em><\/p>\n

In other words,\u00a0most of the genetic material in the \u201cisolate\u201d is actually from human cells<\/strong>. So it\u2019s not an isolate at all. The covid virus isn\u2019t isolated. In fact, this \u201cisolate\u201d contains viral genetic material, human genetic material and bovine genetic material, plus whatever other viruses were present in the blood of the people and the cows. This could be millions of different nanoparticles present, each containing their own sequences of genetic material.<\/p>\n

Point #2: If you have no isolated, certified reference materials, you can\u2019t develop a legitimate analysis test.<\/strong>\u00a0And this is exactly what the FDA admits\u00a0in its own documents<\/a>, which state that since covid-19 viruses weren\u2019t available for the development of the PCR test,\u00a0they \u201csimulated\u201d it<\/strong>\u00a0by using human cells and gene bank coronavirus fragments. From the FDA\u2019s own document:<\/p>\n

Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA \u2026 spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.<\/em><\/p>\n

In other words,\u00a0they faked the covid virus<\/strong>\u00a0by using gene bank cells which were deliberately and falsely labeled \u201ccovid.\u201d This is how the PCR test was developed. The FDA admits it all. The PCR test is a fraud.<\/p>\n

Point #3: If you don\u2019t have a CRM isolate, you can\u2019t calibrate instruments against a known sample<\/strong>. And this means the PCR tests aren\u2019t being calibrated against anything real and physical. Instead, they\u2019re relying on downloaded digital libraries provided by none of than the CDC, the very same Big Pharma front group that\u2019s spearheading this covid scam.<\/p>\n

Point #4: PCR instruments are incapable of quantitative analysis.<\/strong>\u00a0The \u201cpositive\u201d hits are nothing but amplified background noise.<\/strong>\u00a0No PCR instrument can tell you\u00a0how much<\/em>\u00a0of some genetic material was found in an original sample. It can merely detect the presence of material on a yes \/ no basis. In lab science, this is called a \u201cqualitative\u201d analysis, not a quantitative analysis.<\/p>\n

In qualitative analysis, the key factor is the \u201cLimit of Detection\u201d (LOD) of the instrument. How little of the sample will still create a \u201chit\u201d for the instrument?\u00a0In all instruments, for the LOD to be scientifically valid, it must be something that rises above background noise<\/strong>, or it\u2019s scientifically meaningless. All instruments produce background noise, which are \u201cpeaks\u201d or \u201chits\u201d that represent detector static, you might say. These exist at a background level even when you\u2019re running nothing in the instrument.<\/p>\n

To show you what this looks like, consider the following graphic. It shows some mass spec results across a spectrum of masses. The horizontal axis here is m\/z (mass over charge), which is simplified to just \u201cmass\u201d for general discussion. It\u2019s the mass of the molecules or particles being detected.<\/p>\n

Notice the red and orange lines across the bottom of each chart. That\u2019s largely \u201cbackground\u201d noise across all the masses. Then notice the very tall orange peak which rises above the background. This is the mass of the molecule they\u2019re looking for. It might be a pesticide, or a contaminant, or a nutrient, etc.<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

Importantly, if I were to turn up the amplification of the detector, the \u201cbackground noise\u201d at the bottom of the screen would vertically expand to fill the screen. The entire screen would be a \u201chit\u201d on every mass, because the amplification is turned way up. That\u2019s the equivalent to what PCR instruments are doing when they run 30+ cycles. They are\u00a0amplifying noise<\/strong>, and then pretending they got a \u201chit\u201d on covid.<\/p>\n

But because they\u2019ve amplified it so many times, they\u2019ve obliterated any ability to say with certainty what they have, or even how much they have. Because the LOD (Limit of Detection) is\u00a0scientifically invalid if it can\u2019t pick a peak out of the background noise<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Typically in method validation, your LOD needs to be\u00a0at least three times higher than background noise<\/strong>, which means a \u201cpeak\u201d must be three times higher than the background. Anything less than that is considered bogus background noise. And when you\u2019re doing quantitative work, you typically need a signal that\u2019s at least 10 times higher than background.<\/p>\n

Yet PCR instruments are taking background noise and amplifying it until they get a \u201cpositive\u201d hit. This \u201cpositive\u201d is then absurdly called a \u201ccovid case,\u201d even though it means literally nothing from a legitimate science point of view.<\/p>\n

The entire process being used today via PCR is\u00a0complete junk science<\/strong>\u00a0that wouldn\u2019t pass even the most basic science lab audit. That\u2019s why most of these PCR outfits aren\u2019t ISO accredited, by the way. They couldn\u2019t pass a single audit. (My lab is ISO accredited with an annual audit, including blind quantitation accuracy tests via mass spec instruments to make sure we are hitting our accuracy targets.)<\/p>\n