"1. Extremely intense and non-specific propagation of millions of short fragments of nucleic acids using PCR technique was used, but no sequences were ever discovered that match the sequence of the genetic strand that was presented to the public. A genetic strand has never been detected from a human being that would correspond to the published sequence. No genetic strand of a virus was found in the mixture of nucleic acids obtained from a human with pneumonia (nor subsequently from other individuals).
2. Based on the sequence data generated in the initial nucleic acid propagation, short pieces of nucleic acids are biochemically produced using PCR for the propagation of nucleic acids, the so-called primers. Depending on the protocol, these artificially generated primers yield between 4-20% of the sequence alignment that is ultimately presented as the sequence alignment of SARS-CoV-2. This second PCR propagation process for the subsequent mathematical, bioinformatic formation of the sequence is frequently referred to as deep meta-transcriptomic sequencing. The fact that an extremely unscientific high number of cycles of the PCR is applied here (35-45 Ct value), in which artificial nucleic acid sequences are inevitably generated that do not exist in reality, is further proof of the anti-scientific nature of virology, but this aspect plays no role in the discussion presented here.
It is evident from points 1. and 2. that no genetic strand of a virus was ever found. Instead, existing fragments of nucleic acids were first multiplied biochemically, by means of double PCR, intensively, and with an extremely high error rate. The sequences of these million-fold artificially generated nucleic acids were established, then mathematically subdivided into much shorter sequences and arbitrarily combined together. Specialised software programmes are used to select from the multitude of these arbitrary combinations, those that match a predetermined nucleic acid. The resulting mathematical construct is presented as the genetic strand of a virus. This proves that it has never been possible to construct the genome strand of an assumed virus from genuinely existing sequences of nucleic acids. The computative construction of the alleged genome strand of the presumed SARS-CoV-2 is only achieved after two rounds of unspecific and extreme propagation using PCR technology.
3. The anti-scientific nature of all virologists involved is proven by the fact that the mandatory control experiments are missing in the publication by Prof. Yong-Zhen Zhang and colleagues who are responsible for creating the alleged viral genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2. This striking omission was and is still tolerated. The mandatory control experiments would involve following the same steps - the construction of the sequence of a genetic strand of a suspected new virus but using nucleic acids from healthy humans. These control experiments are the prerequisite for calling a statement scientific. Virologists have the duty to recognise and avoid misinterpretations.
In none of the subsequent publications repeating the sequence given by Prof. Yong-Zhen Zhang are there any control experiments, even the words "control" or "negative control" are missing. Not only have the virologists disproved themselves with their actions, they themselves have proven their anti-scientific nature and documented it in each of their numerous publications."
"The measles virus lawsuit came about because a medical doctor tried to claim the €100,000 prize money which had been offered for presenting the scientific proof of the virus. His claim was upheld in 2014 because he submitted six publications, each of which claimed to prove the existence of the measles virus. The forensic expert appointed in the first instance by the regional court, Ravensburg Regional Court, found that none of the publications submitted contained proof of the existence of a virus. This fact was confirmed by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart in its judgement on the 16 February 2016, which became final in 2017 and by which I was acquitted of having to pay the plaintiff the €100,000. In the minutes of the hearing of the Ravensburg Regional Court on 12.3.2015, AZ: 4 O 346/13, it is documented that the court-appointed expert states that none of the six publications contain the control experiments prescribed in science, which are also referred to as negative controls. Thus, the court-appointed expert has proven - which was also confirmed by four other expert opinions that I submitted - that the entire field of virology is acting anti-scientifically. The logical conclusion: all statements of virology are neither practically nor legally usable, but must be rejected as self-deception and deception of others. In addition, the oldest of the six publications that had been submitted and which was judicially determined to contain no proof of the existence of a virus has since 1954 been exclusive basis of all current virology. This means that with the final judgement of the OLG Stgt on 16.2.2016, the entire field of virology, which claims the existence of disease-causing viruses, is deprived of its scientific and legal basis."
https://projekt-immanuel.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Letter-to-Minister-of-Health-Jens-Spahn-05-10-2021-ENG.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3LMDEvmLw07_pc-MK_s9PD0pv7KbvC1ISEvctdShYQn1chujubTpC1viQ
Comments