The COVID-19 cart is STILL in front of the horse
Following up on my previous posts, regarding PCR tests and vaccines for SARS CoV-2 (Covid-19), the cart is still in front of the horse. Read the CDC document linked below and see for yourself. Here are a few quotes excerpted from that CDC document dated July, 2020. I provided the bolding for emphasis:
From the official CDC Covid-19 method document for the PCR Covid-19 test, with revisions (full citation and link below.)
Page 2
“Results are for the identification of 2019-nCoV RNA. The 2019-nCoV RNA is generally detectable in upper and lower respiratory specimens during infection. Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities. Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information.”
Page 39
“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”
“Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/μL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.”
Bud’s comments: The PCR test has multiple probes designed insilico (i.e. in a computer) from the GenBank sequence database based on the N gene, not from isolated and validated sequence of SARS CoV-2. The N gene sequence codes for the glycoprotein coating that encapsulates and protects the RNA in the virus from nucleases in the body which would break apart the RNA sequence of the virus.
The human immune system does not work by recognition of RNA, DNA or protein sequence. Both T-cells and antibodies function by a 3D pattern recognition of the conformation (or epitope) of the glyco- (i.e. sugar) groups on the surface of the protein.
These sugar groups are post translational modifications to the protein, that is, the sugar groups are added after the protein has been created from amino acids specified in the template of sequence of nucleotides. Small changes in the RNA and DNA sequence code (as small as a single nucleotide, a SNP) can move a methyl group (-CH3) from one position on the protein to another position on the protein and result in major changes in the 3D surface of the glyco- groups attached to the protein.
That small change in RNA sequence or sequence homology could completely change the ability of a test or the immune system to recognize a virus. Or, that change may be and likely is a post translational change due to an entirely different, untested protein molecule, e.g. a chaperone, with entirely different sequence not found in the PCR test.
These changes in 3D conformation of the protein can make major changes in the binding function of the S spike protein, or the conformaton of the glycoprotein coating, or other functions of the protein which in turn can result in major changes in infectivity of the virus. The changes can also prevent or change recognition of the virus by natural or synthetic antibodies, T-cells and pcr tests.
For example, in this informative recent paper:
“An increasing body of evidence suggests that the tight binding of the S protein to ACE2 is the reason for the high person-to-person transmission rates and severity associated with this disease11,12,45. This is most evident when comparing the SARS 2002–2004 pandemic with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, with 8,098 cases versus over 16 million cases (26th July 2020) respectively. Our analysis demonstrated that the SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 S proteins have substantial differences in their ACE2 binding motifs (50% identity), which results in an increased number of contacts between the SARS-CoV-2 S protein and ACE2. This correlates with the observed 10- to 20-fold higher affinity of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein for ACE2, compared to SARS-CoV S protein11.” “…the high level of TMPRSS2 similarity between species does not appear to affect viral entry, but instead it is the species-specific differences in the structure of ACE2 that affects SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 infectivity.” Brooke GN, Prischi F. Structural and functional modelling of SARS-CoV-2 entry in animal models. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):15917. Published 2020 Sep 28. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-72528-z. : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7522990/
Recall that the experiments that were underway at the top security U.S. labs, but ruled too dangerous, and were then transferred along with funding to the lab in Wuhan, China were “gain of function” experiments. The function of infectivity is changed by changing the 3D conformation of proteins. A synthetic sequence created from a computer model could create a protein vaccine for which some people have no immune defense, essentially a poison.
It bothers me that the world is running millions of PCR tests and antibody tests which have not been validated against the RNA from isolated and filtered SARS CoV-2 virus. At least, I have not been able to find publication of this information.
The CDC document is very concerning. And now, without validation against isolated, filtered virus using either standard Koch’s or Rivers’ postulates (methods which have been used to validate cause for every other epidemic including SARS CoV-1), vaccines are being created based on synthetic sequence designed to cause invivo human cells in the living, healthy patient to produce one or more proteins from the S-spike protein on the virus, but neither this sequence nor the protein it produces has been validated against the sequence or the S-spike protein on isolated SARS CoV2.
Billions of dollars are being spent on tests and vaccines which have not been validated against actual SARS CoV-2. Does it bother you?
- CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel For Emergency Use Only Instructions for Use Catalog # 2019-nCoVEUA-01 1000 reactions For In-vitro Diagnostic (IVD) Use Rx Only. Division of Viral Diseases / Respiratory Viruses Branch CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel – Verification Requirements *** DO NOT DISCARD: Important product-specific information *** Document #: CDC-006-00005Revision #: 05 https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
- Brooke GN, Prischi F. Structural and functional modelling of SARS-CoV-2 entry in animal models. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):15917. Published 2020 Sep 28. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-72528-z. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7522990/
- Viruses and Koch’s Postulates, Thomas M. Rivers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC545348/
- (2) Koch’s postulates fulfilled for SARS virus. Ron A. M. Fouchier, et al. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095368/
- (3) Amending Koch’s postulates for viral disease: When “growth in pure culture” leads to a loss of virulence, Joseph Prescott, Heinz Feldmann, and David Safronetz. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5182102/
- https://budbromley.blog/2020/08/09/the-covid-cart-is-in-front-of-the-horse/
- https://budbromley.blog/2020/08/05/is-cov-2-confirmed-as-the-cause-of-this-pandemic/
About the author: Bud Bromley is a retired life sciences executive. Bud’s entrepreneurial leadership exceeded three decades. He was the senior business development, marketing and sales executive at four public corporations, each company a supplier of analytical and life sciences instrumentation, software, consumables and service.
Read more at budbromley.blog
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
****
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
What the PCR non-test is actually identifying is the green dye(!):
“SYBR® Green I is a commonly used fluorescent dye that binds double-stranded DNA molecules by intercalating between the DNA bases. It is used in quantitative PCR because the fluorescence can be measured at the end of each amplification cycle to determine, relatively or absolutely, how much DNA has been amplified.”
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/life-science/molecular-biology/pcr/quantitative-pcr/sybr-green-based-qpcr.html#:~:text=SYBR%C2%AE%20Green%20I%20is,much%20DNA%20has%20been%20amplified.
Without the green fluorescent dye, the PCR non-test is incapable of even ‘seeing’/detecting the billions of nucleotide sequences created, let alone ‘see’/detect a particular target nucleotide sequence to determine if similarities exist between the target nucleotide sequence and the databank nucleotide sequences. If the green fluorescent dye is removed from the PCR non-test, the result of the non-test will show 0% positivity 100% of the time!
At my blog, read the articles…
‘House of Cards: The Collapse of the ‘Collapse’ of the USSR’
‘Playing Hide And Seek In Yugoslavia’
Then read the article, ‘The Marxist Co-Option Of History And The Use Of The Scissors Strategy To Manipulate History Towards The Goal Of Marxist Liberation’
Solution
The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology/blackmail, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.
My blog…
https://djdnotice.blogspot.com/2018/09/d-notice-articles-article-55-7418.html
Reply
Bud Bromley
| #
Dean, your argument is fundamentally misleading. You are addressing specifics of the fluorescence detection technology itself, rather than whether or not the sequences in the pcr probes are identical to sequence in actual SARS CoV-2 virus and then whether or not the selected probe sequences are conclusively unique to SARS CoV-2. The green dye fluoreses if the sequence of the PCR probe hyridizes with sequence in the biological material. The tagging technology itself is well proven and is probably not a problem with regard to pandemic data. Instead, the problem is the sequences in the probes. The sequence used in the probes is assumed to be homologous with SARS CoV-2, but this assumption has not been validated because isolated, flitered SARS CoV-2 samples are “not available.” The sequence used in the probes is based on a composite sequence of the N gene in a database (largely built using this same type tag technology) which has not been validated against isolated SARS CoV-2 sequence. Also, since isolated SARS CoV-2 samples are “not available,” then SARS CoV-2 has not been proven to cause dangerous infection in healthy people.
Reply
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
“The tagging technology itself is well proven and is probably not a problem with regard to pandemic data. ”
A tag identifies nothing. It’s a tag that merely illuminates quantity when the quantity reaches a certain critical number of amplifications. A tag can’t identify a particular nucleotide sequence, let alone a complete viral genome.
If the tag is tagging a nucleotide sequence that has been taken directly from the blood and cultured, then there is no need for a qPCR non-test that utilizes tags because it can’t identify the virion’s nucleotide sequence, even though it has the right virion!
“Also, since isolated SARS CoV-2 samples are “not available,” then SARS CoV-2 has not been proven to cause dangerous infection in healthy people.”
No, that proves COVID-19 doesn’t exist, otherwise COVID-19 would have been isolated directly from blood samples and cultured.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
“The CDC document is very concerning. And now, without validation against isolated, filtered virus using either standard Koch’s or Rivers’ postulates (methods which have been used to validate cause for every other epidemic including SARS CoV-1), vaccines are being created based on synthetic sequence designed to cause invivo human cells in the living, healthy patient to produce one or more proteins from the S-spike protein on the virus, but neither this sequence nor the protein it produces has been validated against the sequence or the S-spike protein on isolated SARS CoV2.”
This is also what has happened across Europe and the UK.
The UK’s NHS have done NO validation tests on the many PCR test kits to ensure that they are fit for use — NO tests have been done in the UK to ensure the PCR cycle number is appropriate for accuracy (minimizing the number of false negatives and false positives), and none of the various PCR test kits in current use have been validated with independent tests AND the actual virus to ensure accuracy of outcome.
In the UK a positive PCR test is meaningless, however it does ensure that COVID-19 ‘cases’ numbers (another meaningless number) rise.
Reply