Dear no-virus enthusiasts: Please discern what I explicitly say I do and do not believe VERSUS what you infer I appear to believe. I often refer to viruses in reference to general beliefs about viruses. For example, if I say "viruses do not transmit respiratory diseases", that does not imply that I have a residual (sinful) believe that respiratory-disease viruses exist. Some of you sound like language-purity enforcers in an inquisition. I don't have time to explain why the question is complex, although I have tried to do so in at least one interview (find it here: https://denisrancourt.ca/page.php?id=12&name=videos ). It is incorrect to assert that "viruses have not been separated, purified and shown to induce infections THEREFORE viruses do not exist". It is also incorrect to believe that the only valid evidence for viruses would be separation-purification-inducing. The other side claims that a demonstration can validly be based of genomics and inducing, which opens the debate into a highly technical realm. Please stop trying to impose your personal bias on my expression.
The no-virus enthusiasts have a problem explaining what causes upper respiratory infections and pneumonias and how they seem to spread in closed environments, like hospital wards, nursing homes or homes. If you try to pin them down for causes, they say the same things over and over again: toxins, lack of nutrients etc but they can't isolate any of them or prove their theories by the scientific method or any other method...
I agree but most no virus enthusiasts do not support the germ theory even though most upper respiratory infections can be easily treated with one or more antibiotics. Also, antibiotic resistance is a real phenomenon which both can be predicted and tested, including specific mutations that make bacteria resistant to antibiotics.
A very real problem with being able to give the specific answers your looking for is that detailed experiments and clinical studies to determine the answers will NEVER be funded for obvious reasons. I don't think the answers are unobtainable as you say.
Denis, I guess I'm a language-purity enforcer, but on another point. ;-)
I think it is a good idea to replace the words "believe" and "belief" when discussing science, statistics, etc. I think this is especially true for someone of your caliber. It would be more accurate to use phrases like, "My assessment is..." or "I have determined by analyzing the available data that..."
I've taken to this myself with the late unpleasantness. I usually say something like, "After reading the original papers announcing a "novel" virus, it's my assessment that it hasn't been isolated or purified. That means that the clinical tests and cause of death reports are meaningless." I'm generally speaking to laymen who know that I have the education and experience and they don't, so this shuts down any further argument for obvious reasons.
Using the believe/belief implies a measure of faith, which belongs in a different realm. People tend to respond with, "Well, you believe that, but I believe in science, and..." *eye roll*
I have asked, in several forums, for the virus-isolation proponents to explain exactly what they mean by "isolation", but nobody has answered me yet. Anything has to EXIST in some medium. My body exists in what appears to be the space around it. My question is, then, in what background exactly would an isolated virus exist - air?, water?, oil?, grape jelly? (just kidding), but I hope you see my point. ... Things that we categorize as individual things still have to EXIST in some background. ... EXACTLY in what background would an "isolated" virus exist, then? ... What would the ideal background medium be? Name it. Define it.
I don't think this is hard to answer at least in a general sense, and I grant this might not be THE answer since no one has isolated/purified the "virus." However, you will find the answer in the work showing that HIV is a fraud by the Perth Group, as well as work done on exosomes. Run a sucrose gradient centrifugation on a partially purified sample, fractionate the gradient and identify the band that is the "virus." The solution would therefore be a buffer with x% sucrose. I wonder if these forums you mention are frequented mainly by laymen/mds. An experimental biochemist or molecular biologist should be able to give you an answer. In fact, you could look it up yourself by finding journal articles about exosomes.
When you are metabolically unhealthy, even the common cold or seasonal flu can have devastating consequences for a large portion of Americans who have a host of health problems. I work for a large supermarket chain here in Oregon. I’m not vaccinated and I don’t wear a mask. I come into close contact with people every single day for the past four years. I haven’t gotten sick, but for the same token, it’s my lay opinion that this whole covid situation is a hoax. It’s never been about health. It’s always been about control
I may have said before but I discount lay/professional opinions and look for critical thinking which lies in the humblest far more than the highly educated (read indoctrinated).
Your opinion was always correct, a hoax pure and simple. And about control.
But don't forget the money with a large helping of death, mayhem and mayhem thrown in for good measure.
And all vaccines are a hoax as far as being good for health. They have always been poisons and poisons have never been good for the body, human or beast.
March 2020 was a shock. I was in Italy and everyone went mad, so I came back to BC via London. They were equally insane in LHR and YVR, my wife shied away from me. It was The Twilight Zone.
Over the last two + years I have changed completely my views of Doctors, medicine, illness. You, Denis, have been an inspiration and steady guide with your calm,thorough, verifiable and scientific approach. Your focus on ACM has been crucial to cutting through the hype and obfuscation. Over time, many difficult months, I came to see the validity of the 'no virus' camp. I am an artist, not a scientist, but, to me, the method and results of affirming the existence of viruses, do not add up. The absence of any willingness to debate is troubling. I have long searched your writing for a clue to your views. Today, above, I read this:
[I no longer simply accept that respiratory-disease viruses are a thing; still systematically researching definitive results on that question. The no-virus absolutists have lost patience with me by now. Hey, real science is slow. Maybe I’m slow, too.]
I am delighted that you are delving into this. Your insight will be very valuable, your work thorough and professional.
This is great news. Thank-you very much! John Dann
I appreciate the fact you have an open mind to investigate whether the nanoscale particles called "virus" by science can indeed cause disease, and that the question remains an open one pending further evidence. I made a similar argument in my "Virology's Fatal Flaw" essay:
Denis, I ask you to contact and talk with Jeff Green about how our viruses really work, and it is a good thing! 😊 Please, this knowledge for people could put an end to big pharma...
We experience the annual respiratory sickness season, your cold & flu season, as a result of the disease state in individuals’ bodies! Just as your pp above says about what happens in the USA...What happens in your body (toxicity, vaccinations, meds/drugs, pollution, obesity, smoking, etc.) dictates viral replication, not some voodoo flying virus (natural or lab-made)! To top that off, our own cell-created viruses and their variants are not contagious to others since your own RNA/DNA is not compatible with others’ RNA/DNA. Such better good news to learn and fear not!
You can tell that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is not produced by the human body because the genome of SARS2 has been evolving at a rate of about 30 nucleotide changes per year, or about 1e-3 nucleotide changes per site per year, but the human genome mutates at a rate of about 5e-9 nucleotide changes per site per year. So why would the bodies of people all over the world be producing different strains of SARS2 now than three years ago? And the genomes of human endogenous retroviruses are incorporated as part of the human genome but the genome of SARS2 is not.
For example you can try to do a BLAST search for the human endogenous retrovirus K113 if you click the "Run BLAST" button in the sidebar here and click the big "BLAST" button: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_022518.1. You can see that the virus matches the human genome, and it's also about 98% identical even with gorilla retroviruses.
Why would the bodies of people all over the world have switched to producing the D614G mutation in the first half of 2020, so that at first D614G was produced more often in East Asia than elsewhere in the world? Are the bodies of people affected by some kind of a morphogenic field which tells them which mutations they should produce, so that it mimics the natural spread of mutations from one geographical region to another? Or otherwise where does the human body receive the information for which mutations it should produce?
BTW if you trace back the origins of the theory that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is produced by the human body in response to stress, you'll see that it was first being promoted in March 2020 by people like the flat earthers Steve Falconer (https://www.bitchute.com/video/mWcUoESRO0c5/), Sofia Smallstorm (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cstuEFrcjTI&t=9m33s), and David Weiss (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1edeMsLFDnI&t=131s), and by Andrew Kaufman in his early interviews that he did with flat earthers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdCZkJLc6ho&t=1h18m33s). As far as I can tell, the first four people in alt media who interviewed Kaufman were the flat earthers James True, Crrow777, Secrets of Saturn, and Richie from Boston. And James True even called himself Kaufman's "lead writer", and he tweeted that "I have emptied my patreon account on editors, publishing, and pushing Dr Kaufman's video". And Kaufman's "Hippocratic Hypocrisy" film was created and narrated by the flat earth channel Spacebusters, and the only way in which the film even featured Kaufman was that it included clips of his interview with Max Igan, who in January 2020 said that the earth is flat. And the poster for the End of COVID event listed five directors of the event, but two of them were Amandha Vollmer and Kelly Brogan who are both flat earthers. And a third director was Dawn Lester, who did her first two interviews in alt media with the flat earthers Greg Carlwood and Crrow777. So if flat earth is a form of disinformation that is meant to make conspiracy theorists look ridiculous, then what does it about the no-virus movement that it's so closely tied to the flat earth movement?
My reply to you is from conversation I have had with Jeff G: ‘With every virus type (strain), there occur mutations of that viral type by cells. This leads to subtypes, called variants, which occur when cells alter their genomic protein blueprints. This can occur when cells encounter a type of toxic tissue that they cannot readily remove via normal cellular endocytosis due to its poisonous toxicity. If the toxin is new to the cell, which is usually the case in our ever-increasing toxic world, where new toxins are created daily, the cell must minutely change its protein synthesis in order to manufacture solvent proteins of a specific nature to deal with them. In part, variants occur due to this.
As well, for each new set of viruses created by cells (normally arising after 48 to 72 hours, as the old set 'dies' out), the 2nd set created by cells (if needed) will naturally be slightly different in their genome, thus, their sequence will be altered in small segments of the original genome of the first virus that appeared—the entire sequence will not be changed. Therefore, endless amounts of viral variants can exist since each body and the cells therein contain their own specific protein creation ideally manufactured for a particular body, and no one else.
The more people you test, the more sequences you will find.
Whether SARS-CoV-2 is a naturally occurring virus or not, this principle is still true throughout the virome/virus kingdom. There is no doubt, to me personally, that coronaviruses are indeed naturally occurring viruses arising from the inhalation of toxins, including the ingestion of toxins, making their way to the lungs, which are then attempted to be expelled via the lungs—a major detoxification pathway.
If there was no solvent factor involved in the body to turn non-bioactive toxins into a soluble form to then be expelled or dissolved from the body, there would be no likelihood to survive to this point in time with our ever-increasing industrial toxicity over the past 100 years. As such, the more toxic we become, the more we need viral solvents to help dissolve toxins that accumulate in our bodies, especially with the reduction of bacterial levels due to the lack of consuming proper raw animal foods.
Bacterial and parasitical levels have decreased alongside this increase in toxicity. Bacteria are the first line of defense against normal bioactive toxins that the body encounters. When our bacterial and parasitical cleansers die off and/or are heavily reduced due to poisonous non-bioactive toxins, the only thing cells can use to cleanse are viruses. Viruses are the only thing that is widely and rapidly replicated by cells in a short period of time that can account for this solvent factor and subsequent increase in expulsion symptoms—nothing else.
Also, this focus on the idea that a virus cannot be called 'virus', unless it causes disease, is mostly pointless. It helps tremendously to understand why researchers would assume that viruses are presumed to cause disease, and the errors therein. Their past errors of observation have mainly occurred because health and disease are a complex picture in totality. In actuality, viruses can indeed be considered a type of toxin/chemical themselves, which are produced by cells as a survival mechanism to cleanse. The word 'virus' does not have to indicate pathogenicity, which suggests indiscriminate pathogenic actions, which science itself now admits is not the case with viruses.
Above all, even if you were to change the name from 'virus' to something else, the same particles that science claims are contagious, are the very same particles that are produced by cells during states of disease in order to cleanse. Those that do not believe these particles even exist and are created by intelligent cells, are literally throwing the baby out with the bath water and disregarding the needs of the tissue of the body entirely, as well disregarding the modes and functions of the detoxification system.’
I don’t think they would. People around the world are exposed to various different seasons/climates and differing environmental toxins, let alone their own personal toxicities from their meds/vaccines/drugs/crap food/etc. So perhaps your info is part of the lies? 🤷♀️
Then why are the mutations present on the level of the raw reads? Is the sequencing hardware somehow rigged so that even though the bodies of people continued to produce the Wuhan-Hu-1 strain throughout 2020, around spring 2020 the sequencing hardware began to introduce the D614G mutation into the raw reads? You cannot even say that the mutations are somehow introduced by the "in-silico" process of genetic assembly, because the mutations are already present on the level of the raw reads before any assembly has been performed.
I'm using one of the samples from this announcement publication from May 2020 as an example: https://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/mra.00489-20/. The following shell commands download the reads for the sample, align the reads against the reference genome for SARS-CoV-2, and do variant calling for the aligned reads:
The output shows that there's only five mutations with a MAPQ value above 100, but three of them are the S:D614G mutation (A23403G) and two of the three mutations associated with it (C3037T and C14408T):
POS REF ALT QUAL
3037 C T 225.417
14408 C T 225.417
15907 G A 225.417
23403 A G 225.417
25563 G T 225.417
This show some of the individual raw reads which contain the D614G mutation:
You can also search the NCBI's sequence read archive for the identifier of the run: https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/?view=run_browser&acc=SRR11667146&display=metadata. Then click on "Reads" and search for spot ID 30957. It shows you that the reverse read starts with "CTTTATCAGGG", even though in Wuhan-Hu-1 the last base of the corresponding 11-base segment is A instead of G.
His explanation doesn't address why the bodies of people all over the world would start producing the same mutations around the same time. For example out of about 29903*3 possible single nucleotide changes, why did the bodies of people switch in early 2020 to producing the set of mutations C241T, C3037T, C14408T, and A23403G? The number of 4-combinations of 29903*3 items is about 3e18. Those four mutations usually appear together, and among GISAID samples with a collection date in 2020, if samples with likely an incorrect collection date are excluded, the set of four mutations appeared in about 20% of samples in February 2020, about 70% of samples in March, and about 90% of samples in April, but there was no other mutation which appeared in more than 50% of all samples during any month of 2020:
awk -F\\t '!$19{sub("...$","",$4);split($12,b,",");for(i in b)a[$4][b[i]]++;n[$4]++}END{for(i in n)for(j in a[i])print i,j,100*a[i][j]/n[i]}' early.comb>muts;awk 'NR==FNR{if($3>50)a[$2];next}$2 in a' muts{,}|sort
There is a recent report out of Japan where they tried tracing the lineage back starting with omicron. They believe that not a single variant is "natural" but all were created in a lab.... and I guess dispersed wherever the winds may blow? It was in theleadingreport . com on 8/31 ...
You seem to have a monopoly of "Scientific Pilpul".
I recall a Nature paper on the CoVid1984 in early 2021 that was over 45 pages on what looks like complicated elucidation of the "mutations" of said "virus".
Propblem with that paper, there was no identification as to where the "virus" sample came from.
The paper appeared technical and menacing, but didn't bother to identify were there tested samples came from.
Maybe JJ Couey is worth to talk to and listen to his hypothesis, if you want to take the time to clarify, which to me sounds pretty reasonable. TY for spending so much time, in times you could appreciate your retirement.
Neither Jay or McKernan have any "virus" science. Jay even admits he has a "hypothesis", nothing more.
Jay Couey admits no-virus people are right about fake "virus isolation", fake "sequencing" and no SARS-COV-2... yet clings to 4 imaginary endemic "coronaviruses"
Since Twitter banned me in 2020 & not let me back that's off my list of sites sources but streams on Rumble are fine. Kevin & Rixey have mocked Jay Couey and used worthless analogies for two years now; they have not debunked anything & taught even less beyond recent mRNA vial contamination details that do have value.
If you have specific time stamps in Kevin's streams that explain any JJ errors please share details because careful listening leaves me with nothing more than an impression that biology is ignored and sequencing details somehow "prove" Kevin's prime theory that GoF coronavirus have the fidelity to circle the globe in contrast to every biological process in nature.
I linked to tweets by Kevin McKernan and not McCairn. And you can read tweets even if you're banned.
Influenza viruses are also RNA viruses, but the H1N1 subtype of influenza A virtually disappeared in humans in 1950s until it reemerged because of the Russian flu epidemic of 1977, after which the new strain had circulated around the world by 1978, and from 1977 until 2009, most human H1N1 sequences were descendants of the 1977 Russian flu strain so that each year they acquired a roughly constant number of mutations from the 1977 strain: https://i.ibb.co/QH5VKQc/h1n1-russian-flu-distance.png. So the Russian flu strain was able to maintain high enough fidelity to circulate in humans for three decades.
I am, as other comments show, very interested in your insight about the virus existency theorie: always your analyses were and are so measured and enlighten! Thanks for sharing your work Denis!
A question I’ve been pondering...it is now well-known that the vaccines couldn’t prevent infection. How then do we know the deaths and damages were not from covid rather than from the vaccinations?
It is more correct to say vaccines couldn’t stop the occurrence of positive test results. Since the test results are meaningless, so is the concept of “Covid infection” which is entirely dependent on the validity of the tests.
There are so many false statements being made I’m unsure, but it sounds like you’re saying there was no covid. My unvaxxed friends who are dead, don’t have much to say. Anymore.
Do you know what upper respiratory infections had people been dying of/with before covid? I will tell you: influenza and/or pneumonia. What happened to influenzas and pneumonias when PCR test was implemented?
I know people were dying before covid. I’m aware hospital funding was available for covid. I know there were abuses, there always are. And I’m getting tired of telling this story.
My son is a healthy 33-year-old bodybuilder. Unvaxxed as we both were he struggled with a confirmed case of covid for eight weeks. I’m over 70 and smoke. Not one, two or three of my acquaintances were already dead of it. more like six at that point. Thats a lot of closely-grouped pneumonia.
I’ve never even gone for a flu shot. But if I got what my son had I’d not make it, and I hate hospitals. So I got the first series of two. A month later I got sick and tested positive. Never have been so sick, but it was over in five days.
If the vaccines caused deaths I grieve for that. Wasn’t like that for me. I asked a lot of questions before I went and did it. Now I hear how very fucked I am; what, like the people I know who dropped 2 years ago? Graphene this, mrna that, mass hysteria.
I don’t know what all happened. I don’t know who may or may not have been behind it. But never in my long life have I seen people go as nutso as I’m seeing now.
So yeah. I’m pretty skeptical, in every direction.
The first eye-opening came when a man I’d never met turned up in my driveway. We shook hands as he introduced himself. His brother Burt was a good friend before we’d lost touch post-retirement. Burt was an unrecognized genius and farmer and machinist-engineer and heavy equipment operator. Good man.
His brother brought news of Burt’s covid death. Yes, he said, it was a confirmed case. No he hadn’t been vaxxed. Brother wanted to know if I had interest in the machinery he’d left behind.
That event was repeated, with variatons, more times than I care to remember. You will consider me clueless no matter what I say because your mind is made up.
You wrote: "The RT-PCR test that was devised for COVID-19 has no clinical or epidemiological value whatsoever. It is one of the greatest scandals in public health history." Then have spikes in excess mortality coincided with spikes in the percentage of positive PCR tests? (https://denisrancourt.substack.com/p/there-was-no-pandemic/comment/18087459) Here's plots of PCR positivity rate and excess mortality in different U.S. states: https://i.ibb.co/41zNqCh/us-states-excess-mortality-vs-positive-pcr-percent.png. For example in Connecticut, the excess mortality percent went from about 127% in April 2020 to -3% in July 2020 to 49% in December 2020 to -7% in April 2021. And similarly the percentage of positive PCR tests went from about 43% in April 2020 to 1% in July 2020 to 12% in December 2020 to 2% in April 2021. And in southern states where there have been spikes in excess mortality during the summer, there have also been spikes in PCR positivity rate during the summer. So how are they able to shift the PCR positivity rate up and down so that during the months when they produce a new wave of iatrogenic deaths, they also get a higher percentage of positive PCR tests? (One way they could control the positivity rate would be if they expanded testing to the asymptomatic population when they want to reduce the PCR positivity rate, but usually the periods of a higher percentage of positive tests coincide with periods when there's a higher number of total performed tests.)
---
You wrote: "No certified uncontaminated samples of the purported pathogen (SARS-CoV-2) were or are available for scientific study and biotech development. The genetic sequence was concocted in the absence of a purified sample of the presumed pathogen, using indirect methods."
I don't know if you referred to the document that was published in early February 2020 by the CDC, where they wrote: "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." (http://web.archive.org/web/20200205171727/https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download)
However by "quantified virus isolates", they may have meant samples of the virus which would've been normalized for the number of copies of the virus that were included in each sample, so just because they said that "quantified virus isolates" were not available, it didn't even mean that they didn't have any kind of a sample of the virus available (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-cdc-idUSKBN27633R):
> Dr Thushan de Silva, from the University of Sheffield's Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, told Reuters that this was not correct.
> De Silva said that the document is describing what was used to determine the lowest amount of viral genetic material the RT-PCR assay could detect.
> "They describe a very common process during assay set up, where the limit of detection of the RT-PCR assay was determined", he said.
> In this case, the CDC have used 'transcribed' RNA as the positive control - which means they used synthetically produced genetic material identical to that carried by the virus.
> "To calculate the limit of detection of an RT-PCR assay, you need to have a known quantity of virus to extract genetic material (RNA) from, or alternatively a known quantity of RNA identical to that carried by the virus", de Silva said.
> According to de Silva, one reason for using transcribed RNA would have been that at the time of set up, not many standardised and quantified viral stocks would have been available to extract viral RNA from.
The PDF by the CDC used the term "2019-nCoV", which fell out of use after the term SARS-CoV-2 was introduced on February 11th. When I searched Twitter for `from:cdcgov "2019-ncov"`, the newest tweet it returned was from February 11th 2020 UTC. The PDF by the CDC was later edited to say that "no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted".
I addressed some misconceptions that the no-virus people have about the genetic assembly of Wuhan-Hu-1 here: https://output.jsbin.com/suwuxoy.
---
You wrote: "Assignment of cause of death as being due to SARS-CoV-2 is worthless. It is pure propaganda enabled by captured institutions."
There's a study from Hamburg where they wrote that they performed autopsies for 80 out of the first 81 citizens of Hamburg who were classified as having died with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7271136/. So you can't accuse the authors of cherrypicking which patients they did the autopsies on. They wrote that in the autopsied bodies, the mean combined weight of the left and right lungs was about 1,610 grams, as opposed to a typical combined lung weight of about 840 grams for males or about 639 grams for females.
Would antiviral drugs or midazolam result in a doubling of lung weight? Or stress caused by social isolation? Or "protocols"?
The paper said: "Of the patients who died in hospitals, 17 died in intensive care units (ICU) with invasive ventilation, 31 in a normal ward, and one in the emergency room." So ventilation cannot explain all causes of increased lung weight either.
The authors of the paper also wrote: "The time of the first positive PCR test is known in 49 cases. The average survival time after the first positive test until death was 6 days." But would antiviral drugs kill people that fast? Even AZT took much longer to kill HIV patients. And the autopsies were performed in March and April of 2020, but Remdesivir wasn't even approved in Europe at the time.
The authors of the study estimated that in 5% of cases COVID was not likely the primary cause of death, and that in a further 10% of cases a competing cause of death was considered to be about as likely as COVID: "A proposal for the categorisation of deaths with SARS-CoV-2 infection is presented (category 1: definite COVID-19 death; category 2: probable COVID-19 death; category 3: possible COVID-19 death with an equal alternative cause of death; category 4: SARS-CoV-2 detection with cause of death not associated to COVID-19). [...] Fifty-seven cases (71%) corresponded to category 1. In all these cases, pneumonia, with or without evidence of sepsis, was found to be the cause of death. Also in category 2, pneumonia was present in all 10 cases (25%). In seven of these 10 cases, however, a fulminant pulmonary artery embolism was fatal, and in one case each, aortic valve endocarditis, septic encephalopathy, and hepatorenal failure secondary to liver cirrhosis were contributory causes of death. A total of eight cases (10%) were classified in category 3 in which a competing cause of death is also considered in addition to COVID-19 (e.g. aspiration pneumonia, pronounced emphysema without evidence of pneumonia, or acute bronchitis). In these cases, a relation with SARS-CoV-2 infection can certainly be discussed critically. [...] The most frequent cause of death was pneumonia, followed by pulmonary artery embolisms combined with pneumonia. Overall, COVID-19 pneumonia was found in 83% of the deceased. Most of these were virus-induced lung changes in the sense of diffuse alveolar damage. However, bacterial superinfected bronchopneumonia also occurred (no bacteriological diagnosis was made postmortem). In 11% of the deaths, competing causes of death were considered. In 5%, there were clear causes of death not related to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Failure to perform postmortem examinations erroneously includes category 4 cases in the statistics of corona deaths."
In another study where they included 68 autopsy cases from New York and Italy, they wrote: "Macroscopic examination showed congested and edematous lungs with patchy involvement as well as area of diffuse consolidation. This was evidenced by combined weight of >1300 g (normal average 840 g; upper limit of normal 1300) [28] in 92% of evaluable cases." (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41379-020-00661-1)
And a third autopsy study said: "We examined 7 lungs obtained during autopsy from patients who died from Covid-19 and compared them with 7 lungs obtained during autopsy from patients who died from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to influenza A(H1N1) infection and 10 age-matched, uninfected control lungs. [...] The mean (±SE) weight of the lungs from patients with proven influenza pneumonia was significantly higher than that from patients with proven Covid-19 (2404±560 g vs. 1681±49 g; P=0.04). The mean weight of the uninfected control lungs (1045±91 g) was significantly lower than those in the influenza group (P=0.003) and the Covid-19 group (P<0.001)." (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2015432) But the increase in lung weight in the COVID group cannot be explained by ventilator use, because the paper said that "none of the patients in our study who died from Covid-19 had been treated with standard mechanical ventilation".
So if the people who were included in the autopsy studies didn't die because of a respiratory pathogen, then why did they have double or triple the normal lung weight?
Thank you for your many suggested alternative interpretations and sources. I would have many counter arguments, but little time to make them. My expressed opinion is exactly a device to bring out the best counter arguments. I plan to give responses, in various formats, as time permits, and as our research advances. Cheers.
Regarding correlation of positive virus test results with all cause mortality, this is explained by people getting deadly treatment on the basis of positive test results.
When there was the first big spike in excess deaths in Australia when Omicron appeared, Rancourt attributed the deaths to the vaccines because the third jab was rolled out around the same time. However the spike in excess deaths also coincided with the first big increase in PCR positivity rate in Australia: https://i.ibb.co/KFy2WC2/taiwan-macao-hong-kong-australia-owid.png. So how can you know that the deaths were not caused by the treatment protocols instead? Or do you only need to blame the "protocols" when you cannot blame the vaccines?
According to OWID, the PCR positivity rate in Australia remained below 3% until the week ending January 2nd 2022 when it increased to 10%, and two weeks later it had increased to 45%. But at the same time Australia had their first big increase in excess deaths.
And similarly in Hong Kong, the percentage of positive PCR tests remained under 1% until March 2022 when it suddenly increased to 4% and then to 23% the next month. But Hong Kong also had less than 12% excess mortality until March 2022, when the excess mortality increased to 33% and next month it increased to 169%.
And Macao also had almost no excess deaths until January 2023, when they suddenly had 264% excess mortality. But the PCR positivity rate in China climbed from close to 0% on December 9th 2022 to about 30% on December 25th 2022: https://i.ibb.co/PF4sRhB/china-pcr-positivity-rate-december-2022-january-2023.png. According to WHO's data, globally by far the highest number of COVID cases per week was on a week in the middle of December 2022: https://covid19.who.int/. However according to the same dataset by the WHO, about 83% of all cases in December 2022 were in China: `t=read.csv("https://covid19.who.int/WHO-COVID-19-global-data.csv" );t2=t[sub("-..$","",t$Date_reported)=="2022-12",];tap=tapply(t2$New_cases,t2$Country,sum);tap["China"]/sum(tap)`.
So in the case of Australia, Hong Kong, and Macao, the first big increase in excess deaths came long after most people had been vaccinated, but it coincided with the first big increase in PCR positivity rate.
When “cases” go up so do all sorts of life-diminishing “countermeasures” like lockdowns, forced social distancing, climate of fear, distrust and despair. You never see a controlled prospective experiment that checks the predictability of any virus test on a per-person basis.
Regarding: “So if the people who were included in the autopsy studies didn't die because of a respiratory pathogen, then why did they have double or triple the normal lung weight?”
Lungs become heavier when they fill up with fluid (pleural effusion). This can be the result of a number of things. Why assume it had anything to do with the results of a PCR test?
There's one paper from Brazil where they used computed tomography to estimate lung weight in living people who were hospitalized for COVID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7917083/. From figure 6 you can see that there was a fairly high correlation between the severity of pneumonia and the estimated lung weight. The average estimated lung weight was about 621 g in the control group, about 728 g in the group that was classified as having mild pneumonia, about 891 g in the group that was classified as having moderate pneumonia, and about 1089 g in the group that was classified as having severe pneumonia. 6 out of 61 patients in the severe pneumonia group ended up dying while in hospital, but no other participants of the study died while in hospital.
Yes, heavier lungs occur in severe pneumonia. In that Brazilian study the experimental subjects were people who were diagnosed with both COVID-19 and pneumonia. The controls were people with healthy lungs and not tested for any virus. The study is about pneumonia, not whether a virus can cause it.
That is a very interesting series of plots indeed. It shows some relation during 2020 and the first half of 2021 and absolutely nothing afterwards. Frequently, the curves go in opposite directions.
It absolutely looks like there is a confounding factor, so maybe you should try to look for better evidence of what you affirm.
Around December 2021 to January 2022 when Omicron appeared, there was a spike in PCR positivity rate in all U.S. states. It coincided with a spike in excess deaths in most U.S. states, usually with a delay of about one to two weeks.
At least in Minnesota, there was also a spike in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater around the same time: https://i.ibb.co/Bc6rfw9/minnesota-deaths-pcr-wastewater-vax.png. It's a similar story in European countries, because for example in Sweden around January 2022, there was a sharp spike in wastewater prevalence which was soon followed by a spike in PCR positivity rate which was soon followed by a spike in COVID deaths: https://i.ibb.co/WPB5FQz/sweden-wastewater-pcr-deaths-minmax.png. Here in Finland, we didn't have that many COVID deaths until Omicron, and our excess mortality only peaked in November-December 2022, but at the same time we had a spike in PCR positivity rate and the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater: https://www.koronatilastot.fi/fi/.
However after Omicron, some U.S. states continued to have a high PCR positivity rate which was not accompanied by high excess mortality. I believe it may have been because people already had immunity from a previous COVID infection or from vaccines, so people were no longer dying from Omicron. A similar phenomenon is also visible in many European countries.
"The magical 'one way mask', . . . acts as 'source control' . . . is a ridiculous fantasy." NO KIDDING!!!
"Vaccine trials . . . are probably falsified."— now we KNOW they were falsified!
"Air is a compressible fluid". Wow! How did I miss that tidbit? Amazing and wild, like how glass is a fluid, too! (An UNcompressible one! LOL!) Is there such a thing as a state BETWEEN a liquid and a gas, as in both? What about plasma?
Dennis. . . I am extremely impressed with your knowledge and background!
Denis, great summary, thank you. Your list of credentials is extremely impressive and really should pre-empt the usual, tedious objections of the credentialist crowd, that if anybody disagrees with them it's because he/she is not qualified to form their own opinion on the subject.
I was especially pleased to read your first paragraph on your research and experience dealing with small particles. This brings to mind a question: regarding masking and virion size, how would you respond to the claim that viruses aren't floating around the air in isolation, but rather are encased in much larger capsules of fluid as people exhale -- such that face masks could actually stop viruses from being breathed in (or out)?
This quote from your "Masks Don't Work" paper should clinch it:
"On average, 64 per cent of the viral genome copies were associated with fine particles smaller than 2.5 μm, which can remain suspended for hours" (Yang et al., 2011). So the claim about virions being encased in large capsules that could be stopped by masks, is refuted empirically: this does happen, but only in a minority of cases, and not nearly enough to decrease transmission.
Dear no-virus enthusiasts: Please discern what I explicitly say I do and do not believe VERSUS what you infer I appear to believe. I often refer to viruses in reference to general beliefs about viruses. For example, if I say "viruses do not transmit respiratory diseases", that does not imply that I have a residual (sinful) believe that respiratory-disease viruses exist. Some of you sound like language-purity enforcers in an inquisition. I don't have time to explain why the question is complex, although I have tried to do so in at least one interview (find it here: https://denisrancourt.ca/page.php?id=12&name=videos ). It is incorrect to assert that "viruses have not been separated, purified and shown to induce infections THEREFORE viruses do not exist". It is also incorrect to believe that the only valid evidence for viruses would be separation-purification-inducing. The other side claims that a demonstration can validly be based of genomics and inducing, which opens the debate into a highly technical realm. Please stop trying to impose your personal bias on my expression.
The no-virus enthusiasts have a problem explaining what causes upper respiratory infections and pneumonias and how they seem to spread in closed environments, like hospital wards, nursing homes or homes. If you try to pin them down for causes, they say the same things over and over again: toxins, lack of nutrients etc but they can't isolate any of them or prove their theories by the scientific method or any other method...
Those very real indoor epidemics may all be entirely bacterial pneumonia.
I agree but most no virus enthusiasts do not support the germ theory even though most upper respiratory infections can be easily treated with one or more antibiotics. Also, antibiotic resistance is a real phenomenon which both can be predicted and tested, including specific mutations that make bacteria resistant to antibiotics.
A very real problem with being able to give the specific answers your looking for is that detailed experiments and clinical studies to determine the answers will NEVER be funded for obvious reasons. I don't think the answers are unobtainable as you say.
Denis, I guess I'm a language-purity enforcer, but on another point. ;-)
I think it is a good idea to replace the words "believe" and "belief" when discussing science, statistics, etc. I think this is especially true for someone of your caliber. It would be more accurate to use phrases like, "My assessment is..." or "I have determined by analyzing the available data that..."
I've taken to this myself with the late unpleasantness. I usually say something like, "After reading the original papers announcing a "novel" virus, it's my assessment that it hasn't been isolated or purified. That means that the clinical tests and cause of death reports are meaningless." I'm generally speaking to laymen who know that I have the education and experience and they don't, so this shuts down any further argument for obvious reasons.
Using the believe/belief implies a measure of faith, which belongs in a different realm. People tend to respond with, "Well, you believe that, but I believe in science, and..." *eye roll*
I have asked, in several forums, for the virus-isolation proponents to explain exactly what they mean by "isolation", but nobody has answered me yet. Anything has to EXIST in some medium. My body exists in what appears to be the space around it. My question is, then, in what background exactly would an isolated virus exist - air?, water?, oil?, grape jelly? (just kidding), but I hope you see my point. ... Things that we categorize as individual things still have to EXIST in some background. ... EXACTLY in what background would an "isolated" virus exist, then? ... What would the ideal background medium be? Name it. Define it.
I don't think this is hard to answer at least in a general sense, and I grant this might not be THE answer since no one has isolated/purified the "virus." However, you will find the answer in the work showing that HIV is a fraud by the Perth Group, as well as work done on exosomes. Run a sucrose gradient centrifugation on a partially purified sample, fractionate the gradient and identify the band that is the "virus." The solution would therefore be a buffer with x% sucrose. I wonder if these forums you mention are frequented mainly by laymen/mds. An experimental biochemist or molecular biologist should be able to give you an answer. In fact, you could look it up yourself by finding journal articles about exosomes.
When you are metabolically unhealthy, even the common cold or seasonal flu can have devastating consequences for a large portion of Americans who have a host of health problems. I work for a large supermarket chain here in Oregon. I’m not vaccinated and I don’t wear a mask. I come into close contact with people every single day for the past four years. I haven’t gotten sick, but for the same token, it’s my lay opinion that this whole covid situation is a hoax. It’s never been about health. It’s always been about control
I may have said before but I discount lay/professional opinions and look for critical thinking which lies in the humblest far more than the highly educated (read indoctrinated).
Your opinion was always correct, a hoax pure and simple. And about control.
But don't forget the money with a large helping of death, mayhem and mayhem thrown in for good measure.
And all vaccines are a hoax as far as being good for health. They have always been poisons and poisons have never been good for the body, human or beast.
March 2020 was a shock. I was in Italy and everyone went mad, so I came back to BC via London. They were equally insane in LHR and YVR, my wife shied away from me. It was The Twilight Zone.
Over the last two + years I have changed completely my views of Doctors, medicine, illness. You, Denis, have been an inspiration and steady guide with your calm,thorough, verifiable and scientific approach. Your focus on ACM has been crucial to cutting through the hype and obfuscation. Over time, many difficult months, I came to see the validity of the 'no virus' camp. I am an artist, not a scientist, but, to me, the method and results of affirming the existence of viruses, do not add up. The absence of any willingness to debate is troubling. I have long searched your writing for a clue to your views. Today, above, I read this:
[I no longer simply accept that respiratory-disease viruses are a thing; still systematically researching definitive results on that question. The no-virus absolutists have lost patience with me by now. Hey, real science is slow. Maybe I’m slow, too.]
I am delighted that you are delving into this. Your insight will be very valuable, your work thorough and professional.
This is great news. Thank-you very much! John Dann
I have always said that the virus as seen through the electron microscope is the exosome, part of the bodies defenses, friend and not foe.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/e-is-for-exosomes/
But all the various variants were made up which helped give the game away of the virus fraud.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2021/12/02/various-variants-covid-19/
Excellent analysis. Thank you.
Thank you so much for your work, it is immensely precious and appreciated. Merci !
I appreciate the fact you have an open mind to investigate whether the nanoscale particles called "virus" by science can indeed cause disease, and that the question remains an open one pending further evidence. I made a similar argument in my "Virology's Fatal Flaw" essay:
https://fullbroadside.substack.com/p/virologys-fatal-flaw
Keep up the great work Denis.
Looking forward to reading your new report, I know it will be objective and honest to the best of your ability.
This is so thorough and so well-explained, thank you. 🙏🏾
Denis, I ask you to contact and talk with Jeff Green about how our viruses really work, and it is a good thing! 😊 Please, this knowledge for people could put an end to big pharma...
We experience the annual respiratory sickness season, your cold & flu season, as a result of the disease state in individuals’ bodies! Just as your pp above says about what happens in the USA...What happens in your body (toxicity, vaccinations, meds/drugs, pollution, obesity, smoking, etc.) dictates viral replication, not some voodoo flying virus (natural or lab-made)! To top that off, our own cell-created viruses and their variants are not contagious to others since your own RNA/DNA is not compatible with others’ RNA/DNA. Such better good news to learn and fear not!
virusesarenotcontagious.com Thank You so much! Debbie ❤️
You can tell that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is not produced by the human body because the genome of SARS2 has been evolving at a rate of about 30 nucleotide changes per year, or about 1e-3 nucleotide changes per site per year, but the human genome mutates at a rate of about 5e-9 nucleotide changes per site per year. So why would the bodies of people all over the world be producing different strains of SARS2 now than three years ago? And the genomes of human endogenous retroviruses are incorporated as part of the human genome but the genome of SARS2 is not.
For example you can try to do a BLAST search for the human endogenous retrovirus K113 if you click the "Run BLAST" button in the sidebar here and click the big "BLAST" button: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_022518.1. You can see that the virus matches the human genome, and it's also about 98% identical even with gorilla retroviruses.
HERVs have highly conserved genomes since higher eukaryotes like mammals have a much lower mutation rate than RNA viruses like SARS2: https://www.science.org/cms/10.1126/science.1169202/asset/527667f7-e33e-4951-8d7e-6139ca46d8eb/assets/graphic/323_1308_f1.jpeg. But even current strains of Omicron are only about 99.7% identical to the initial Wuhan strain: `curl https://data.nextstrain.org/files/ncov/open/global/metadata.tsv.xz |gzip -dc>global.tsv;awk -F\\t '$7~/2023-07/&&$16>29e3{x+=100*$39/$16;n++}END{print 100-x/n}' global.tsv`.
Why would the bodies of people all over the world have switched to producing the D614G mutation in the first half of 2020, so that at first D614G was produced more often in East Asia than elsewhere in the world? Are the bodies of people affected by some kind of a morphogenic field which tells them which mutations they should produce, so that it mimics the natural spread of mutations from one geographical region to another? Or otherwise where does the human body receive the information for which mutations it should produce?
BTW if you trace back the origins of the theory that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is produced by the human body in response to stress, you'll see that it was first being promoted in March 2020 by people like the flat earthers Steve Falconer (https://www.bitchute.com/video/mWcUoESRO0c5/), Sofia Smallstorm (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cstuEFrcjTI&t=9m33s), and David Weiss (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1edeMsLFDnI&t=131s), and by Andrew Kaufman in his early interviews that he did with flat earthers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdCZkJLc6ho&t=1h18m33s). As far as I can tell, the first four people in alt media who interviewed Kaufman were the flat earthers James True, Crrow777, Secrets of Saturn, and Richie from Boston. And James True even called himself Kaufman's "lead writer", and he tweeted that "I have emptied my patreon account on editors, publishing, and pushing Dr Kaufman's video". And Kaufman's "Hippocratic Hypocrisy" film was created and narrated by the flat earth channel Spacebusters, and the only way in which the film even featured Kaufman was that it included clips of his interview with Max Igan, who in January 2020 said that the earth is flat. And the poster for the End of COVID event listed five directors of the event, but two of them were Amandha Vollmer and Kelly Brogan who are both flat earthers. And a third director was Dawn Lester, who did her first two interviews in alt media with the flat earthers Greg Carlwood and Crrow777. So if flat earth is a form of disinformation that is meant to make conspiracy theorists look ridiculous, then what does it about the no-virus movement that it's so closely tied to the flat earth movement?
My reply to you is from conversation I have had with Jeff G: ‘With every virus type (strain), there occur mutations of that viral type by cells. This leads to subtypes, called variants, which occur when cells alter their genomic protein blueprints. This can occur when cells encounter a type of toxic tissue that they cannot readily remove via normal cellular endocytosis due to its poisonous toxicity. If the toxin is new to the cell, which is usually the case in our ever-increasing toxic world, where new toxins are created daily, the cell must minutely change its protein synthesis in order to manufacture solvent proteins of a specific nature to deal with them. In part, variants occur due to this.
As well, for each new set of viruses created by cells (normally arising after 48 to 72 hours, as the old set 'dies' out), the 2nd set created by cells (if needed) will naturally be slightly different in their genome, thus, their sequence will be altered in small segments of the original genome of the first virus that appeared—the entire sequence will not be changed. Therefore, endless amounts of viral variants can exist since each body and the cells therein contain their own specific protein creation ideally manufactured for a particular body, and no one else.
The more people you test, the more sequences you will find.
Whether SARS-CoV-2 is a naturally occurring virus or not, this principle is still true throughout the virome/virus kingdom. There is no doubt, to me personally, that coronaviruses are indeed naturally occurring viruses arising from the inhalation of toxins, including the ingestion of toxins, making their way to the lungs, which are then attempted to be expelled via the lungs—a major detoxification pathway.
If there was no solvent factor involved in the body to turn non-bioactive toxins into a soluble form to then be expelled or dissolved from the body, there would be no likelihood to survive to this point in time with our ever-increasing industrial toxicity over the past 100 years. As such, the more toxic we become, the more we need viral solvents to help dissolve toxins that accumulate in our bodies, especially with the reduction of bacterial levels due to the lack of consuming proper raw animal foods.
Bacterial and parasitical levels have decreased alongside this increase in toxicity. Bacteria are the first line of defense against normal bioactive toxins that the body encounters. When our bacterial and parasitical cleansers die off and/or are heavily reduced due to poisonous non-bioactive toxins, the only thing cells can use to cleanse are viruses. Viruses are the only thing that is widely and rapidly replicated by cells in a short period of time that can account for this solvent factor and subsequent increase in expulsion symptoms—nothing else.
Also, this focus on the idea that a virus cannot be called 'virus', unless it causes disease, is mostly pointless. It helps tremendously to understand why researchers would assume that viruses are presumed to cause disease, and the errors therein. Their past errors of observation have mainly occurred because health and disease are a complex picture in totality. In actuality, viruses can indeed be considered a type of toxin/chemical themselves, which are produced by cells as a survival mechanism to cleanse. The word 'virus' does not have to indicate pathogenicity, which suggests indiscriminate pathogenic actions, which science itself now admits is not the case with viruses.
I proved this in my article here: https://jeffgreenhealth.substack.com/p/science-confirms-my-writings-on-viruses
Above all, even if you were to change the name from 'virus' to something else, the same particles that science claims are contagious, are the very same particles that are produced by cells during states of disease in order to cleanse. Those that do not believe these particles even exist and are created by intelligent cells, are literally throwing the baby out with the bath water and disregarding the needs of the tissue of the body entirely, as well disregarding the modes and functions of the detoxification system.’
Hope that helps all! ~Debbie ❤️
I don’t think they would. People around the world are exposed to various different seasons/climates and differing environmental toxins, let alone their own personal toxicities from their meds/vaccines/drugs/crap food/etc. So perhaps your info is part of the lies? 🤷♀️
Then why are the mutations present on the level of the raw reads? Is the sequencing hardware somehow rigged so that even though the bodies of people continued to produce the Wuhan-Hu-1 strain throughout 2020, around spring 2020 the sequencing hardware began to introduce the D614G mutation into the raw reads? You cannot even say that the mutations are somehow introduced by the "in-silico" process of genetic assembly, because the mutations are already present on the level of the raw reads before any assembly has been performed.
I'm using one of the samples from this announcement publication from May 2020 as an example: https://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/mra.00489-20/. The following shell commands download the reads for the sample, align the reads against the reference genome for SARS-CoV-2, and do variant calling for the aligned reads:
brew install bowtie2 samtools bcftools seqkit
curl 'https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=nuccore&rettype=fasta&id=MN908947.3'>sars2.fa
wget ftp://ftp.sra.ebi.ac.uk/vol1/fastq/SRR116/046/SRR11667146/SRR11667146_{1,2}.fastq.gz
bowtie2-build sars2.fa{,}
x=SRR11667146;bowtie2 -p4 --no-unal --local -x sars2.fa -1 $x\_1.fastq.gz -2 $x\_2.fastq.gz|samtools sort ->egypt.bam
bcftools mpileup -f sars2.fa egypt.bam|bcftools call -mv>egypt.vcf
awk '$6>100' egypt.vcf|grep -v '##'|cut -f2,4-6|column -t
The output shows that there's only five mutations with a MAPQ value above 100, but three of them are the S:D614G mutation (A23403G) and two of the three mutations associated with it (C3037T and C14408T):
POS REF ALT QUAL
3037 C T 225.417
14408 C T 225.417
15907 G A 225.417
23403 A G 225.417
25563 G T 225.417
This show some of the individual raw reads which contain the D614G mutation:
i=23403;seqkit mutate -p $i:G sars2.fa|seqkit subseq -r $[i-10]:$[i+10]|grep -v \>|grep -if- --color <(samtools view egypt.bam|cut -f-10)
You can also search the NCBI's sequence read archive for the identifier of the run: https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/?view=run_browser&acc=SRR11667146&display=metadata. Then click on "Reads" and search for spot ID 30957. It shows you that the reverse read starts with "CTTTATCAGGG", even though in Wuhan-Hu-1 the last base of the corresponding 11-base segment is A instead of G.
His explanation doesn't address why the bodies of people all over the world would start producing the same mutations around the same time. For example out of about 29903*3 possible single nucleotide changes, why did the bodies of people switch in early 2020 to producing the set of mutations C241T, C3037T, C14408T, and A23403G? The number of 4-combinations of 29903*3 items is about 3e18. Those four mutations usually appear together, and among GISAID samples with a collection date in 2020, if samples with likely an incorrect collection date are excluded, the set of four mutations appeared in about 20% of samples in February 2020, about 70% of samples in March, and about 90% of samples in April, but there was no other mutation which appeared in more than 50% of all samples during any month of 2020:
curl https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1129471731795492988/1137157461518860369/early.comb.xz |gzip -dc>early.comb
awk -F\\t '!$19{sub("...$","",$4);split($12,b,",");for(i in b)a[$4][b[i]]++;n[$4]++}END{for(i in n)for(j in a[i])print i,j,100*a[i][j]/n[i]}' early.comb>muts;awk 'NR==FNR{if($3>50)a[$2];next}$2 in a' muts{,}|sort
There is a recent report out of Japan where they tried tracing the lineage back starting with omicron. They believe that not a single variant is "natural" but all were created in a lab.... and I guess dispersed wherever the winds may blow? It was in theleadingreport . com on 8/31 ...
You seem to have a monopoly of "Scientific Pilpul".
I recall a Nature paper on the CoVid1984 in early 2021 that was over 45 pages on what looks like complicated elucidation of the "mutations" of said "virus".
Propblem with that paper, there was no identification as to where the "virus" sample came from.
The paper appeared technical and menacing, but didn't bother to identify were there tested samples came from.
Maybe JJ Couey is worth to talk to and listen to his hypothesis, if you want to take the time to clarify, which to me sounds pretty reasonable. TY for spending so much time, in times you could appreciate your retirement.
JC has been debunked here: https://twitter.com/Kevin_McKernan/status/1644344780371927042, https://twitter.com/Kevin_McKernan/status/1647265396536344579, https://twitter.com/Kevin_McKernan/status/1644429205168353283, https://twitter.com/Kevin_McKernan/status/1645587700232200192, https://twitter.com/user3425664/status/1644673292379324418, https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/me-and-jj-couey/comment/21579981, https://metatron.substack.com/p/saturday-morning-conspiracy-theory/comment/21906001, https://anandamide.substack.com/p/quasi-species-swarms-in-sars-cov.
I don't think "debunked" is the correct way to characterize this vital debate.
I would like to see it laid out in proper science-format reports, and rebuttals.
Neither Jay or McKernan have any "virus" science. Jay even admits he has a "hypothesis", nothing more.
Jay Couey admits no-virus people are right about fake "virus isolation", fake "sequencing" and no SARS-COV-2... yet clings to 4 imaginary endemic "coronaviruses"
https://christinemasseyfois.substack.com/p/jay-couey-admits-no-virus-people
Since Twitter banned me in 2020 & not let me back that's off my list of sites sources but streams on Rumble are fine. Kevin & Rixey have mocked Jay Couey and used worthless analogies for two years now; they have not debunked anything & taught even less beyond recent mRNA vial contamination details that do have value.
If you have specific time stamps in Kevin's streams that explain any JJ errors please share details because careful listening leaves me with nothing more than an impression that biology is ignored and sequencing details somehow "prove" Kevin's prime theory that GoF coronavirus have the fidelity to circle the globe in contrast to every biological process in nature.
I linked to tweets by Kevin McKernan and not McCairn. And you can read tweets even if you're banned.
Influenza viruses are also RNA viruses, but the H1N1 subtype of influenza A virtually disappeared in humans in 1950s until it reemerged because of the Russian flu epidemic of 1977, after which the new strain had circulated around the world by 1978, and from 1977 until 2009, most human H1N1 sequences were descendants of the 1977 Russian flu strain so that each year they acquired a roughly constant number of mutations from the 1977 strain: https://i.ibb.co/QH5VKQc/h1n1-russian-flu-distance.png. So the Russian flu strain was able to maintain high enough fidelity to circulate in humans for three decades.
Do I trust someone who worked on HGP? Do I trust in his PCR prooving method? NO
Do I say he's McK. is lying on his findings? No. I am not. I am interested in the bigger picture.
I leave the debate on the molecular level. To me it's like looking at an oilpaint with a lens and draw conclusions to the whole paintin.
I am, as other comments show, very interested in your insight about the virus existency theorie: always your analyses were and are so measured and enlighten! Thanks for sharing your work Denis!
A question I’ve been pondering...it is now well-known that the vaccines couldn’t prevent infection. How then do we know the deaths and damages were not from covid rather than from the vaccinations?
Important question. Please consider reading our recent reports on "Probable causal association" for India, Australia, Israel, USA, Canada...:
https://correlation-canada.org/research/
I will.
It is more correct to say vaccines couldn’t stop the occurrence of positive test results. Since the test results are meaningless, so is the concept of “Covid infection” which is entirely dependent on the validity of the tests.
There are so many false statements being made I’m unsure, but it sounds like you’re saying there was no covid. My unvaxxed friends who are dead, don’t have much to say. Anymore.
Do you know what upper respiratory infections had people been dying of/with before covid? I will tell you: influenza and/or pneumonia. What happened to influenzas and pneumonias when PCR test was implemented?
I know people were dying before covid. I’m aware hospital funding was available for covid. I know there were abuses, there always are. And I’m getting tired of telling this story.
My son is a healthy 33-year-old bodybuilder. Unvaxxed as we both were he struggled with a confirmed case of covid for eight weeks. I’m over 70 and smoke. Not one, two or three of my acquaintances were already dead of it. more like six at that point. Thats a lot of closely-grouped pneumonia.
I’ve never even gone for a flu shot. But if I got what my son had I’d not make it, and I hate hospitals. So I got the first series of two. A month later I got sick and tested positive. Never have been so sick, but it was over in five days.
If the vaccines caused deaths I grieve for that. Wasn’t like that for me. I asked a lot of questions before I went and did it. Now I hear how very fucked I am; what, like the people I know who dropped 2 years ago? Graphene this, mrna that, mass hysteria.
I don’t know what all happened. I don’t know who may or may not have been behind it. But never in my long life have I seen people go as nutso as I’m seeing now.
So yeah. I’m pretty skeptical, in every direction.
I would say with confidence that you haven't a clue at what killed your friends.
But of course, you do.
The first eye-opening came when a man I’d never met turned up in my driveway. We shook hands as he introduced himself. His brother Burt was a good friend before we’d lost touch post-retirement. Burt was an unrecognized genius and farmer and machinist-engineer and heavy equipment operator. Good man.
His brother brought news of Burt’s covid death. Yes, he said, it was a confirmed case. No he hadn’t been vaxxed. Brother wanted to know if I had interest in the machinery he’d left behind.
That event was repeated, with variatons, more times than I care to remember. You will consider me clueless no matter what I say because your mind is made up.
Wear it well. It fits you.
You wrote: "The RT-PCR test that was devised for COVID-19 has no clinical or epidemiological value whatsoever. It is one of the greatest scandals in public health history." Then have spikes in excess mortality coincided with spikes in the percentage of positive PCR tests? (https://denisrancourt.substack.com/p/there-was-no-pandemic/comment/18087459) Here's plots of PCR positivity rate and excess mortality in different U.S. states: https://i.ibb.co/41zNqCh/us-states-excess-mortality-vs-positive-pcr-percent.png. For example in Connecticut, the excess mortality percent went from about 127% in April 2020 to -3% in July 2020 to 49% in December 2020 to -7% in April 2021. And similarly the percentage of positive PCR tests went from about 43% in April 2020 to 1% in July 2020 to 12% in December 2020 to 2% in April 2021. And in southern states where there have been spikes in excess mortality during the summer, there have also been spikes in PCR positivity rate during the summer. So how are they able to shift the PCR positivity rate up and down so that during the months when they produce a new wave of iatrogenic deaths, they also get a higher percentage of positive PCR tests? (One way they could control the positivity rate would be if they expanded testing to the asymptomatic population when they want to reduce the PCR positivity rate, but usually the periods of a higher percentage of positive tests coincide with periods when there's a higher number of total performed tests.)
---
You wrote: "No certified uncontaminated samples of the purported pathogen (SARS-CoV-2) were or are available for scientific study and biotech development. The genetic sequence was concocted in the absence of a purified sample of the presumed pathogen, using indirect methods."
I don't know if you referred to the document that was published in early February 2020 by the CDC, where they wrote: "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." (http://web.archive.org/web/20200205171727/https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download)
However by "quantified virus isolates", they may have meant samples of the virus which would've been normalized for the number of copies of the virus that were included in each sample, so just because they said that "quantified virus isolates" were not available, it didn't even mean that they didn't have any kind of a sample of the virus available (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-cdc-idUSKBN27633R):
> Dr Thushan de Silva, from the University of Sheffield's Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, told Reuters that this was not correct.
> De Silva said that the document is describing what was used to determine the lowest amount of viral genetic material the RT-PCR assay could detect.
> "They describe a very common process during assay set up, where the limit of detection of the RT-PCR assay was determined", he said.
> In this case, the CDC have used 'transcribed' RNA as the positive control - which means they used synthetically produced genetic material identical to that carried by the virus.
> "To calculate the limit of detection of an RT-PCR assay, you need to have a known quantity of virus to extract genetic material (RNA) from, or alternatively a known quantity of RNA identical to that carried by the virus", de Silva said.
> According to de Silva, one reason for using transcribed RNA would have been that at the time of set up, not many standardised and quantified viral stocks would have been available to extract viral RNA from.
The PDF by the CDC used the term "2019-nCoV", which fell out of use after the term SARS-CoV-2 was introduced on February 11th. When I searched Twitter for `from:cdcgov "2019-ncov"`, the newest tweet it returned was from February 11th 2020 UTC. The PDF by the CDC was later edited to say that "no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted".
I addressed some misconceptions that the no-virus people have about the genetic assembly of Wuhan-Hu-1 here: https://output.jsbin.com/suwuxoy.
---
You wrote: "Assignment of cause of death as being due to SARS-CoV-2 is worthless. It is pure propaganda enabled by captured institutions."
There's a study from Hamburg where they wrote that they performed autopsies for 80 out of the first 81 citizens of Hamburg who were classified as having died with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7271136/. So you can't accuse the authors of cherrypicking which patients they did the autopsies on. They wrote that in the autopsied bodies, the mean combined weight of the left and right lungs was about 1,610 grams, as opposed to a typical combined lung weight of about 840 grams for males or about 639 grams for females.
Would antiviral drugs or midazolam result in a doubling of lung weight? Or stress caused by social isolation? Or "protocols"?
The paper said: "Of the patients who died in hospitals, 17 died in intensive care units (ICU) with invasive ventilation, 31 in a normal ward, and one in the emergency room." So ventilation cannot explain all causes of increased lung weight either.
The authors of the paper also wrote: "The time of the first positive PCR test is known in 49 cases. The average survival time after the first positive test until death was 6 days." But would antiviral drugs kill people that fast? Even AZT took much longer to kill HIV patients. And the autopsies were performed in March and April of 2020, but Remdesivir wasn't even approved in Europe at the time.
The authors of the study estimated that in 5% of cases COVID was not likely the primary cause of death, and that in a further 10% of cases a competing cause of death was considered to be about as likely as COVID: "A proposal for the categorisation of deaths with SARS-CoV-2 infection is presented (category 1: definite COVID-19 death; category 2: probable COVID-19 death; category 3: possible COVID-19 death with an equal alternative cause of death; category 4: SARS-CoV-2 detection with cause of death not associated to COVID-19). [...] Fifty-seven cases (71%) corresponded to category 1. In all these cases, pneumonia, with or without evidence of sepsis, was found to be the cause of death. Also in category 2, pneumonia was present in all 10 cases (25%). In seven of these 10 cases, however, a fulminant pulmonary artery embolism was fatal, and in one case each, aortic valve endocarditis, septic encephalopathy, and hepatorenal failure secondary to liver cirrhosis were contributory causes of death. A total of eight cases (10%) were classified in category 3 in which a competing cause of death is also considered in addition to COVID-19 (e.g. aspiration pneumonia, pronounced emphysema without evidence of pneumonia, or acute bronchitis). In these cases, a relation with SARS-CoV-2 infection can certainly be discussed critically. [...] The most frequent cause of death was pneumonia, followed by pulmonary artery embolisms combined with pneumonia. Overall, COVID-19 pneumonia was found in 83% of the deceased. Most of these were virus-induced lung changes in the sense of diffuse alveolar damage. However, bacterial superinfected bronchopneumonia also occurred (no bacteriological diagnosis was made postmortem). In 11% of the deaths, competing causes of death were considered. In 5%, there were clear causes of death not related to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Failure to perform postmortem examinations erroneously includes category 4 cases in the statistics of corona deaths."
In another study where they included 68 autopsy cases from New York and Italy, they wrote: "Macroscopic examination showed congested and edematous lungs with patchy involvement as well as area of diffuse consolidation. This was evidenced by combined weight of >1300 g (normal average 840 g; upper limit of normal 1300) [28] in 92% of evaluable cases." (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41379-020-00661-1)
And a third autopsy study said: "We examined 7 lungs obtained during autopsy from patients who died from Covid-19 and compared them with 7 lungs obtained during autopsy from patients who died from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to influenza A(H1N1) infection and 10 age-matched, uninfected control lungs. [...] The mean (±SE) weight of the lungs from patients with proven influenza pneumonia was significantly higher than that from patients with proven Covid-19 (2404±560 g vs. 1681±49 g; P=0.04). The mean weight of the uninfected control lungs (1045±91 g) was significantly lower than those in the influenza group (P=0.003) and the Covid-19 group (P<0.001)." (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2015432) But the increase in lung weight in the COVID group cannot be explained by ventilator use, because the paper said that "none of the patients in our study who died from Covid-19 had been treated with standard mechanical ventilation".
So if the people who were included in the autopsy studies didn't die because of a respiratory pathogen, then why did they have double or triple the normal lung weight?
Thank you for your many suggested alternative interpretations and sources. I would have many counter arguments, but little time to make them. My expressed opinion is exactly a device to bring out the best counter arguments. I plan to give responses, in various formats, as time permits, and as our research advances. Cheers.
Regarding correlation of positive virus test results with all cause mortality, this is explained by people getting deadly treatment on the basis of positive test results.
When there was the first big spike in excess deaths in Australia when Omicron appeared, Rancourt attributed the deaths to the vaccines because the third jab was rolled out around the same time. However the spike in excess deaths also coincided with the first big increase in PCR positivity rate in Australia: https://i.ibb.co/KFy2WC2/taiwan-macao-hong-kong-australia-owid.png. So how can you know that the deaths were not caused by the treatment protocols instead? Or do you only need to blame the "protocols" when you cannot blame the vaccines?
According to OWID, the PCR positivity rate in Australia remained below 3% until the week ending January 2nd 2022 when it increased to 10%, and two weeks later it had increased to 45%. But at the same time Australia had their first big increase in excess deaths.
And similarly in Hong Kong, the percentage of positive PCR tests remained under 1% until March 2022 when it suddenly increased to 4% and then to 23% the next month. But Hong Kong also had less than 12% excess mortality until March 2022, when the excess mortality increased to 33% and next month it increased to 169%.
And Macao also had almost no excess deaths until January 2023, when they suddenly had 264% excess mortality. But the PCR positivity rate in China climbed from close to 0% on December 9th 2022 to about 30% on December 25th 2022: https://i.ibb.co/PF4sRhB/china-pcr-positivity-rate-december-2022-january-2023.png. According to WHO's data, globally by far the highest number of COVID cases per week was on a week in the middle of December 2022: https://covid19.who.int/. However according to the same dataset by the WHO, about 83% of all cases in December 2022 were in China: `t=read.csv("https://covid19.who.int/WHO-COVID-19-global-data.csv" );t2=t[sub("-..$","",t$Date_reported)=="2022-12",];tap=tapply(t2$New_cases,t2$Country,sum);tap["China"]/sum(tap)`.
So in the case of Australia, Hong Kong, and Macao, the first big increase in excess deaths came long after most people had been vaccinated, but it coincided with the first big increase in PCR positivity rate.
When “cases” go up so do all sorts of life-diminishing “countermeasures” like lockdowns, forced social distancing, climate of fear, distrust and despair. You never see a controlled prospective experiment that checks the predictability of any virus test on a per-person basis.
Good point !
Regarding: “So if the people who were included in the autopsy studies didn't die because of a respiratory pathogen, then why did they have double or triple the normal lung weight?”
Lungs become heavier when they fill up with fluid (pleural effusion). This can be the result of a number of things. Why assume it had anything to do with the results of a PCR test?
https://www.webmd.com/lung/pleural-effusion-symptoms-causes-treatments
There's one paper from Brazil where they used computed tomography to estimate lung weight in living people who were hospitalized for COVID: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7917083/. From figure 6 you can see that there was a fairly high correlation between the severity of pneumonia and the estimated lung weight. The average estimated lung weight was about 621 g in the control group, about 728 g in the group that was classified as having mild pneumonia, about 891 g in the group that was classified as having moderate pneumonia, and about 1089 g in the group that was classified as having severe pneumonia. 6 out of 61 patients in the severe pneumonia group ended up dying while in hospital, but no other participants of the study died while in hospital.
Yes, heavier lungs occur in severe pneumonia. In that Brazilian study the experimental subjects were people who were diagnosed with both COVID-19 and pneumonia. The controls were people with healthy lungs and not tested for any virus. The study is about pneumonia, not whether a virus can cause it.
Regarding this:
"Here's plots of PCR positivity rate and excess mortality in different U.S. states: https://i.ibb.co/41zNqCh/us-states-excess-mortality-vs-positive-pcr-percent.png. "
That is a very interesting series of plots indeed. It shows some relation during 2020 and the first half of 2021 and absolutely nothing afterwards. Frequently, the curves go in opposite directions.
It absolutely looks like there is a confounding factor, so maybe you should try to look for better evidence of what you affirm.
Around December 2021 to January 2022 when Omicron appeared, there was a spike in PCR positivity rate in all U.S. states. It coincided with a spike in excess deaths in most U.S. states, usually with a delay of about one to two weeks.
At least in Minnesota, there was also a spike in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater around the same time: https://i.ibb.co/Bc6rfw9/minnesota-deaths-pcr-wastewater-vax.png. It's a similar story in European countries, because for example in Sweden around January 2022, there was a sharp spike in wastewater prevalence which was soon followed by a spike in PCR positivity rate which was soon followed by a spike in COVID deaths: https://i.ibb.co/WPB5FQz/sweden-wastewater-pcr-deaths-minmax.png. Here in Finland, we didn't have that many COVID deaths until Omicron, and our excess mortality only peaked in November-December 2022, but at the same time we had a spike in PCR positivity rate and the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater: https://www.koronatilastot.fi/fi/.
However after Omicron, some U.S. states continued to have a high PCR positivity rate which was not accompanied by high excess mortality. I believe it may have been because people already had immunity from a previous COVID infection or from vaccines, so people were no longer dying from Omicron. A similar phenomenon is also visible in many European countries.
"Even AZT took much longer to kill HIV patients. " are you sure about that?
just one example:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/whitewashing-aids-history_b_4762295
Where does that article say anything about how long it took for people to die after they started using AZT?
"The magical 'one way mask', . . . acts as 'source control' . . . is a ridiculous fantasy." NO KIDDING!!!
"Vaccine trials . . . are probably falsified."— now we KNOW they were falsified!
"Air is a compressible fluid". Wow! How did I miss that tidbit? Amazing and wild, like how glass is a fluid, too! (An UNcompressible one! LOL!) Is there such a thing as a state BETWEEN a liquid and a gas, as in both? What about plasma?
Dennis. . . I am extremely impressed with your knowledge and background!
A level-headed and lucid take on the matter!
Denis, great summary, thank you. Your list of credentials is extremely impressive and really should pre-empt the usual, tedious objections of the credentialist crowd, that if anybody disagrees with them it's because he/she is not qualified to form their own opinion on the subject.
I was especially pleased to read your first paragraph on your research and experience dealing with small particles. This brings to mind a question: regarding masking and virion size, how would you respond to the claim that viruses aren't floating around the air in isolation, but rather are encased in much larger capsules of fluid as people exhale -- such that face masks could actually stop viruses from being breathed in (or out)?
This: https://denisrancourt.ca/entries.php?id=8&name=2020_04_11_masks_dont_work_a_review_of_science_relevant_to_covid_19_social_policy
This quote from your "Masks Don't Work" paper should clinch it:
"On average, 64 per cent of the viral genome copies were associated with fine particles smaller than 2.5 μm, which can remain suspended for hours" (Yang et al., 2011). So the claim about virions being encased in large capsules that could be stopped by masks, is refuted empirically: this does happen, but only in a minority of cases, and not nearly enough to decrease transmission.
Thank you for your good work.