| Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> |  Sun, Oct 25, 10:07 AM |
| to jeremy, Chris |
Dear Jeremy,
I am very disappointed in this article from you.
Yes, the July version of the CDC document is a revision – that’s no secret. The whole purpose of revising a document is to bring it up to date, correct errors, etc. It is perfectly correct to say that the CDC published in July the above admission.
Further, Rappoport and others who have been investigating this issue are also perfectly aware of the many studies (including the CDC study) claiming to have “isolated SARS-COV-2”. Have you read their methods? I have, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with isolating anything. Jon Rapport recently published in one of his articles the methods section of 1 such paper. He’s done his homework. It’s time for you to do yours.
Here is the CDC’s idea of “virus isolation“:
Cell Culture, Limiting Dilution, and Virus Isolation
We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage. We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%) and antibiotics/antimycotics (GIBCO, https://www.thermofisher.comExternal Link). We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate. We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL. We added 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols (9,10).
When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip. We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.
This is the typical “monkey business” published in paper after paper claiming to have “isolated SARS-COV-2”. Mixing a patient sample with monkey kidney cells, fetal bovine serum, toxic drugs, blaming “the virus” (that they never looked for or found in the patient sample) for any harm to the monkey cells, and calling the resulting concoction “viral isolate”. That’s fraud, and you’re now helping to protect and perpetuate this fraud.
i have collected >20 FOI responses from institutions in various countries stating that they have no record of SARS-COV-2 having been isolated anywhere in the world, by anyone, ever, from a patient sample that was not first adulterated with other sources of genetic material. They are available here, with more to come in the next few days (including a response from NIAID). https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/health-canada-has-no-record-of-covid-19-virus-isolation/
I attach for you a letter from a virologist in NZ that claimed months ago to have isolated “SARS-COV-2” – Professor Miguel Quiñones-Mateu, Ph.D.. He describes the methods used by himself and virologists around the world to “isolate SARS-COV-2”. It’s sheer madness, completely unscientific and fraudulent. Please read it.
Professor Quiñones-Mateu’s idea of “virus isolation” is a combination of:
1) the typical monkey business of mixing a patient sample with Vero (aka monkey kidey) cells and universal transport medium – which Professor Quiñones-Mateu neglected to mention typically includes fetal bovine serum (another source of genetic contamination) and toxic drugs,
2) irrationally blaming “the virus” (that was never looked for or found in the patient sample) for any toxic effects on the Vero cells,
3) passing off cell-free supernatant from the resulting concoction as “viral isolate”,
4) completely useless PCR testing,
5) comparing the results of PCR tests performed on 1) total RNA from a patient sample mixed with fetal bovine serum and on 2) total RNA from Vero cells that were mixed with a patient sample and fetal bovine serum versus 3) total RNA from Vero cells not mixed with a patient sample or fetal bovine serum, and illogically attributing the results to “the virus” that was never looked for or found in the patient sample,
6) metagenomics analysis involving alleged genomes of “SARS-COV-2” that were in fact manufactured, not discovered,
7) matching of “whole genome sequences” found in 2 mixtures that each include the patient sample – both of which also include genetic contamination from the fetal bovine serum.
The whole reason virologists use the world “isolation” is to give the false impression that they are the slightest bit interested in seeing if their imaginary virus fulfills Koch’s Postulates (modified for a virus by growing in a cell line). They are doing nothing of the sort. Isolation is step 1. Instead, their first step is to adulterate a sample with fetal bovine serum and toxic drugs (look up the CDC’s recipe for “viral transport medium”). Then they typically add more of each, and the monkey cells. They conflate isolation with culturing all of the genetic material from a patient sample mixed with FBS (never an isolated virus), “sequencing” (fabrication of imaginary genomes, not discovery of anything in nature) and useless PCR tests This has more to do with spellcraft than science.
Dr. Tom Cowan recently wrote about the fraudulent nature of the manufactured (not discovered) “SARS-COV-2 genomes”, which he discovered while reading the same CDC article quoted above:
Only Poisoned Monkey Kidney Cells ‘Grew’ the ‘Virus’https://drtomcowan.com/only-poisoned-monkey-kidney-cells-grew-the-virus/
Please get up to speed and correct your damaging misinformation.Christine Massey, M.Sc.Toronto, Canada
*****
| jeremy@foreignpolicyjournal.com | Oct 25, 2020, 11:40 AM |
| to me |
Christine, by saying, “It is perfectly correct to say that the CDC published in July the above admission”, you are simply repeating the same false claim I demonstrated to be false in the article. Again, the supposed “admission” was specifically relevant for that moment of time back in February.
Jeremy R. Hammond
Journalist, Author, and Writing Coach
****
| Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> | Oct 25, 2020, 2:09 PM |
| to jeremy, info, bcc: Chris |
Dear Jeremy,
I’m shocked that this is all you have to say in light of the information I provided you. You haven’t demonstrated anything said by Jon to be false. No SARS-COV-2 virus has been isolated by the CDC or anyone else. If you can demonstrate otherwise, please do. Otherwise I can only conclude that you condone and defend scientific fraud.
The CDC’s May 5 article where they claim to have “isolated SARS-COV-2” states:
Timeline:
- On January 22, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture to grow a sufficient amount of virus for study.
- On February 2, 2020, CDC generated enough SARS-CoV-2 grown in cell culture to distribute to medical and scientific researchers.
- On February 4, 2020, CDC shipped SARS-CoV-2 to the BEI Resources Repository.
- An article discussing the isolation and characterization of this virus specimen is available in Emerging Infectious Diseases.
CDC, like everyone else claiming to have “isolated” conflate “isolation” with culturing. As I already advised you, you can see from this description that their 1st step is to adulterate the sample with additional genetic material.
The CDC’s published study also confirms that the sample was adulterated with genetic material (and toxic drugs) even prior to culturing. “Nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swab specimens were collected on day 3 postsymptom onset, placed in 2–3 mL of viral transport medium…”CDC’s SOP#: DSR-052-05 PREPARATION OF VIRAL TRANSPORT MEDIUM https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/Viral-Transport-Medium.pdfIngredients: Hanks Balanced Salt Solution, fetal bovine serum, Gentamicin, A mphotericin B
Please also note that the link you provided to waybackmachine says “The Wayback Machine has not archived that URL.” Regardless, the most recent version of the CDC document in question is clearly labelled “CDC-006-00019, Revision: 05“.
Definition of revise
transitive verb 1a : to look over again in order to correct or improve revise a manuscript b British : to study again : review2a : to make a new, amended, improved, or up-to-date version of revise a dictionary
Yet you went out of your way to say that “Later versions of the document were not intended to revise its original contents.”
I believe that your note re the FDA’s approval of an amendment to add the Promega Maxwell® RSC 48 as an authorized extraction instrument is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Surely FDA’s approval would be needed to list an additional “authorized instrument”. But what has this to do with updating the document re availability of “SARS-COV-2 isolate”? Are you actually suggesting that the CDC isolated the alleged virus in a legitimate manner, never published anything about said legitimate isolation, and the FDA prohibited the CDC from disclosing the availability of legitimate SARS-COV-2 isolate in their revision?
Or are you condoning and defending this and other monkey business aka scientific fraud?
Christine Massey, M.Sc.
***
| jeremy@foreignpolicyjournal.com | Oct 25, 2020, 5:58 PM |
| to me |
It was not necessary for me to do a research assignment in order to see that you resorted to the fallacy of begging the question, i.e., repeating the same claim that I’d shown to be false without actually addressing my argument for why it is false. Once again, the key quote from the CDC in question was not made in July, as Rappoport falsely claims, but in February.
That fact matters, so if you wish to have a reasoned discussion, please start by acknowledging it.
***
| Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> | Oct 27, 2020, 9:27 AM |
| to jeremy, bcc: Chris |
Dear Jeremy,
I acknowledge that it was originally madein February (I’m actually taking your word for this since it makes sense and I haven’t yet seen the original), and I acknowledge that it was made again in a July revision.
Can we please move on? This topic is too important to fixate on such a detail.
Note that I have not trashed you on social media (nor has Jon – hopefully you have seen his article published yesterday: The missing COVID virus—answering critics’ objections) that is clearly a response to your objections). Surely we all have the same goal in mind – for the truth to be known across the world.
The CDC statement, regardless of how you interpret the purpose of the CDC’s revisions, fits with all of the other “isolation” articles that Jon has published this year.It also fits with all of the additional evidence – the methods published in all of the articles claiming to have “isolated SARS-COV-2”, and all of the >20 FOI replies I’ve collected. It also fits with a response from NIAID published here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/has-causation-been-proven-ron-bublitz/.
NIAID was asked:
I see that you have released images of the electron microscope view of C19 virus. I would like to know how you are certain that is the virus? How was it isolated? Have you followed Koch’s Postulates in order to be completely certain that is the pathogen that causes disease?
NIAID responded: For detailed procedures on how images in the NIAID SARS-CoV-2 album were obtained, you may wish to review the article “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with 2019 Novel Coronavirus Disease, United States” at https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article
It’s the same ridiculous CDC study by Harcourt et. al. that was already discussed.
Best wishes,Christine
***
| jeremy@foreignpolicyjournal.com | Oct 27, 2020, 9:35 AM |
| to me |
You don’t need to take my word for it. I provided the link so you can verify. I did see Jon’s response to my criticism, the fallacies of which I addressed in my Monday newsletter. I did not “interpret” the CDC’s revision but provided the explicitly stated purpose of the update. Regarding this CDC study, I assume your description of it as “ridiculous” is based on Rappoport/Cowan’s claim that its findings show that the virus is non-infectious to humans, which is false.
Jeremy R. Hammond
***
| Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> | Oct 27, 2020, 10:14 AM |
| to jeremy, bcc: Chris |
Dear Jeremy,
I already explained to you that
the link you provided [for the original CDC document] to waybackmachine says “The Wayback Machine has not archived that URL.”
(I do not subscribe to your newsletter; someone forwarded your “yes it’s been isolated” newsletter to me. I’d be happy and curious to read your response to Jon Rapport’s response.)
And no, my description of the CDC study as “ridiculous” is not based on any claims by Jon Rappoport or Dr. Tom Cowan. I reviewed the “isolation” methods used in that study for myself months ago, as I have done for every study claiming to have “isolated SARS-COV-2” that has ever been brought to my attention.
I have written about other ridiculous (aka fraudulent) “SARS-COV-2 isolation” studies here:https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/university-of-toronto-sunnybrook-hsc-have-no-record-of-covid-19-virus-isolation/and here:
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/australian-dept-of-health-has-no-record-of-covid-19-virus-isolation/and have been vocal for many months on this topic, on social media:https://twitter.com/Christi45657364
Once again, here are the methods used in the CDC study, which are essentially the same as the methods used in all of the other “SARS-COV-2 isolation” studies. Do you really wish to go on record, and down in history, as condoning and supporting passing this off as “virus isolation”?
Cell Culture, Limiting Dilution, and Virus Isolation
We used Vero CCL-81 cells for isolation and initial passage. We cultured Vero E6, Vero CCL-81, HUH 7.0, 293T, A549, and EFKB3 cells in Dulbecco minimal essential medium (DMEM) supplemented with heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum (5% or 10%) and antibiotics/antimycotics (GIBCO, https://www.thermofisher.comExternal Link). We used both NP and OP swab specimens for virus isolation. For isolation, limiting dilution, and passage 1 of the virus, we pipetted 50 μL of serum-free DMEM into columns 2–12 of a 96-well tissue culture plate, then pipetted 100 μL of clinical specimens into column 1 and serially diluted 2-fold across the plate. We then trypsinized and resuspended Vero cells in DMEM containing 10% fetal bovine serum, 2× penicillin/streptomycin, 2× antibiotics/antimycotics, and 2× amphotericin B at a concentration of 2.5 × 105 cells/mL. We added 100 μL of cell suspension directly to the clinical specimen dilutions and mixed gently by pipetting. We then grew the inoculated cultures in a humidified 37°C incubator in an atmosphere of 5% CO2 and observed for cytopathic effects (CPEs) daily. We used standard plaque assays for SARS-CoV-2, which were based on SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) protocols (9,10).
When CPEs were observed, we scraped cell monolayers with the back of a pipette tip. We used 50 μL of viral lysate for total nucleic acid extraction for confirmatory testing and sequencing. We also used 50 μL of virus lysate to inoculate a well of a 90% confluent 24-well plate.
Best wishes,
Christine
***
| jeremy@foreignpolicyjournal.com | Oct 27, 2020, 11:48 AM |
| to me |
Here is the link:
Works for me. As you can see, the quoted statement was published not in July but February, and the CDC subsequently published about isolating the virus. I responded to Rappoport’s response in my newsletter yesterday.
Regarding the CDC’s March paper describing the isolation and whole genome sequencing of the virus, you’ve insisted that I should interpret that paper as showing that it wasn’t done. But you didn’t explain why or how I should so interpret it.
Jeremy R. Hammond
***
| Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> | Oct 27, 2020, 2:35 PM |
| to jeremy |
Dear Jeremy,
From my earlier emails (which apply to the CDC’s “isolation” study and all other “SARS-COV-2 isolation” studies:
Professor Quiñones-Mateu’s idea of “virus isolation” is a combination of:
1) the typical monkey business of mixing
[aka adulterating]
a patient sample with Vero (aka monkey kidey) cells and universal transport medium – which Professor Quiñones-Mateu neglected to mention typically includes fetal bovine serum (another source of genetic contamination) and toxic drugs,
2) irrationally blaming “the virus” (that was never looked for or found in the patient sample) for any toxic effects on the Vero cells [when it’s impossible to rule out other causes, i.e. the toxic drugs],
3) passing off cell-free supernatant from the resulting concoction as “viral isolate” [which it clearly is not, and is not even shown to contain even a trace of the alleged “SARS-COV-2” – unless you count useless PCR tests as proof of SARS-COV-2]
4) completely useless PCR testing [I assume you are familiar with the various fatal flaws in relying on PCR technology to determine the presence of a virus]
5) comparing the results of PCR tests performed on 1) total RNA from a patient sample mixed with fetal bovine serum and on 2) total RNA from Vero cells that were mixed with a patient sample and fetal bovine serum, versus 3) total RNA from Vero cells not mixed with a patient sample or fetal bovine serum, and illogically attributing the results to “the virus” that was never looked for or found in the patient sample, [again, when it’s impossible to rule out other causes, i.e. the fetal bovine serum],
6) metagenomics analysis involving alleged genomes of “SARS-COV-2” that were in fact manufactured, not discovered [as pointed out by Dr. Cowan and others… or just read the actual “isolation” papers],
7) matching of “whole genome sequences” found in 2 mixtures that each include the patient sample – both of which also include genetic contamination from the fetal bovine serum [another unscientific and wild assumption]
This isn’t science, it’s more like spellcraft – repeating wild speculation and unsupported conclusions over and over. This is what has led to worldwide devastation via lockdown measures.
Do you condone and defend this?
Best wishes,
Christine
***
| jeremy@foreignpolicyjournal.com | Oct 28, 2020, 5:51 PM |
| to me |
Hi Christine,
The source you cite appears not to understand how virus isolation is done with modern technology. It is far from “spellcraft”. For examples, he appears to confuse the PCR technology used (oftentimes wrongly) for diagnosis of COVID-19 with the PCR technology used to sequence whole virus genomes. These are two different things.
Regards,
Jeremy R. Hammond
***
| Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> | Oct 31, 2020, 1:30 PM |
| to jeremy |
Hi Jeremy,
Again, the source I cited was Professor Miguel Quiñones-Mateu, Ph.D. of NZ, a virologist who claimed to have “isolated SARS-COV-2” months ago, and whose “viral isolate” is being shared with researchers around the world. I have written about this here: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/new-zealands-university-of-otago-claimed-to-have-isolated-covid-19-virus-but-has-no-record-of-it-isolated-from-an-unadulterated-sample-anywhere-on-earth-by-anyone-ever/
So you’re not impressed with his understanding – but do you approve of his “isolation” methods? Of the methods used by the Ontario team? The methods used by Harcourt et al.? The methods used, with slight variations here and there, by virologists around the world claiming to have “isolated SARS-COV-2” .
And re your “oftentimes wrongly” comment – does this mean that you believe PCR can sometimes be used correctly for diagnosis of an alleged viral disease?
And are you claiming that PCR can provide a “whole genome sequence” of a virus alleged but never proven to be present in a soup of genetic material (cell culture supernatant containing patient sample + fetal bovine serum + cell line)?
So for all the questions, but I wasn’t entirely clear on what you were referring to with your earlier “works for me” response, and your last response surprised me.
Best wishes,
Christine
***
| jeremy@foreignpolicyjournal.com | Nov 12, 2020, 9:07 PM |
| to me |
Hi Christine,
If you are the author of the article, then you are the “source” I was referring to when I wrote: “The source you cite appears not to understand how virus isolation is done with modern technology. It is far from ‘spellcraft’. For examples, he appears to confuse the PCR technology used (oftentimes wrongly) for diagnosis of COVID-19 with the PCR technology used to sequence whole virus genomes. These are two different things.” My apologies for using the pronoun “he” on the false and unreasonable assumption that the author was male.
Regards,
Jeremy R. Hammond
***
| Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> | Nov 12, 2020, 10:51 PM |
| to jeremy, bcc: Chris |
Thank you for clarifying Jeremy, and no offense taken.
Based on your response, my understanding now is that you do claim that PCR can be used to determine the genome of a virus alleged but never proven to be present in a soup of genetic material (cell culture supernatant containing patient sample + fetal bovine serum + cell line). Correct me if I’m wrong.
And If I understand correctly, you stand behind the misuse of “next generation sequencing” (which was intended for the identification of mutations of a known genome), wherein genetic fragments far smaller than the alleged virus are detected in a soup of genetic material from various sources, and these fragments are all irrationally assumed to be part of 1 intact thing (i.e a new coronavirus, “SARS-COV-2”), and the ordering of said fragments is assumed based on comparisons with other so-called coronavirus genomes (that were constructed in the same manner) and the “missing” fragments are simply assumed to also be present in the soup and thus are inserted into the newest computer-fabricated “genome”. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I note that you have once again evaded my remaining questions. I prefer not to assume things, so it would be helpful and much appreciated if you would provide simple yes/no answers.
- Does this mean that you believe PCR can sometimes be used correctly for diagnosis of “COVID-19”?
- Do you approve of his [Professor Miguel Quiñones-Mateu’s] “isolation” methods?
- Of the methods used by the Ontario team?
- The methods used by Harcourt et al.?
- The methods used, with slight variations here and there, by virologists around the world claiming to have “isolated SARS-COV-2” ?
I trust you received the CDC’s FOI reply indicating that they have no record of anyone on the planet ever isolating/purifying the alleged “SARS-COV-2” from a patient sample, and NIAID’s admission that their EM images of “the virus” did not involve any isolated/purified “SARS-COV-2” but were obtained using the same methods as the fraudulent Harcourt et al. CDC paper. Both of these are contained in the updated compilation pdf I provided you (via my Proton account) along with ~38 other FOI responses from 34 institutions around the world (subject line: FOIs re SARS-COV-2 isolation/causation: NZ Prime Minister, UK Houses of Commons & Lords → no records).
Best wishes,
Christine
***
| jeremy@foreignpolicyjournal.com | Nov 12, 2020, 11:13 PM |
| to me |
Not to be confused with the PCR assays used oftentimes wrongly for diagnostic purposes, PCR technology is also used to whole genome sequencing, which does not involve making irrational assumptions about genomic assembly but pieces nucleotide sequences together logically like assembling the pieces of a puzzle.
Jeremy R. Hammond
***
| Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> | Nov 13, 2020, 11:22 AM |
| to jeremy, bcc: Chris |
Dear Jeremy,
What logic can be applied to assemble random bits of sequences (found in a genetic soup from various sources and never shown to contain any SARS-COV-2), plus sequences assumed to be “missing” from the soup, into one genome?
And would you care to comment on why you continually evade my remaining questions?
- Does this mean that you believe PCR can sometimes be used correctly for diagnosis of “COVID-19”?
- Do you approve of his [Professor Miguel Quiñones-Mateu’s] “isolation” methods?
- Of the methods used by the Ontario team?
- The methods used by Harcourt et al.?
- The methods used, with slight variations here and there, by virologists around the world claiming to have “isolated SARS-COV-2” ?
Christine
***
| jeremy@foreignpolicyjournal.com | Nov 13, 2020, 11:59 AM |
| to me |
Asking what logic can be applied to assemble sequences is like asking what logic can be applied to assemble a puzzle, which is to say that the implication that there is no logic to it is incorrect. The reason I am not addressing each of your additional questions specifically is because I am busy and it would be superfluous.
Jeremy R. Hammond
***
| Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> | Fri, Nov 13, 1:20 PM |
| to jeremy, bcc: Chris |
Quite the contrary Jeremy, puzzles start with 1 whole thing which is then cut up into pieces and put together again (with a picture on the box lid to serve as a guide).
“Next generation sequencing” starts with random pieces from a variety of sources (the soup), plus imaginary “missing” pieces that never even appeared in the soup, all of which are then assembled together (guided by irrational assumptions and a library of other genomes there were manufactured in a similar manner).
I’m sure you can see the difference.
Would it take you more than 30 seconds to type “yes” or “no” beside each of the following questions?
- Does this mean that you believe PCR can sometimes be used correctly for diagnosis of “COVID-19”?
- Do you approve of his [Professor Miguel Quiñones-Mateu’s] “isolation” methods?
- Of the methods used by the Ontario team?
- The methods used by Harcourt et al.?
- The methods used, with slight variations here and there, by virologists around the world claiming to have “isolated SARS-COV-2” ?
Christine
***
| jeremy@foreignpolicyjournal.com | Nov 13, 2020, 1:32 PM |
| to me |
You are mistaken. With de novo whole genome sequencing, all the pieces are there to begin with.
Jeremy R. Hammond
***
| Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> | Nov 13, 2020, 1:45 PM |
| to jeremy |
I’ve been explicitly referring to “next generation sequencing”.
Are you saying that some new thing (alleged to be “SARS-COV-2”) has been legitimately sequenced with “de novo whole genome sequencing”? If so, is there a particular paper that has convinced you of this, and that this new thing is indeed a new coronavirus that causes death and disease in humans?
***
| jeremy@foreignpolicyjournal.com | Nov 13, 2020, 4:46 PM |
| to me |
De novo sequencing is when they do whole genome sequencing without a reference genome. Obviously, they can’t do sequencing using a reference genome unless the referenced genome sequence has already been sequenced, which is done using de novo whole genome sequencing. To do this, the genetic material must be there to sequence. Scientists don’t just make it up or guess at what the nucleotide sequences might be. They use the available technology to observe the genetic makeup of whatever RNA exists in the sample to sequence. They don’t need a reference genome with de novo sequencing. If there is no SARS-CoV-2 RNA in a sample, then there is no SARS-CoV-2 to sequence. The idea that the virus’s whole genome is being sequenced hundreds of times a day by scientists all over the world without any virus being present is absurd.
Jeremy R. Hammond
***
| Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> | Nov 13, 2020, 5:17 PM |
| to jeremy |
But you can’t cite a paper where some new thing (alleged to be “SARS-COV-2” and found in “COVID-19” patients) has been legitimately sequenced with “de novo whole genome sequencing” and shown to be a new coronavirus that causes death and disease in humans, is that correct?
And you aren’t willing to take 30 seconds to type “yes” or “no” beside the following questions?
- Does this mean that you believe PCR can sometimes be used correctly for diagnosis of “COVID-19”?
- Do you approve of his [Professor Miguel Quiñones-Mateu’s] “isolation” methods?
- Of the methods used by the Ontario team?
- The methods used by Harcourt et al.?
- The methods used, with slight variations here and there, by virologists around the world claiming to have “isolated SARS-COV-2”?
I would strongly suggest that you do take the time to answer these questions, because they address the core of the official “COVID-19” story and the problems humanity is facing under the guise of this fake pandemic.
I gather that you’ve been investigating the obscene gain of function research that was done under Fauci – which is wonderful and important. I’m not trying to distract you from that and whatever else you’ve been doing.
But the reality that no “SARS-COV-2 virus” has actually been proven to be circulating and causing disease/death in humans is something that, once widely understood, will help free humanity in a multitude of ways.
Christine
***
| jeremy@foreignpolicyjournal.com | Nov 13, 2020, 5:36 PM |
| to me |
Search pubmed.gov for “isolation and whole genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2” and you will find all kinds of studies in which the virus was sequenced. If you wish to refine your search by “de novo”, you can do that, too.
PCR tests cannot by themselves be used to diagnose COVID-19
Whether I “approve” of a method is a meaningless and irrelevant question. The question is whether the method is scientifically valid. So then the question becomes: Is the method used for isolation recognized by the scientific community as a valid method? But this question becomes moot in light of the universal recognition within the scientific community that the virus has been isolated and sequenced using scientifically valid methods.
Jeremy R. Hammond
***
| Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> | Nov 13, 2020, 6:07 PM |
| to jeremy |
So you cannot cite a paper where some new thing (alleged to be “SARS-COV-2” and found in “COVID-19” patients) has been legitimately sequenced with “de novo whole genome sequencing” and shown to be a new coronavirus that causes death and disease in humans.
And you defer to the (non-universal) “recognition” in the scientific community re isolation of “SARS-COV-2” despite the fact that precious few members of said community ever even glance at, let alone critically evaluate, the papers in question.
Which is not unlike the situation re PCR testing. Virtually everyone assumed the testing was legit when it was nothing of the sort.
Please think about that.
Best wishes,Christine
***
| jeremy@foreignpolicyjournal.com | Nov 13, 2020, 6:11 PM |
| to me |
If you wish to interpret my replies in whatever way suits your belief, regardless of what I actually said, I cannot stop you.
Jeremy R. Hammond
***
| Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> | Nov 13, 2020, 6:30 PM |
| to jeremy |
Jeremy, I’ve cited “SARS-COV-2” papers and dozens of FOI responses from around the world to back up my claims. You haven’t cited a single paper or provided a straightforward position on any paper that I’ve queried you about.
I can honestly say that I don’t recall ever communicating with anyone as evasive as yourself, and that includes public health officials which is saying a lot.
***
| jeremy@foreignpolicyjournal.com | Nov 13, 2020, 6:32 PM |
| to me |
I can cite literally all of the peer-reviewed medical literature on SARS-CoV-2 to support my view, whereas you cannot produce even a single study to support your belief that the virus does not exist.
Jeremy R. Hammond
***
| Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> | Nov 13, 2020, 6:47 PM |
| to jeremy |
Yet when I ask you repeatedly whether you approve of the methods used in any specific study, you consistently evade providing an answer.
And surely you realize that getting a paper published isn’t proof of its validity?
And surely you’re aware of the mind-boggling wealth and power that’s invested in the official, nonsensical “COVID-19” narrative – the story being used to justify draconian “measures”, the “great reset” and “new world order” intended to further enslave humanity?
A lot people go along with a lot of things. It doesn’t make them right or true.
I invite you to pick any 1 of those published papers, your choice, to discuss.
Christine
***
| jeremy@foreignpolicyjournal.com | Nov 13, 2020, 7:28 PM |
| to me |
I do not feel it necessary to take on research assignments from you about any particular studies. I have been researching this topic deeply in the scientific literature since March, and it is enough for me to recognize that I am able to support my view by citing literally all of the peer-reviewed scientific literature on SARS-CoV-2, while you are incapable of citing even a single study to support your belief that the virus does not exist.
Jeremy R. Hammond
***
| Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> | Nov 13, 2020, 9:08 PM |
| to jeremy |
Simply citing a study doesn’t demonstrate comprehension or even vague familiarity with the methods of the study and certainly doesn’t prove your position, no matter how many such publications purport to support it.
I understand you’re busy and have no need to discuss anything with me, and I’m actually surprised you’ve engaged with me as much as you have. So thank you for your time.
But for someone who insisted to all their newsletter subscribers that “Yes, the virus has been isolated” and must realize that many opinions will be influenced by your writing, I’m not impressed with your responses. I say that without hostility, only disappointment that you’re committed to a position that in my mind is clearly not based on logic or scientific method.
All the best.
Christine
***
| jeremy@foreignpolicyjournal.com | Nov 13, 2020, 9:28 PM |
| to me |
Are you trying to argue that your position of not being able to cite even a single study to support your view is stronger than my position of being able to cite literally all of the peer-reviewed scientific literature?
Jeremy R. Hammond
***
| Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> | Nov 14, 2020, 9:09 AM |
| to jeremy |
No, I was trying to argue actual logic with you, but apparently it’s a waste of time. Reliance on mere citations, especially in the midst of a blatant globalist takeover that relies on said “science”, proves nothing.
***
| Jeremy R. Hammond | Nov 14, 2020, 10:14 AM |
| to me |
But in addition to having literally all of the scientific literature supporting my position wholly you are incapable of citing even a single study to support your belief, I have already pointed out several of your errors in reasoning.
Jeremy
***
| Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> | Nov 14, 2020, 11:39 AM |
| to Jeremy |
Jeremy, I don’t even know what your position is (other than “yes, it’s been isolated“) since you continually deflect and evade rather than answer the simplest of questions.
***
| Jeremy R. Hammond | Nov 14, 2020, 12:28 PM |
| to me |
How puzzling for you to say you don’t know what my position is when I have so clearly and repeatedly started it. That is my position: the virus exists; it has repeatedly been isolated and its while genome sequenced by scientists all over the world. Your position, which is apparently that the virus has not been proven to exist, depends on the dismissal of literally all the relevant scientific literature. You cannot cite a single study to support your belief. Furthermore, once again, I have also already sufficiently addressed your arguments by identifying your fundamental errors in either fact or logic, and therefore it would be superfluous for me to go further.
Jeremy
***
Christine Massey cmssyc@gmail.com
Nov 14, 2020, 1:06 PM to Jeremy
Well I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and reason with you privately. Now we can take this up publicly
***
Jeremy R. Hammond
Nov 14, 2020, 6:41 PM to me
It would be nice if you would acknowledge the errors in your reasoning that I already identified for you rather than persisting in your belief despite your errors
***
Christine Massey cmssyc@gmail.com
Nov 14, 2020, 8:29 PM to Jeremy
I’m done emailing you Jeremy. The conversation will take place in the public domain for now on
***
Jeremy R. Hammond
Nov 14, 2020, 9:15 PM to me
I see you’ve refused once again to acknowledge your errors.