But according to the UK Government in FOI responses SARS-CoV-2 is just what the symptoms they were told to look for by the WHO and then to analyse the swab from a person with xxxx symptoms and if they matched then hey presto it is "covid".
They also admitted in an FOI to me they did not know nor could confirm that what was called "covid"c…
But according to the UK Government in FOI responses SARS-CoV-2 is just what the symptoms they were told to look for by the WHO and then to analyse the swab from a person with xxxx symptoms and if they matched then hey presto it is "covid".
They also admitted in an FOI to me they did not know nor could confirm that what was called "covid"caused illness in humans.
These tests have only just started:
"Early during the pandemic, it was considered unethical to inject the virus into humans as there is no rescue therapy.
This position has changed as there is now better understanding of infection, disease and risk factors for severity.
This has allowed the “Human challenge Program” to be set up, using healthy young adult volunteers to be infected with pure virus followed by detailed monitoring over the full course of virus replication to resolution, and thus demonstrating the course of COVID-19 disease, from the moment a person first encountered SARS-CoV-2, throughout the infection to the point at which the virus is apparently eliminated.
Further information can be found on the follow links:
I'll give it a few months then send an FOI asking how it's going - if it's like the the Spanish 'Flu experiments and what Porton Down did for over 40 years during the 'flu and common cold research then it will be an utter failure trying to get volunteers infected.
But if it was that infectious that just being within 6 feet of someone (or whatever it was back then in 1918) while they breathed in your direction meant you caught "it" then surely doing something like putting the infected person's saliva directly into your mouth or an open wound or sneeze and cough all over you would infect you without fail? Wouldn't it? You would think so.
And if this method failed (which it did, repeatedly) for something that is so infectious then why did it fail?
That is what I haven't found an answer for yet.
And I think it will be interesting to see how the modern day attempts that are now being done perform and what results they get at the end.
But according to the UK Government in FOI responses SARS-CoV-2 is just what the symptoms they were told to look for by the WHO and then to analyse the swab from a person with xxxx symptoms and if they matched then hey presto it is "covid".
They also admitted in an FOI to me they did not know nor could confirm that what was called "covid"caused illness in humans.
These tests have only just started:
"Early during the pandemic, it was considered unethical to inject the virus into humans as there is no rescue therapy.
This position has changed as there is now better understanding of infection, disease and risk factors for severity.
This has allowed the “Human challenge Program” to be set up, using healthy young adult volunteers to be infected with pure virus followed by detailed monitoring over the full course of virus replication to resolution, and thus demonstrating the course of COVID-19 disease, from the moment a person first encountered SARS-CoV-2, throughout the infection to the point at which the virus is apparently eliminated.
Further information can be found on the follow links:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/233514/covid-19-human-challenge-study-reveals-detailed/
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1121993/v1
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-04-19-human-challenge-trial-launches-study-immune-response-covid-19 "
I'll give it a few months then send an FOI asking how it's going - if it's like the the Spanish 'Flu experiments and what Porton Down did for over 40 years during the 'flu and common cold research then it will be an utter failure trying to get volunteers infected.
why did it fail? because they are trying to "artificially" and "deliberately" infect people?
But if it was that infectious that just being within 6 feet of someone (or whatever it was back then in 1918) while they breathed in your direction meant you caught "it" then surely doing something like putting the infected person's saliva directly into your mouth or an open wound or sneeze and cough all over you would infect you without fail? Wouldn't it? You would think so.
And if this method failed (which it did, repeatedly) for something that is so infectious then why did it fail?
That is what I haven't found an answer for yet.
And I think it will be interesting to see how the modern day attempts that are now being done perform and what results they get at the end.