As the phenomena is seen across every age group, it's a systematic error leading to vaccinated deaths being misclassified as unvacced deaths. Either someone at ONS is deliberately doing the misclassification or a heinous protocol is being followed by many local health authorities.
It is not a vaccine it is a DOD military chemical weapons poisoning agenda.
Stop using their language and start saying it as it is then sooner all the Jabtards wake up and maybe we might see some street justice.... because police judiciary ain't going to punish anyone because they are also heavily implicated.
Ask yourself police have expert forensic teams yet not one police force as bothered to analyze contents of vials even though FOI proves jabs are DOD military countermeasures demo prototypes!??
Search knowledge ecology international COVID contracts and you can read the contracts in full.
I am a statistician and reading your article, I think you would benefit from consulting a professional because there are some potential issues with with your presentation, in my opinion. I'd be more than happy to help, and others would too (because we are tired of seeing our discipline hijacked by people with an agenda and coercing people in our field to say what they want them to). In doing so you'd be able to address potential issues ahead of time and reduce the risk that what you write will be labeled as misinformation (although unfortunately things were so bias that could happen). anyhow. Anyhow good luck and keep fighting the good fight.
Having difficulty posting, so this may be duplicate. I agree with Matt B. This would allow your comments to resist more strongly being picked apart. Also I say it because I am reminded of the old medical school view that there were 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
In the debate with Kevin McCairn, Mark Bailey said that sequencing methods have to rely on aligning the reads to a reference genome, but there's also sequencing methods which don't require employing a reference genome, like metagenomic sequencing or a method of multiplex PCR amplicon sequencing. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7112119/] And in one nanopore sequencing method for SARS 2, the most common read length is around 400 base pairs. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8493558/] There's 4^400 possible sequences of 400 base pairs, which is around 10^240, so if the reference genome of SARS 2 would be just a virtual creation, then what are the odds that a 400-bp segment of the genome would be found in the wild in identical or nearly identical form to the reference genome? And on sites like nextstrain.org, you can see the gradual evolution of the SARS 2 genome, where first a single mutation was introduced in some geographical region, then it spread to other regions, and then further mutations were introduced so different strains of SARS formed a phylogenetic tree. So if the genome of SARS 2 would be just a virtual concoction, then how are they able to introduce mutations to the virus over time that spread from one region to another?
But anyway, I did a bunch of research on Andrew Kaufman 2 years ago. The first video on his YouTube channel is an interview that he did in November 2019 with the flat earther James True. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x526Y0_NV6I] In the description of the video, Kaufman says that it was his debut interview, but he did not yet discuss viruses or terrain theory in the interview. References to Kaufman on Twitter became more frequent after his interview with flat earther Richie from Boston on March 21st 2020. [https://twitter.com/search?q=until:2020-03-21+%22andrew+kaufman%22&f=live] On March 13th 2020 UTC, the flat earther Crrow777 tweeted: "We have recorded a Dr Kaufman follow up and hope to get it by tonight." Apart from Crrow777 and James True, I didn't find other people who had interviewed Kaufman before Richie from Boston. So as far as I can tell, the first 3 YouTubers who interviewed Kaufman were all flat earthers, which is suspicious if you believe that flat earth channels are ran by disinformation agents.
Kaufman's film "Hippocratic Hypocrisy" was produced by the flat earth channel Spacebusters and it was narrated by Steve Falconer from Spacebusters. As far as I can tell, Spacebusters promoted the theory that viruses are non-pathogenic exosomes even before Kaufman, because on March 4th 2020, they posted a video titled "IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON CORONAVIRUS 5G KUNG FLU", which featured clips of a radio show from 2009 where Aajonus Vonderplanitz talked about terrain theory and about how viruses are actually non-pathogenic exosomes. [https://www.bitchute.com/video/mWcUoESRO0c5/] So is it a coincidence that two months before COVID hit the news, Kaufman did his debut interview with a flat earth YouTuber, and that in early March 2020, flat earthers were already promoting Kaufman's theory even before Kaufman himself? And why does some psychiatrist suddenly decide to become a health guru on the flat earth YouTube circuit?
In 2020, I found 12 YouTube channels which had reposted Kaufman's "Hippocratic Hypocrisy" video. 9 of them were flat earth channels. Out of the remaining 3 channels, one was Kaufman's channel, and another one was Amandha Vollmer's channel "YumNaturals Emporium". Vollmer was one of the participants of EVENT 202, whose logo featured a disc earth. The figurehead of EVENT 202 was the black flat earther Dave Murphy, who like many other flat earthers has a background working in mainstream media.
The "Hippocratic Hypocrisy" film included clips of Kaufman's interview with Max Igan, but it didn't feature Kaufman in any other way, even though the credits of the film said that it was a film "by Andrew Kaufman". Max Igan has said that Steve from Spacebusters is a "friend of his": "It was actually a good report put out by a friend of mine, who's I believe in Denmark at the moment, called Steve Falconer. He's got a YouTube channel or a BitChute channel called Spacebusters." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j670kqChxDQ&t=9m56s] On January 15th 2020 (or maybe a day later or earlier depending on the time zone), Max Igan posted a video where he said that the earth is flat, but in a video that he posted on January 20th UTC, he said that he was being targeted with mind control technology and that he doesn't actually believe in flat earth. [https://www.bitchute.com/video/afugFIfsRQR8/] However next on January 16th UTC, he again said that "The earth is a globe, yes, the earth is flat, yes, and they can both coexist at the same time. [...] The truth is the earth is flat. And the truth is the earth is globe. It's just depending on your belief, folks, because both are absolutely true." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64tpPF2xaTo]
Max Igan also promoted the Tartaria and mud flood conspiracies which are closely linked to flat earth. I found that about half or more of the biggest YouTube channels that have posted videos about Tartaria or mud floods have also posted videos about flat earth and vice versa. "Static in the attic" who made videos about mud floods said that "the mud flood subject really got coined by Philipp Druzhinin", and Druzhinin is a flat earther. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0RtVIks700&t=11m44s] (I didn't find any reference to mud floods in the books of Anatoly Fomenko, but somehow on YouTube the topic of mud floods became connected to Tartaria.)
But basically I believe that there is a network of disinformation agents who around 2015 popularized the flat earth conspiracy, and a few years later the same people popularized the Tartaria and mud flood conspiracies, and then in 2020 they helped popularize Kaufmantardism. And I believe that the network includes people who are overtly not flat earthers or who present themselves as agnostic about flat earth but who are still linked to the flat earth movement, which includes people like Max Igan and Sofia Smallstorm.
Another early promoter of the theory that viruses are actually non-pathogenic exosomes was Sofia Smallstorm. She has been interviewed multiple times by the flat earth channel jeranismRAW, where in the first interview in 2018, she said that she's agnostic about flat earth. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjCWADmMJJc&t=38m37s] In the second interview on March 23rd 2020 (which was only 2 days after Kaufman did his interview with Richie from Boston), Smallstorm talked about exosomes, Invisible Rainbow, and how flu is not a viral disease. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MNrb8CBElo&t=36m45s] Smallstorm has appeared as a guest of several other flat earthers since 2015. [https://twitter.com/search?q=sofia%20smallstorm%20flat%20earth] In 2006, Sofia Smallstorm released a 9/11 documentary called "911 Mysteries Part 1: Demolitions" under her real name Sofia Shafquat, but she was sued by Rick Siegel because she used his 9/11 footage without permission, and she manipulated the footage in several ways, which included adding the sound of explosives to support her theory of a controlled demolition. [http://web.archive.org/web/20070225192729/www.911researchers.com/node/114] Then because she got caught manipulating the 9/11 footage, she disappeared from the conspiracy scene for a while, but then she re-emerged under the name Monica Smallstorm, which she next changed to Sofia Smallstorm.
So they've mixed in some cow's genetic material, along with whatever bacterial and fungi come with it, into the clinical sample before even getting started with their fake "sequencing".
If the genome of SARS 2 is just virtual and made up, then why can nanopore sequencing discover a 400-bp sequence that is identical to a piece of the made up genome? (It won't necessarily be identical to the original reference genome of SARS 2, but SARS 2 has been sequenced so many times that the sequence will likely be identical to some previously sequenced variant, or even if it's not, it's only going to differ by one or a few bases.)
Back in 2020, people like Amandha Vollmer were making a big deal about how in an RT-PCR developed by Institute Pasteur from France, the reverse primer incluced an 18-nt sequence that was identical to a sequence within a human reference genome, so they claimed that RT-PCR test was actually detecting segments of human DNA. [https://www.integralworld.net/visser213.html] (But actually what the RT-PCR test detects is the fluorescent probe that is between the forward primer and reverse primer, and the reverse primer just selects the end of the genetic segment that gets duplicated by PCR, and in order for the test to produce enough copies of the duplicated segment, the forward primer also has to match.) But anyway, there's only about 4^18 = 68,719,476,736 different sequences of 4 nucleotides. The length of the human genome is about 3.1 billion nt, and the reverse primer was 18 nt long. Neither is random, but the likelihood that a random 18-base sequence is contained within a random sequence of 3.1 billion bases is (3.1e9-17)/4^18, or about 5%.
But there's 4^400 or about 10^241 different sequences of 400 nucleotides, so a 400-nt sequence is not just something that you'll find randomly in a contaminant in cow serum.
If the genome of a virus would just be cobbled up from pieces of the genome of other organisms, then why can it be used to create a working synthetic virus by just taking strands of DNA and releasing them to a medium like yeast? Even a progenitor of SARS 1 was successfully synthesized in 2008, which at the time was called "the largest synthetic replicating life form": [https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1007019]
> The generation of synthetic poxviruses as described by Evans and colleagues and cloning of synthetic DNA using TAR in yeast are illustrated. Synthesized DNA fragments are assembled and cloned in a set of plasmids containing overlapping DNA fragments. Release of cloned DNA fragments from plasmids creates a set of overlapping DNA fragments that can recombine in yeast (TAR cloning) to form a YAC/BAC (left side) or in helpervirus-infected cells to rescue poxviruses (right side). The yeast hub is versatile and allows for the generation of synthetic viruses, bacteria, and even eukaryotic chromosomes.
> [...]
> The first synthetic virus, poliovirus, was produced by Wimmer and colleagues and made us aware of the fact that we entered a new era of reverse genetics that allows for the generation of synthetic viruses without the need for a nucleic acid template [19]. This is instrumental to generate infectious viruses for which no isolates are available. The 1918 "Spanish" influenza virus is the first example of a "resurrected" virus that was constructed by only knowing the genome sequence [20]. Also, more complex and larger RNA viruses, such as coronaviruses (up to 30 kb genome size), can be synthesized, as demonstrated by Denison and colleagues for a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)-like virus [21] - a virus that was sequenced from bat samples and represents the likely origin of the SARS coronavirus that caused an epidemic starting in China in 2002.
But I think controlled alternative media like flat earth YouTubers may have promoted people like Andrew Kaufman because they divert attention away from the man-made origins of SARS 2, just like how Peter Duesberg did in the case of HIV, even though Duesberg was employed by the Special Virus Cancer Program which may have been responsible for creating HIV: [https://survivorbb.rapeutation.com/viewtopic.php?f=194&t=2026]
> In 1971, for instance, Duesberg became a "project director" for the University of California's contract (NIH 71-2173; see fig. 8.3) to study the mechanisms regulating mutant RNA tumor virus reproduction and sarcoma development; the RNA-dependent DNA polymerase related effects Gallo and his teams studied. This work followed sarcoma and leukemia virus studies on monkeys and cows, also conducted at the University of California with NCI funding.[27]
> The same year, during a meeting in Paris attended by Gallo and Montagnier, Duesberg presented evidence that RNA leukemia and sarcoma viruses can be manipulated and observed to produce the "provirus DNA" needed to successfully reproduce in nature and cell cultures.[28] Earlier, Duesberg evaluated the effects of chemotherapy (using the antibiotic Actinomycin- D) on mouse leukemia viruses (MLV).[29] Later, he examined leukemia and sarcoma viruses to show how mutants of varying oncogenicity are formed.[30]
> Most pertinent to Duesberg's main argument -- HTLV-III does not cause the immune deficiency and cancers seen in AIDS, Duesberg and Gallo, in 1973, debated essentially the same question: Can "special" type C-RNA tumor viruses, such as those captured from monkeys and modified for human experiments, cause cancers? Duesberg answered affirmatively, "That is absolutely right."[31]
> The discussion occurred following Gallo's presentation, "On the Origin of Human Acute Myeloblastic Leukemia: The Virus- 'Hot Spot' Hypothesis." Gallo was joined by Dr. Wu, who presented two related papers as an emissary of Litton Bionetics.[32]
> [...]
> In essence, Gallo stated, and Duesberg acknowledged, that only "very special" retroviruses could be expected to produce AIDS-like immunosuppression and cancers, as this had already been proven in monkeys and other animals. In fact, AIDS-like viruses, they agreed, caused cancers in chickens and monkeys before they were clearly modified to infect humans.
> In contrast, since the publication of his objections to the HIV=AIDS paradigm in 1988, Duesberg has diverted public attention from the facts by arguing that HIY is insufficient to cause AIDS." Like counterintelligence propaganda that presents mostly truth, what he doesn't tell is most revealing.
I'm not remotely interested in your distracting claims about Amandha, Andy, etc and am not even reading them. Cite a scientific study (not a review or discussion paper) that shows a natural or man-made "virus" if you can.
If a 400-bp sequence that is identical to a piece of the made-up genome has been discovered, SO WHAT? The fake genomes are made up of many smaller detected and made-up sequences. That some of the little sequences that were used to create the fake genomes actually show up somewhere is hardly surprising or evidence of a "virus".
Try to google for "sars 2 reference genome", open the first result, and copy some sequence of 400 nucleotides of the genome, like for example the first 400 nucleotides (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1798174254): "tataccttcc caggtaacaa accaaccaac tttcgatctc ttgtagatct gttctctaaa cgaactttaa aatctgtgtg gctgtcactc ggctgcatgc ttagtgcact cacgcagtat aattaataac taattactgt cgttgacagg acacgagtaa ctcgtctatc ttctgcaggc tgcttacggt ttcgtccgtg ttgcagccga tcatcagcac atctaggttt cgtccgggtg tgaccgaaag gtaagatgga gagccttgtc cctggtttca acgagaaaac acacgtccaa ctcagtttgc ctgttttaca ggttcgcgac gtgctcgtac gtggctttgg agactccgtg gaggaggtct tatcagaggc acgtcaacat".
Then go to nucleotide BLAST, paste in the nucleotide sequence to the main search field, enter "SARS-CoV-2 (taxid:2697049)" in the "Organism" field and click the "exclude" checkbox next to it, and press the "BLAST" button: https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PROGRAM=blastn. (BLAST only returns the 100 first results, so if you don't exclude SARS-CoV-2, then all of the top results are genomes of SARS 2.) But anyway, when SARS 2 is excluded, then the only results that contain a 100% identical match to the sequence are things like synthetic clones of SARS 2. The next closest results include for example "Select seq MZ937003.2 Bat coronavirus isolate BANAL-20-236/Laos/2020, complete genome", which only has 98.7% similarity.
But you're not going to find the exact same 400-nt sequence in some random contaminants in cow blood, because 4^400 is about 10^241.
Matching in silico sequences in a database is just that - matching in silico sequences in a database. So what if part of one fake genome shows up in another fake genome? It's all meaningless. Where is the physical virus (any physical virus of any sort, scientifically demonstrated to exist )? It's never been shown to exist.
p.s. I'm not even reading your rants about Andy Kaufman or Sofia Smallstorm (who I'm barely familiar with). You've making this about people instead of about the fake methods of virology.
The 1st link you gave is a 2019 paper on another fake virus.
No one has ever sequenced any "virus" because 1) no one bothers to purify the particles that they point at and declare to be a "virus", then extract the genetic material and then sequence the material from that specific particle, and 2) no "virus" has ever been shown to exist.
Regardless of the exact method used, virologists always work with a soup of genetic material from either a clinical sample (i.e. snot/lung fluid with human/bateria/fungi material) or worse, from a cell culture that also contains a cell line (i.e. monkey cells) and fetal bovine serum.
The stupidity and fraud is plain for everyone to see. None of their in silico "genomes" have ever been shown to exist anywhere other than their computers.
The ONS has so far published 6 releases of their dataset for mortality by vaccination status, where each release was accompanied by a bulletin which described the dataset. The bulletin of the first 3 releases included a graph which showed non-COVID mortality among different vaccination status groups, but the graph was removed in the 4th release which included data up to January 31 2022 (https://i.ibb.co/NZZRN3t/onsremoved.png). The reason why the graph was removed is probably that if you look at either age-all-cause mortality or non-COVID mortality, then since late last year, several groups of vaccinated people have now had higher age-standardized mortality rates than unvaccinated people.
Therefore I made a plot which shows all-cause mortality in different vaccination status groups up to May 2022: https://i.ibb.co/JdqVdTQ/england-ons-all-cause-mortality-by-vaccination-status.png. Here's the R script I used to make the plot: https://pastebin.com/raw/bRVb7fuN. My plot shows that from February to May 2022, unvaccinated people have had the second lowest ASMR after the group labeled "Third dose or booster, at least 21 days ago", but there have been 6 groups of vaccinated people who have had higher mortality than unvaccinated people (or actually for 2 out of 6 groups, the ASMR is missing for May and March because of low sample size, but in April and February both groups still had higher ASMR than unvaccinated people).
My plot also shows that there was a spike in mortality among unvaccinated people around January-March 2021 at the same time when the first jab was rolled out, and there was a spike in mortality among single-jabbed people around May-August 2021 when the second jab was rolled out, and there was a spike in mortality among double-jabbed people around October 2021 to January 2022 when the third jab was rolled out. It might be because they counted single-jabbed people as unvaccinated for the first two weeks after their second jab, and they counted double-jabbed people as single-jabbed for the first two weeks after their second shot, and so on.
> In previous years, each of the 60-69, 70-79 and 80+ groups have mortality peaks at the same time during the year (including 2020 when all suffered the April Covid peak at the same time). Yet in 2021 each age group has non-Covid mortality peaks for the unvaccinated, at a different time, namely a time shortly after the vaccination rollout programmes for those cohorts reach a peak, which for 60-69, 70- 79 and 80+ age groups was week 7, week 5, and week 1 respectively.
They also wrote:
> There are also claims that the vaccines are effective after the first dose, but only after 14 days have elapsed. In fact, the USA CDC (Center for Disease Control) classifies any case, hospitalization or death occurring during this 14-day period after first dose as 'unvaccinated', despite injection [18]. Evidence from Israel suggests that this definition applies there [23], but in the UK it was never clear that this was the case until the release of documentation suggesting that the vaccinated who die within 14 days of vaccination might be categorized as unvaccinated [17].
> Similarly, if it is possible that someone who dies within 14 days of vaccination (first dose) is miscategorised as unvaccinated then, hypothetically at least, a similar thing could occur post second dose, whereby the people who die within a period of taking the second vaccine are miscategorised as 'single dose vaccinated'. In an FOI request [26] the UKHSA confirmed that, in their vaccine surveillance reports, those who have received 2 doses but less than 14 days before the specimen date of their positive Covid test are included in the received 1 dose greater than 21 days category. Likewise, in [30] the UKHSA combine unvaccinated and 'less than 28 days' since first dose vaccination as being equivalent in their assessment of risk of hospital admission. A fuller investigation of the miscategorisation problem as seen in the Dagan study [23] is expanded in the analysis by Reeder [22] and demonstrates that confounding by miscategorisation can account for most, if not all, of any effectiveness claimed in an observational study.
I posted more plots here which also show mortality broken down by age group: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?19888-COVID-19&p=852550&viewfull=1#post852550. For example mortality in unvaccinated people peaked in February 2021 in the age group 80-89 and in March 2021 in the age group 60-69, which in both cases was the same month when the age group had the biggest increase in the number of single-jabbed people compared to the previous month. And similarly older age groups received the second jab earlier than younger age groups, but mortality in single-jabbed people peaked in May 2021 in the age groups 90+ and 80-89, in June in the age group 70-79, and in July in the age groups 60-69 and 50-59.
I am terrified for what may happen in the coming years. The vaccine appears to reactivate existing cancers, at least according to anecdotes, but whether or not it CAUSES cancer has yet to be known. It takes 5-10 years for cancer to develop. For all we know everybody who got the shot will get deadly cancer 5 years later.
Cancers are not some rare event. Potential cancerous mutations occur in your body on a daily basis, and your body fixes them. Mild radiation even stimulates these repair mechanisms.
If the cancer grows, becomes visible, starts to show symptoms, this isn't a sign that a potentially cancerous mutation occurred. These happen every day! Instead, it's a sign that the repair process failed. The reasons for such failure are best explained by holistic approaches to medicine.
The vaccines kill the repair process. So yes, most of the vaccinated are going to die. From cancers, strokes, clots, heart attacks, rapid onset dementia - the vaccines are designed to cause death from a variety of causes, with plausible deniability for as long as the media narrative can hold.
You mean radiation hormesis? That's true. There's also a certain level of radiation that reactivates and energizes the Epstein-Barr virus which is involved in cancers. Here's an article I read about a hypothetical mechanism:
I even heard about a case of COVID that caused cancer to go into remission by stimulating the immune system. The cancer had only recently been diagnosed before the COVID though so they hadn't even gone on chemo or anything yet which might have reduced their ability to recover. If there's any value to chemo at all it's only in combination with huge doses of vitamin C and other natural therapies.
As the phenomena is seen across every age group, it's a systematic error leading to vaccinated deaths being misclassified as unvacced deaths. Either someone at ONS is deliberately doing the misclassification or a heinous protocol is being followed by many local health authorities.
People need to stop saying vaccine 😂😂
It is not a vaccine it is a DOD military chemical weapons poisoning agenda.
Stop using their language and start saying it as it is then sooner all the Jabtards wake up and maybe we might see some street justice.... because police judiciary ain't going to punish anyone because they are also heavily implicated.
Ask yourself police have expert forensic teams yet not one police force as bothered to analyze contents of vials even though FOI proves jabs are DOD military countermeasures demo prototypes!??
Search knowledge ecology international COVID contracts and you can read the contracts in full.
I an a bit confused ?
The death results after 1 year (100,000 people) were (unvaxxed, vaxxed):
18-39: 45, 31
50-59: 626, 337
See you listed on vaxxed first then you listed vaxxed. So there were 45 Deaths from unvaxxed and 31 that were vaxxed ?
Just going from the order that you have in the brackets.
I am a statistician and reading your article, I think you would benefit from consulting a professional because there are some potential issues with with your presentation, in my opinion. I'd be more than happy to help, and others would too (because we are tired of seeing our discipline hijacked by people with an agenda and coercing people in our field to say what they want them to). In doing so you'd be able to address potential issues ahead of time and reduce the risk that what you write will be labeled as misinformation (although unfortunately things were so bias that could happen). anyhow. Anyhow good luck and keep fighting the good fight.
Having difficulty posting, so this may be duplicate. I agree with Matt B. This would allow your comments to resist more strongly being picked apart. Also I say it because I am reminded of the old medical school view that there were 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
UK ONS excess death data indicated 1678 excess deaths in the week ending July 29 2022, 18% above the 5 yr mean ending 2020.
They're not making a very good job of hiding the shark.
The virus has never been shown to exist. Why does Steve let the perpetrators off the hook when it comes to the core lie/delusion behind "covid-19"?
And re Steve's disinfo campaign against my colleagues and I:
The real reason I now refuse to debate Steve Kirsch (hint: it’s not what Steve tells his readers):
https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/why-i-now-refuse-to-debate-steve-kirsch-or-richard-fleming-or-kevin-mccairn/
In the debate with Kevin McCairn, Mark Bailey said that sequencing methods have to rely on aligning the reads to a reference genome, but there's also sequencing methods which don't require employing a reference genome, like metagenomic sequencing or a method of multiplex PCR amplicon sequencing. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7112119/] And in one nanopore sequencing method for SARS 2, the most common read length is around 400 base pairs. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8493558/] There's 4^400 possible sequences of 400 base pairs, which is around 10^240, so if the reference genome of SARS 2 would be just a virtual creation, then what are the odds that a 400-bp segment of the genome would be found in the wild in identical or nearly identical form to the reference genome? And on sites like nextstrain.org, you can see the gradual evolution of the SARS 2 genome, where first a single mutation was introduced in some geographical region, then it spread to other regions, and then further mutations were introduced so different strains of SARS formed a phylogenetic tree. So if the genome of SARS 2 would be just a virtual concoction, then how are they able to introduce mutations to the virus over time that spread from one region to another?
But anyway, I did a bunch of research on Andrew Kaufman 2 years ago. The first video on his YouTube channel is an interview that he did in November 2019 with the flat earther James True. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x526Y0_NV6I] In the description of the video, Kaufman says that it was his debut interview, but he did not yet discuss viruses or terrain theory in the interview. References to Kaufman on Twitter became more frequent after his interview with flat earther Richie from Boston on March 21st 2020. [https://twitter.com/search?q=until:2020-03-21+%22andrew+kaufman%22&f=live] On March 13th 2020 UTC, the flat earther Crrow777 tweeted: "We have recorded a Dr Kaufman follow up and hope to get it by tonight." Apart from Crrow777 and James True, I didn't find other people who had interviewed Kaufman before Richie from Boston. So as far as I can tell, the first 3 YouTubers who interviewed Kaufman were all flat earthers, which is suspicious if you believe that flat earth channels are ran by disinformation agents.
Kaufman's film "Hippocratic Hypocrisy" was produced by the flat earth channel Spacebusters and it was narrated by Steve Falconer from Spacebusters. As far as I can tell, Spacebusters promoted the theory that viruses are non-pathogenic exosomes even before Kaufman, because on March 4th 2020, they posted a video titled "IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON CORONAVIRUS 5G KUNG FLU", which featured clips of a radio show from 2009 where Aajonus Vonderplanitz talked about terrain theory and about how viruses are actually non-pathogenic exosomes. [https://www.bitchute.com/video/mWcUoESRO0c5/] So is it a coincidence that two months before COVID hit the news, Kaufman did his debut interview with a flat earth YouTuber, and that in early March 2020, flat earthers were already promoting Kaufman's theory even before Kaufman himself? And why does some psychiatrist suddenly decide to become a health guru on the flat earth YouTube circuit?
In 2020, I found 12 YouTube channels which had reposted Kaufman's "Hippocratic Hypocrisy" video. 9 of them were flat earth channels. Out of the remaining 3 channels, one was Kaufman's channel, and another one was Amandha Vollmer's channel "YumNaturals Emporium". Vollmer was one of the participants of EVENT 202, whose logo featured a disc earth. The figurehead of EVENT 202 was the black flat earther Dave Murphy, who like many other flat earthers has a background working in mainstream media.
The "Hippocratic Hypocrisy" film included clips of Kaufman's interview with Max Igan, but it didn't feature Kaufman in any other way, even though the credits of the film said that it was a film "by Andrew Kaufman". Max Igan has said that Steve from Spacebusters is a "friend of his": "It was actually a good report put out by a friend of mine, who's I believe in Denmark at the moment, called Steve Falconer. He's got a YouTube channel or a BitChute channel called Spacebusters." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j670kqChxDQ&t=9m56s] On January 15th 2020 (or maybe a day later or earlier depending on the time zone), Max Igan posted a video where he said that the earth is flat, but in a video that he posted on January 20th UTC, he said that he was being targeted with mind control technology and that he doesn't actually believe in flat earth. [https://www.bitchute.com/video/afugFIfsRQR8/] However next on January 16th UTC, he again said that "The earth is a globe, yes, the earth is flat, yes, and they can both coexist at the same time. [...] The truth is the earth is flat. And the truth is the earth is globe. It's just depending on your belief, folks, because both are absolutely true." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64tpPF2xaTo]
Max Igan also promoted the Tartaria and mud flood conspiracies which are closely linked to flat earth. I found that about half or more of the biggest YouTube channels that have posted videos about Tartaria or mud floods have also posted videos about flat earth and vice versa. "Static in the attic" who made videos about mud floods said that "the mud flood subject really got coined by Philipp Druzhinin", and Druzhinin is a flat earther. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0RtVIks700&t=11m44s] (I didn't find any reference to mud floods in the books of Anatoly Fomenko, but somehow on YouTube the topic of mud floods became connected to Tartaria.)
But basically I believe that there is a network of disinformation agents who around 2015 popularized the flat earth conspiracy, and a few years later the same people popularized the Tartaria and mud flood conspiracies, and then in 2020 they helped popularize Kaufmantardism. And I believe that the network includes people who are overtly not flat earthers or who present themselves as agnostic about flat earth but who are still linked to the flat earth movement, which includes people like Max Igan and Sofia Smallstorm.
Another early promoter of the theory that viruses are actually non-pathogenic exosomes was Sofia Smallstorm. She has been interviewed multiple times by the flat earth channel jeranismRAW, where in the first interview in 2018, she said that she's agnostic about flat earth. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjCWADmMJJc&t=38m37s] In the second interview on March 23rd 2020 (which was only 2 days after Kaufman did his interview with Richie from Boston), Smallstorm talked about exosomes, Invisible Rainbow, and how flu is not a viral disease. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MNrb8CBElo&t=36m45s] Smallstorm has appeared as a guest of several other flat earthers since 2015. [https://twitter.com/search?q=sofia%20smallstorm%20flat%20earth] In 2006, Sofia Smallstorm released a 9/11 documentary called "911 Mysteries Part 1: Demolitions" under her real name Sofia Shafquat, but she was sued by Rick Siegel because she used his 9/11 footage without permission, and she manipulated the footage in several ways, which included adding the sound of explosives to support her theory of a controlled demolition. [http://web.archive.org/web/20070225192729/www.911researchers.com/node/114] Then because she got caught manipulating the 9/11 footage, she disappeared from the conspiracy scene for a while, but then she re-emerged under the name Monica Smallstorm, which she next changed to Sofia Smallstorm.
From the 2nd paper you linked:
"The viral RNA genome is typically extracted from various VTM [viral transport media] solutions of clinical COVID-19 samples."
They extract all the RNA from a clinical sample and declare it to be "viral" lol based on zero logic or science.
And the CDC's SOP DSR-052-05 for VTM [viral transport media] contains fetal bovine serum - a source of genetic contamination (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/Viral-Transport-Medium.pdf).
So they've mixed in some cow's genetic material, along with whatever bacterial and fungi come with it, into the clinical sample before even getting started with their fake "sequencing".
If the genome of SARS 2 is just virtual and made up, then why can nanopore sequencing discover a 400-bp sequence that is identical to a piece of the made up genome? (It won't necessarily be identical to the original reference genome of SARS 2, but SARS 2 has been sequenced so many times that the sequence will likely be identical to some previously sequenced variant, or even if it's not, it's only going to differ by one or a few bases.)
Back in 2020, people like Amandha Vollmer were making a big deal about how in an RT-PCR developed by Institute Pasteur from France, the reverse primer incluced an 18-nt sequence that was identical to a sequence within a human reference genome, so they claimed that RT-PCR test was actually detecting segments of human DNA. [https://www.integralworld.net/visser213.html] (But actually what the RT-PCR test detects is the fluorescent probe that is between the forward primer and reverse primer, and the reverse primer just selects the end of the genetic segment that gets duplicated by PCR, and in order for the test to produce enough copies of the duplicated segment, the forward primer also has to match.) But anyway, there's only about 4^18 = 68,719,476,736 different sequences of 4 nucleotides. The length of the human genome is about 3.1 billion nt, and the reverse primer was 18 nt long. Neither is random, but the likelihood that a random 18-base sequence is contained within a random sequence of 3.1 billion bases is (3.1e9-17)/4^18, or about 5%.
But there's 4^400 or about 10^241 different sequences of 400 nucleotides, so a 400-nt sequence is not just something that you'll find randomly in a contaminant in cow serum.
If the genome of a virus would just be cobbled up from pieces of the genome of other organisms, then why can it be used to create a working synthetic virus by just taking strands of DNA and releasing them to a medium like yeast? Even a progenitor of SARS 1 was successfully synthesized in 2008, which at the time was called "the largest synthetic replicating life form": [https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1007019]
> The generation of synthetic poxviruses as described by Evans and colleagues and cloning of synthetic DNA using TAR in yeast are illustrated. Synthesized DNA fragments are assembled and cloned in a set of plasmids containing overlapping DNA fragments. Release of cloned DNA fragments from plasmids creates a set of overlapping DNA fragments that can recombine in yeast (TAR cloning) to form a YAC/BAC (left side) or in helpervirus-infected cells to rescue poxviruses (right side). The yeast hub is versatile and allows for the generation of synthetic viruses, bacteria, and even eukaryotic chromosomes.
> [...]
> The first synthetic virus, poliovirus, was produced by Wimmer and colleagues and made us aware of the fact that we entered a new era of reverse genetics that allows for the generation of synthetic viruses without the need for a nucleic acid template [19]. This is instrumental to generate infectious viruses for which no isolates are available. The 1918 "Spanish" influenza virus is the first example of a "resurrected" virus that was constructed by only knowing the genome sequence [20]. Also, more complex and larger RNA viruses, such as coronaviruses (up to 30 kb genome size), can be synthesized, as demonstrated by Denison and colleagues for a Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS)-like virus [21] - a virus that was sequenced from bat samples and represents the likely origin of the SARS coronavirus that caused an epidemic starting in China in 2002.
Already in January 2020, Paul Cottrell was able to discover that SARS 2 was genetically engineered by doing a BLAST search on the genome of SARS 2 which showed that the genome matched long segments of other bat coronaviruses. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLojymM_uyk] Now there's even tutorials on how you can do it yourself. [https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/how-to-blast-your-way-to-the-truth]
But I think controlled alternative media like flat earth YouTubers may have promoted people like Andrew Kaufman because they divert attention away from the man-made origins of SARS 2, just like how Peter Duesberg did in the case of HIV, even though Duesberg was employed by the Special Virus Cancer Program which may have been responsible for creating HIV: [https://survivorbb.rapeutation.com/viewtopic.php?f=194&t=2026]
> In 1971, for instance, Duesberg became a "project director" for the University of California's contract (NIH 71-2173; see fig. 8.3) to study the mechanisms regulating mutant RNA tumor virus reproduction and sarcoma development; the RNA-dependent DNA polymerase related effects Gallo and his teams studied. This work followed sarcoma and leukemia virus studies on monkeys and cows, also conducted at the University of California with NCI funding.[27]
> The same year, during a meeting in Paris attended by Gallo and Montagnier, Duesberg presented evidence that RNA leukemia and sarcoma viruses can be manipulated and observed to produce the "provirus DNA" needed to successfully reproduce in nature and cell cultures.[28] Earlier, Duesberg evaluated the effects of chemotherapy (using the antibiotic Actinomycin- D) on mouse leukemia viruses (MLV).[29] Later, he examined leukemia and sarcoma viruses to show how mutants of varying oncogenicity are formed.[30]
> Most pertinent to Duesberg's main argument -- HTLV-III does not cause the immune deficiency and cancers seen in AIDS, Duesberg and Gallo, in 1973, debated essentially the same question: Can "special" type C-RNA tumor viruses, such as those captured from monkeys and modified for human experiments, cause cancers? Duesberg answered affirmatively, "That is absolutely right."[31]
> The discussion occurred following Gallo's presentation, "On the Origin of Human Acute Myeloblastic Leukemia: The Virus- 'Hot Spot' Hypothesis." Gallo was joined by Dr. Wu, who presented two related papers as an emissary of Litton Bionetics.[32]
> [...]
> In essence, Gallo stated, and Duesberg acknowledged, that only "very special" retroviruses could be expected to produce AIDS-like immunosuppression and cancers, as this had already been proven in monkeys and other animals. In fact, AIDS-like viruses, they agreed, caused cancers in chickens and monkeys before they were clearly modified to infect humans.
> In contrast, since the publication of his objections to the HIV=AIDS paradigm in 1988, Duesberg has diverted public attention from the facts by arguing that HIY is insufficient to cause AIDS." Like counterintelligence propaganda that presents mostly truth, what he doesn't tell is most revealing.
I'm not remotely interested in your distracting claims about Amandha, Andy, etc and am not even reading them. Cite a scientific study (not a review or discussion paper) that shows a natural or man-made "virus" if you can.
If a 400-bp sequence that is identical to a piece of the made-up genome has been discovered, SO WHAT? The fake genomes are made up of many smaller detected and made-up sequences. That some of the little sequences that were used to create the fake genomes actually show up somewhere is hardly surprising or evidence of a "virus".
Try to google for "sars 2 reference genome", open the first result, and copy some sequence of 400 nucleotides of the genome, like for example the first 400 nucleotides (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/1798174254): "tataccttcc caggtaacaa accaaccaac tttcgatctc ttgtagatct gttctctaaa cgaactttaa aatctgtgtg gctgtcactc ggctgcatgc ttagtgcact cacgcagtat aattaataac taattactgt cgttgacagg acacgagtaa ctcgtctatc ttctgcaggc tgcttacggt ttcgtccgtg ttgcagccga tcatcagcac atctaggttt cgtccgggtg tgaccgaaag gtaagatgga gagccttgtc cctggtttca acgagaaaac acacgtccaa ctcagtttgc ctgttttaca ggttcgcgac gtgctcgtac gtggctttgg agactccgtg gaggaggtct tatcagaggc acgtcaacat".
Then go to nucleotide BLAST, paste in the nucleotide sequence to the main search field, enter "SARS-CoV-2 (taxid:2697049)" in the "Organism" field and click the "exclude" checkbox next to it, and press the "BLAST" button: https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PROGRAM=blastn. (BLAST only returns the 100 first results, so if you don't exclude SARS-CoV-2, then all of the top results are genomes of SARS 2.) But anyway, when SARS 2 is excluded, then the only results that contain a 100% identical match to the sequence are things like synthetic clones of SARS 2. The next closest results include for example "Select seq MZ937003.2 Bat coronavirus isolate BANAL-20-236/Laos/2020, complete genome", which only has 98.7% similarity.
But you're not going to find the exact same 400-nt sequence in some random contaminants in cow blood, because 4^400 is about 10^241.
Matching in silico sequences in a database is just that - matching in silico sequences in a database. So what if part of one fake genome shows up in another fake genome? It's all meaningless. Where is the physical virus (any physical virus of any sort, scientifically demonstrated to exist )? It's never been shown to exist.
p.s. I'm not even reading your rants about Andy Kaufman or Sofia Smallstorm (who I'm barely familiar with). You've making this about people instead of about the fake methods of virology.
The 1st link you gave is a 2019 paper on another fake virus.
No one has ever sequenced any "virus" because 1) no one bothers to purify the particles that they point at and declare to be a "virus", then extract the genetic material and then sequence the material from that specific particle, and 2) no "virus" has ever been shown to exist.
Regardless of the exact method used, virologists always work with a soup of genetic material from either a clinical sample (i.e. snot/lung fluid with human/bateria/fungi material) or worse, from a cell culture that also contains a cell line (i.e. monkey cells) and fetal bovine serum.
The stupidity and fraud is plain for everyone to see. None of their in silico "genomes" have ever been shown to exist anywhere other than their computers.
The ONS has so far published 6 releases of their dataset for mortality by vaccination status, where each release was accompanied by a bulletin which described the dataset. The bulletin of the first 3 releases included a graph which showed non-COVID mortality among different vaccination status groups, but the graph was removed in the 4th release which included data up to January 31 2022 (https://i.ibb.co/NZZRN3t/onsremoved.png). The reason why the graph was removed is probably that if you look at either age-all-cause mortality or non-COVID mortality, then since late last year, several groups of vaccinated people have now had higher age-standardized mortality rates than unvaccinated people.
Therefore I made a plot which shows all-cause mortality in different vaccination status groups up to May 2022: https://i.ibb.co/JdqVdTQ/england-ons-all-cause-mortality-by-vaccination-status.png. Here's the R script I used to make the plot: https://pastebin.com/raw/bRVb7fuN. My plot shows that from February to May 2022, unvaccinated people have had the second lowest ASMR after the group labeled "Third dose or booster, at least 21 days ago", but there have been 6 groups of vaccinated people who have had higher mortality than unvaccinated people (or actually for 2 out of 6 groups, the ASMR is missing for May and March because of low sample size, but in April and February both groups still had higher ASMR than unvaccinated people).
My plot also shows that there was a spike in mortality among unvaccinated people around January-March 2021 at the same time when the first jab was rolled out, and there was a spike in mortality among single-jabbed people around May-August 2021 when the second jab was rolled out, and there was a spike in mortality among double-jabbed people around October 2021 to January 2022 when the third jab was rolled out. It might be because they counted single-jabbed people as unvaccinated for the first two weeks after their second jab, and they counted double-jabbed people as single-jabbed for the first two weeks after their second shot, and so on.
Martin Neil, Norman Fenton, et al. published a paper about the ONS statistics in February 2022: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357778435_Official_mortality_data_for_England_suggest_systematic_miscategorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination. From figures 5-7, you can see that there was a spike in mortality among unvaccinated people around week 4 of 2021 for the age group 80+, around week 7 for the age group 70-79, and around week 12 for the age group 60-69. The authors of the paper wrote:
> In previous years, each of the 60-69, 70-79 and 80+ groups have mortality peaks at the same time during the year (including 2020 when all suffered the April Covid peak at the same time). Yet in 2021 each age group has non-Covid mortality peaks for the unvaccinated, at a different time, namely a time shortly after the vaccination rollout programmes for those cohorts reach a peak, which for 60-69, 70- 79 and 80+ age groups was week 7, week 5, and week 1 respectively.
They also wrote:
> There are also claims that the vaccines are effective after the first dose, but only after 14 days have elapsed. In fact, the USA CDC (Center for Disease Control) classifies any case, hospitalization or death occurring during this 14-day period after first dose as 'unvaccinated', despite injection [18]. Evidence from Israel suggests that this definition applies there [23], but in the UK it was never clear that this was the case until the release of documentation suggesting that the vaccinated who die within 14 days of vaccination might be categorized as unvaccinated [17].
> Similarly, if it is possible that someone who dies within 14 days of vaccination (first dose) is miscategorised as unvaccinated then, hypothetically at least, a similar thing could occur post second dose, whereby the people who die within a period of taking the second vaccine are miscategorised as 'single dose vaccinated'. In an FOI request [26] the UKHSA confirmed that, in their vaccine surveillance reports, those who have received 2 doses but less than 14 days before the specimen date of their positive Covid test are included in the received 1 dose greater than 21 days category. Likewise, in [30] the UKHSA combine unvaccinated and 'less than 28 days' since first dose vaccination as being equivalent in their assessment of risk of hospital admission. A fuller investigation of the miscategorisation problem as seen in the Dagan study [23] is expanded in the analysis by Reeder [22] and demonstrates that confounding by miscategorisation can account for most, if not all, of any effectiveness claimed in an observational study.
Norman Fenton also did a presentation of their paper on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6umArFc-fdc. Neil and Fenton also covered their paper in their blog and in a Twitter thread: https://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2022/02/update-bmj-rejects-without-review-paper.html, https://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2022/01/debunking-hypothesis-that-healthy.html, https://twitter.com/MartinNeil9/status/1481561698792267779. In a follow-up paper which was released in March, they presented even more ways in which the mortality data may have been manipulated: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358979921_Official_mortality_data_for_England_reveal_systematic_undercounting_of_deaths_occurring_within_first_two_weeks_of_Covid-19_vaccination, https://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2022/03/official-mortality-data-for-england.html, https://twitter.com/ClareCraigPath/status/1499443534021210120, https://twitter.com/MartinNeil9/status/1499455235529625600. And they recently discovered further evidence that vaccinated people may have been miscategorized as unvaccinated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccWOMtmH65U.
Wow, you have put in a lot of work and it looks high quality. Thank you for sharing your efforts.
I posted more plots here which also show mortality broken down by age group: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?19888-COVID-19&p=852550&viewfull=1#post852550. For example mortality in unvaccinated people peaked in February 2021 in the age group 80-89 and in March 2021 in the age group 60-69, which in both cases was the same month when the age group had the biggest increase in the number of single-jabbed people compared to the previous month. And similarly older age groups received the second jab earlier than younger age groups, but mortality in single-jabbed people peaked in May 2021 in the age groups 90+ and 80-89, in June in the age group 70-79, and in July in the age groups 60-69 and 50-59.
https://www.brighteon.com/2fe62a43-04d0-4e1c-9916-fc06e0c49863
Not seeing any of that square with the data:
Mortality far higher in Israel than in unvaxxed Palestine
Dr. Malone
https://www.brighteon.com/2fe62a43-04d0-4e1c-9916-fc06e0c
It is because the vaccine is killing Mizrahi and other ethnicities not Ashkenazi.
Worth reading. https://www.google.com/amp/s/forward.com/opinion/382967/ashkenazi-jews-are-not-khazars-heres-the-proof/%3famp=1
Do you really think the Ashkenazis would hurt their own in Israel?
Reduction of human population through global vaccine genocide documented (expended version) https://rumble.com/v1gwn6h-reduction-of-human-population-through-global-vaccine-genocide-documented-ex.html
I am terrified for what may happen in the coming years. The vaccine appears to reactivate existing cancers, at least according to anecdotes, but whether or not it CAUSES cancer has yet to be known. It takes 5-10 years for cancer to develop. For all we know everybody who got the shot will get deadly cancer 5 years later.
Cancers are not some rare event. Potential cancerous mutations occur in your body on a daily basis, and your body fixes them. Mild radiation even stimulates these repair mechanisms.
If the cancer grows, becomes visible, starts to show symptoms, this isn't a sign that a potentially cancerous mutation occurred. These happen every day! Instead, it's a sign that the repair process failed. The reasons for such failure are best explained by holistic approaches to medicine.
The vaccines kill the repair process. So yes, most of the vaccinated are going to die. From cancers, strokes, clots, heart attacks, rapid onset dementia - the vaccines are designed to cause death from a variety of causes, with plausible deniability for as long as the media narrative can hold.
You mean radiation hormesis? That's true. There's also a certain level of radiation that reactivates and energizes the Epstein-Barr virus which is involved in cancers. Here's an article I read about a hypothetical mechanism:
http://orthomolecular.org/library/jom/1997/articles/1997-v12n03-p149.shtml
I even heard about a case of COVID that caused cancer to go into remission by stimulating the immune system. The cancer had only recently been diagnosed before the COVID though so they hadn't even gone on chemo or anything yet which might have reduced their ability to recover. If there's any value to chemo at all it's only in combination with huge doses of vitamin C and other natural therapies.
I did another follow-up:
https://timellison.substack.com/p/follow-up-2-on-i-hope-there-is-nothing
Of course, in Steve's words (which I'm pretty sure he stole from someone else), it all could be GIGO (Garbage-In Garbage Out).
Steve, I sent you a link to the Uk study and the #'rs are backwords. Must be a typo.
which numbers are backwards?
WOW! This seems like we are in a "cat and mouse game" now. The CAT (A herd of them)?
Tony Mengelefauci, Bill Gates, and their partners in Crimes Against Humanity!
The MICE? Both the quackcined and "The Not Shot Lot." Everyone is caught in
their deadly claws. The WISE will SURVIVE them! STAY AND KEEP WELL NATURALLY!
I post publicly and freely on MeWe. ETERNAL LIFE BLESSINGS FOR YAHWEH'S SAINTS!
Steve, why does only Israel show continued high fertility rates contrary to all other highly vaxed countries? Are you aware of any more recent data? Tx https://gab.com/SubtleEnergyOver9000/posts/108873348799326752
Isn't it funny how they made up the term SADS when Ashkenazis are afflicted by SIDS? That's how you know they are behind it.
either the vaccine isn't harmful in Israel only or they are lying.
I think your vaxxed/unvaxxed death figures are reversed.