The fake coronavirus and the missing study: the secret in plain sight

Jon Rappoport's Blog ^ | October 12, 2020 | Jon Rappoport

[Boomer]

Masks simply do not work and in fact probably make people sick because they are either not replaced when they should be or washed (properly) when they should be.

CDC: 85% of COVID-19 patients report ‘always’ or ‘often’ wearing a mask Americans are wearing masks, but masks aren't working.

[Valpal1]

Anybody who claims that the virus has not been isolated based on a footnote in the CDC guidance for PCR testing is selling conspiracy woo.

Or are all the scientists doing realtime genomic tracing all in on it?

https://nextstrain.org/ncov/global

[Flaming Conservative]

Hand gel and disposable menus help a lot. At most of the restaurants I’ve eaten at lately, the staff all wear masks properly, the salt and other condiment containers are cleaned between patrons and brought fresh to each table upon request, the menus are single use and thrown out after one use, and the tables are kept an acceptable distance apart. It’s up to me to use the alcohol gel or wash my hands when appropriate.

[Flaming Conservative]

I researched the materials used for surgical masks, ordered some, and am about to stitch up a bunch later this week, because they should be used for a short time, only, then thrown away, and we’ve used them so many times, I’m sure they’re utterly useless.

[zeestephen]

Re: "If it's not coronavirus, how can it be a coronavirus isolate?"

I was responding to the author's central claim...

He says there is no virus, or, if there is, it is not a coronavirus.

Re: "Also: don't they utilize amplification to get enough viral fragments to test?"

Yes. They are trying to standardize the testing. If they do not know how many viruses are in the original sample, then the number of amplifications is meaningless.

As far as the current "standard" for cycle counts, I have seen 10 and 44, with several more numbers in between.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Sure, sure buddy. You know more than the companies that make the masks & every health-care worker, anywhere.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

My post just addressed the ‘basic physics’ of masks. We’ve both seen the same chart — which shows that masks can be even more effective against viruses than somewhat larger particles. Comparisons to a simple net (or even, ludicrously, to a security fence) are simplistic, and simply serve to highlight the poster’s ignorance of the subject.

You’re right about the problems arising from improper use — but, those are a separate matter about the ‘physics’ of the way masks work.

They are no-where near 100% effective — but, they can (and often do) reduce the viral loads being transmitted. It has (finally!) been established that the ‘dose’ matters. The smaller the number of viruses that enter your body, the better. Letting the perfect be the enemy of somewhat better could be deadly.

[Boomer]

Sure, sure buddy. You know more than the companies that make the masks & every health-care worker, anywhere.

Took you long enough to get there. Welcome to FR.

[trebb]

I guess my question is that, if the virus hasn’t been isolated to date, what were the Wuhan folks working on?
How can they be developing vaccines and other therapeutics?
Are current vaccines and therapeutics, that are in-work, broad-spectrum, generic tools that have efficacy over a spread of viruses?

I would like to believe the article but there’s too much “anecdotal” (remember how we railed against them calling HQC benefits “anecdotal”?) evidence the virus exists.

I only wear a mask in places that I have to go to ad who “insist” and think we should open up with the pedal to the metal because the long-term knee-jerk crap is unnecessary, but I have trouble believing the virus is a myth - except maybe as far as they keep trying to say it’s gonna kill us all.

[Svartalfiar]

They are no-where near 100% effective — but, they can (and often do) reduce the viral loads being transmitted. It has (finally!) been established that the ‘dose’ matters. The smaller the number of viruses that enter your body, the better. Letting the perfect be the enemy of somewhat better could be deadly.

Sure, they may reduce it some, but does it actually do anything? Which is better for your house, 8ft floodwaters or 9ft floodwaters? It's a moot point, the end result is still the same. The dose only matters if you're able to get under it - if not, then it's irrelevant. CDC just put out a study saying that 70% of ChinaVirus infections were people who always wore a mask. Another 15% were usually or often wear a mask. Early on, NY was "surprised" that something like 66% of infections were people staying at home. 80% if you include nursing home infections. Only 20% were people out and about.

And you're right, much of the info is simplistic, and it ignores an even bigger thing: what are the negatives of wearing a mask 18/7? (24/7 if you sleep with it?) If there is a small benefit, is it countered or big enough to not be?

[Svartalfiar]

Sure, sure buddy. You know more than the companies that make the masks & every health-care worker, anywhere.

Well then, here's some info straight from 3M for ya.

- 3M does not recommend reuse of disposable masks or respirators. Particles containing viruses, bacteria, etc. get captured on the N95 respirator filter fibers during use and remain on the fibers after use. Handling or storing the respirator might result in further spreading the disease.
- There is no way of determining the maximum possible number of safe reuses for an N95 respirator. Safe N95 reuse is affected by a number of variables that impact respirator function and contamination over time.
The decision to implement policies that permit extended use or limited reuse of N95 respirators should be made by the professionals who manage the institution’s respiratory protection program.

[Svartalfiar]

I guess my question is that, if the virus hasn’t been isolated to date, what were the Wuhan folks working on?
How can they be developing vaccines and other therapeutics?

If those stories are true, they certainly only apply to everyone else. China isn't going to share the virus with the world (in a research situation). Especially if they know they leaked it, whether accidentally or on purpose.

[Drago]

Missing the word “quantify” as mentioned in Post #14 by “Zeestephen”, CDC & others have live SARSCOV2 virus around plus the gene sequence is available. (A fresh sample is available from everyone who has COVID-19).

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/grows-virus-cell-culture.html

https://microbenotes.com/structure-and-genome-of-sars-cov-2/

https://www.genengnews.com/news/uk-maps-covid-19-spread-through-massive-sequencing-project/

[zeestephen]

Re: "CDC & others have live SARSCOV2 virus around plus the gene sequence is available. (A fresh sample is available from everyone who has COVID-19)."

I agree.

The linked author claimed that the sentence on Page 39 means there is no virus.

I said: "No, it means there are no micro-liter samples that have a known number of live viruses in them so the PCR test can be ideally calibrated."

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"Sure, they may reduce it some, but does it actually do anything? Which is better for your house, 8ft floodwaters or 9ft floodwaters? "

Yes, any reduction is a good thing. Your analogy is faulty -- the virus is not flood waters. The fewer viruses you take in, the less sick you become. In fact, a very small dose acts like a vaccine -- you get the antibodies, without getting sick. Here's an excerpt from an article that explains it.

Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, Monica Gandhi, MD, and George Rutherford, MD, of the University of California in San Francisco, hypothesized that widespread population masking may act as a sort of "variolation," exposing individuals to a smaller amount of viral particles and producing an immune response.

Gandhi told MedPage Today that the viral inoculum, or the initial dose of virus that a patient takes in, is one likely determinant of ultimate illness severity. That's separate from patients' subsequent viral load, the level of replicating virus as measured by copies per mL.

The "variolation" hypothesis holds that, at some level, the inoculum overwhelms the immune system, leading to serious illness. With less than that (and the threshold may vary from one person to the next), the individual successfully fights off the infection, with mild or no clinical illness.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/88692

[Svartalfiar]

Yes, any reduction is a good thing. Your analogy is faulty -- the virus is not flood waters. The fewer viruses you take in, the less sick you become. In fact, a very small dose acts like a vaccine -- you get the antibodies, without getting sick.

At lower levels, yes. But after a certain point, you're getting very sick, or very sick. My floodwater analogy is actually pretty good: Only getting a couple inches of flooding is very different than a couple feet. But a couple feet to several - the damage is already done, it doesn't hurt much more.

The issue is, is are the sandbags (crappy masks/'social' distancing) good enough to only let you get an inch or two? Or do they let in 3-4 feet, which is about the same as 6-7 feet in damages?