Working on this new server in php7...
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
latest news
best of news




A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List


IMC Network:

Original Cities africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles


by Aleth Saturday, Oct. 24, 2020 at 10:55 PM

there is no such thing as "covid" : the evidence




March 7 - October 24, 2020

There is no "covid" and bill gates is its propheteer.


MSM state that there have been death spikes in Italy. There have not. It´s a huge lie spread by the national statistics center, directed by a fascist idiot with no mathematical competence whatsoever.

Read please, the Nota metodologica towards the end :

1. normally it takes ISTAT 10 months after the end of any given year to come up with definive statistical death data : this year for the first time in history, they have been allowed to spread death data in near-real time - a physical and mathematical impossibility.

2. Allowing for this miracle for a moment, which makes no sense because local county offices are extremely slow here in reporting definitive data, as families take ages to communicate a death to them, and they themselves take ages to process the data and send it to Rome ; but anyway : out of 7904 counties in total in Italy, ISTAT has arbitrarily chosen only 6866 for their extrapolations, ELIMINATING FROM THE COUNT AS MANY AS 1038 COUNTIES WHERE THERE HAD BEEN A DECREMENT IN DEATHS !!! THAT is how they came up with the OVERALL spikes - by way of fraud !!! And also the local spikes at this point are extremely dubiously arrived at.

3. They state clearly that their provisory data HAS NO STATISTICAL VALUE WHATSOEVER, pending further future elaboration and checks !

So do not fall into the trap of believing in data accuracy when in fact those alleged spikes are the same type of lie as with PCR tests etc., that we shall demonstrate below.



Remember how larry silverstein bought an insurance with lloyds covering terrorist attacks on his twin towers just before 911 ? Insider info it would appear.

Capitalfascism can only function through the spreading of fear and terror : until roughly 2001, they massmurdered their own, like 911 or the Bologna station massacre in 1980 ; starting with the Sandy Hook school shooting hoax back in 2012, they changed of tack and have started using their total control of the massmedia, to make Humanity believe in false shooters, nonexistent islamist kamikazes, virtual neonazi attackers and the like - until now : the new fake enemy is a fake disease called "covid 19" (dress rehearsals for this new form of psyop had been sars end mers starting in 2003 - caused by viruses whose very existence is every bit as questionable as that of "sars-cov-2").


" Police and public health officials to have powers to detain people who may be infected

Kate Proctor

Police, public health and immigration officers will be able to detain people suspected of having coronavirus under new emergency powers rolled out by the government.

The new guidance would allow the officials to return people to where they have been asked to stay during the virus outbreak, believed to be in a bid to curb people leaving hospital early. They will also have the power to take people to screening and testing facilities.

The bill says: “These measures look to fill existing gaps in powers to ensure the screening and isolation of people who may be infected or contaminated with the virus and to ensure that constables can enforce health protection measures where necessary.”



How could u.s. pharma gangsters announce as early as of March 2020, they already had both drug and vaccine against "covid 19" at the ready ? It normally takes years to develop new drugs and vaccines against a new disease - no guaranteed achievement to boot.

Therefore it is mathematically certain that these same firms who are now claiming to have made drug and vaccine in 2 months, are those responsible for masterminding the "covid" hoax in the first place. They are going to sell governments snake oil bound to rot in state warehouses just like billions of anti-flu vaccines before - or worse, mandatory vax for all humanity. Some fear that, under the pretext of "covid", they are going to push a mandatory bar-code tattoo for all humanity.

What are these firms so apparently able to develop drugs and vaccines at the speed of light ?

The first one is Moderna :

Now who are the owners of Moderna ? The usual suspects - the financial usurers who control the world : first up is fund vanguard, founded by the late christonazi usurer john bogle, but these days controlled by judeonazis fink laurence and kapito robert of blackrock:

Next up is fidelity management, owned by the christonazi puritan dynasty of the johnsons, currently represented by johnson abigail ; third in line is blackrock itself, of judeonazis fink & kapito :

need I continue ? These criminals are the real spreaders !!! Of an utter hoax, that is - more proof will follow shortly.

The second lightning-speed drug maker is Gilead Sciences :

" Gilead stressed that it was boosting production [of anticovid drug remdesivir] “in anticipation of potential future needs” before knowing whether the trial would show the drug to be safe and effective at treating patients with the virus " :



As for Europe, the dominant vax player apperas to be astrazeneca, owned by the usual global fund usurers :



One of the real main purposes of this giant global hoax it is, to force us all to accept individual tracking via smartphone/apps of everybody´s every single movement and communication, under pretext of emergency legislation (unapproved by Parliaments that have been shut down)

to fight the non-existent pandemic. Plus mandatory facial recognition and sanitary treatments for all but those in power, and the rest of the orwellian panoplia - a capitalfascist´s wet dream of total control come true. And that´s just the beginning - with the same pretext, they are going to push for mandatory subcutaneous microchips for total remote control of all humanity - or even inoculate control chips into people´s bodies with mandatory vaccine shots - FIGHT BACK !!!


Here´s what biochemist David Rasnik has to say about the alleged "sars-cov-2" virus :

" The electron microscopy images of the new coronavirus I was talking about were published in the New England Journal of Medicine 2019 (attached). I accept that coronaviruses that cause the common cold exist. I am not convinced that a new coronavirus causing Covid-19 has been purified or even really exists. Given the importance of this you’d think the proof of existence would be easy to come by and be confirmed by independent labs around the world.

Zhu (2019) did TEM on cell culture supernatant (Fig. 3A), which looks very much like a coronavirus (see 100 nm reference bar, ideal for identification of the viral family, see attached file)

Fig. 3B shows particles inside a cell. This is the correct thing to do on primary lung tissue. (It’s not clear this was the case, however. See below.) They should have used the same magnification as in 3A in order to identify the particles as virus, in particular, coronavirus. Instead, they used 1µm (1000nm) reference bar.

[ My note : what Doctor Rasnick is asying here is, that these alleged pics of alleged isolated sars-cov-2 viruses look nowhere near the standard size that coronviruses are supposed to feature :

"The available viral genome sequences allowed to soon recognize the close relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV-1, the causative pathogen of the 2002–2004 outbreak, presenting with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).

Both viruses belong to the Coronaviridae family. They are characterized by a single-stranded 30 kb positive-sense RNA and enveloped spherical virions of about 160 nm. The unusual large size of their genome leaves these viruses enough space to rearrange their genes (recombination), thus donating them some genomic plasticity". Now :

southkoreans allegedly isolate virus : from the pic scale we can see that the alleged, non-purified viruses are smaller than 100 nm (pic D) - the standard corona size being 160 !!!

Same scam in the zhou paper, the original chinese fakery that triggered the whole pandemy scam :

pic 3A : the 2 purportedly isolate viruses are way smaller than 160 nm !!! And the spikes are nowhere to be seen.]

There are some things not quite clear in the paper. After close re-reading, It looks like the TEM photos, especially Fig. 3B, may not be of primary lung tissue from a patient.

On page 4 the authors say, "Virus isolation from clinical specimens was performed with airway epithelial cells and Vero E6 and Huh-7 cell lines.” This raises the question of a possible artifact, along the lines of Robert Gallo´s viral isolation of HIV. They should have first done TEM directly on primary lung tissue to establish the presence of virus. Culturing virus is fine but its presence must be confirmed by TEM of primary lung tissue.

It is essential to take great pains to accurately identify and characterize any presumed infectious agent present in people with new symptoms. That's where TEM on primary tissue samples from the person with symptoms is essential. This can be followed by culturing the suspect agent in order to purify it and performing TEM again, this time on the cultured virus. As a control, you must also perform TEM on the cultured cells that you have not treated with the suspect virus to make sure a virus had not contaminated the cells. I do not trust experiments using cancer cell lines to culture

virus. Usually, animals that are susceptible are treated with the pure virus to study and confirm its pathology.

Once all the preliminary work is done, which could take up to a year or more, simpler detection methods can be employed so long has their accuracy has been confirmed using gold standards such as TEM.

Look up Koch’s postulates. "

The chinese stated in their report that they had isolated the new virus now called sars-cov-2, termed by them 2019-nCoV, by combining (how?) 2 sequencing methods called Illumina and Nanopore, both of which are highly biased and error-prone :

" This piecemeal process allows scientists to see the complete sequence even though an unfragmented sequence was never run; however, because Illumina read lengths are not very long[11] (HiSeq sequencing can produce read lengths around 90 bp long[7]), it can be a struggle to resolve short tandem repeat areas.[7][10] Also, if the sequence is de novo and so a reference doesn't exist, repeated areas can cause a lot of difficulty in sequence assembly.[10] Additional difficulties include base substitutions (especially at the 3' end of reads[11]) by inaccurate polymerases, chimeric sequences, and PCR-bias, all of which can contribute to generating an incorrect sequence.[11] "

" Notably, theorists have shown that sequencing via exonuclease enzymes as described here is not feasible.[14] This is mainly due to diffusion related effects imposing a limit on the capture probability of each nucleotide as it is cleaved. This results in a significant probability that a nucleotide is either not captured before it diffuses into the bulk or captured out of order, and therefore is not properly sequenced by the nanopore, leading to insertion and deletion errors. Therefore, major changes are needed to this method before it can be considered a viable strategy.

The use of proteins in biological nanopore sequencing systems, despite the various benefits, also brings with it some negative characteristics. The sensitivity of the proteins in these systems to local environmental stress has a large impact on the longevity of the units, overall. One example is that a motor protein may only unzip samples with sufficient speed at a certain pH range while not operating fast enough outside of the range- this constraint impacts the functionality of the whole sequencing unit. Another example is that a transmembrane porin may only operate reliably for a certain number of runs before it breaks down. Both of these examples would have to be controlled for in the design of any viable biological nanopore system- something that may be difficult to achieve while keeping the costs of such a technology as low and as competitive, to other systems, as possible.[9]

One challenge for the 'exonuclease approach',[32] where a processive enzyme feeds individual bases, in the correct order, into the nanopore, is to integrate the exonuclease and the nanopore detection systems. In particular,[33] the problem is that when an exonuclease hydrolyzes the phosphodiester bonds between nucleotides in DNA, the subsequently released nucleotide is not necessarily guaranteed to directly move into, say, a nearby alpha-hemolysin nanopore. One idea is to attach the exonuclease to the nanopore, perhaps through biotinylation to the beta barrel hemolysin.[33] The central pore of the protein may be lined with charged residues arranged so that the positive and negative charges appear on opposite sides of the pore. However, this mechanism is primarily discriminatory and does not constitute a mechanism to guide nucleotides down some particular path. "

" Reads from second generation technologies (called short read technologies) like Illumina are typically short (with lengths of the order of 50-200 base pairs) and have error rates of around 0.5-2%, with the errors chiefly being substitution errors. However, reads from third generation technologies like PacBio and fourth generation technologies like Oxford Nanopore (called long read technologies) are longer with read lengths typically in the thousands or tens of thousands and have much higher error rates of around 10-20% with errors being chiefly insertions and deletions."

"The association between 2019-nCoV and the disease has not been verified by animal experiments to fulfil the Koch’s postulates to establish a causative relationship between a microorganism and a disease."

"No statistical methods were used to predetermine sample size. The experiments were not randomized and the investigators were not blinded to allocation during experiments and outcome assessment."

The german counterparts of these chinese swindlers are no less subservient to bill gates and big pharma, substituting swindle for real science :




" The LightCycler® 480 Instrument is

not intended for use in diagnostic procedures. " :



IT´S A TOTAL FRAUD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See for instance this ludicrous pseudoscientific report claiming to have detected sars-cov-2 in tears, by using lightcycler 480 :

"ran the PCR reaction using the Roche LightCycler® 480 (Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Mannheim, Germany). After instantaneous centrifugation for 40 cycles, the PCR was completed in about 85 minutes; thereafter, we checked the amplification curves to judge whether the results were negative or positive." !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Furthermore, 40 cycles for PCR is ludicrously too many : a strong viral load only takes a max of 30 cycles for detection - anything above that would at best signal an irrelevantly poor viral presence.

The pseudoscientists in this pseudostudy admitted to not having isolated the virus in tears, so WTF are they ranting about ??? :

" However, the virus was not successfully isolated and cultured in the conjunctival secretion of the patient." !!!!!!!!!!!!!

An italian team after this, claimed to have isolated the virus and cultured it, but without performing electron microscopy on it, so how did they know what TYPE of virus it was in those tears ?

Again they relied on PCR - unsuited for diagnostic purposes as roche manufacturer itself clearly states. Furthermore, the italians cultured the alleged virus using vero cells and not primary lung tissue from patien biopsy, so let us remind them what it is to do science in David Rasnick´s wording again :

"Virus isolation from clinical specimens was performed with airway epithelial cells and Vero E6 and Huh-7 cell lines. This raises the question of a possible artifact, along the lines of Robert Gallo´s viral isolation of HIV. They should have first done TEM directly on primary lung tissue to establish the presence of virus. Culturing virus is fine but its presence must be confirmed by TEM of primary lung tissue.

It is essential to take great pains to accurately identify and characterize any presumed infectious agent present in people with new symptoms. That's where TEM on primary tissue samples from the person with symptoms is essential. This can be followed by culturing the suspect agent in order to purify it and performing TEM again, this time on the cultured virus. As a control, you must also perform TEM on the cultured cells that you have not treated with the suspect virus to make sure a virus had not contaminated the cells. I do not trust experiments using cancer cell lines to culture

virus. Usually, animals that are susceptible are treated with the pure virus to study and confirm its pathology.

Once all the preliminary work is done, which could take up to a year or more, simpler detection methods can be employed so long has their accuracy has been confirmed using gold standards such as TEM.

Look up Koch’s postulates. "

Next we examine a southkorean report claiming to have isolated sars cov 2 and performed TEM on cells inoculated with it :

They show TEM pics purported to detect coronavirus-like morphology : but how do they know the pics are of this alleged new virus and not of another X corona ? How can we be sure what those black dots are ? And then again, the southkoreans based their diagnosis on PCR - a test unsuited for diagnostic purposes ! And they sequenced the alleged full genome of this alleged new coronavirus, by using the miseq illumina system which states in its package insert :

"Solo a uso di ricerca. Non usare in procedimenti diagnostici."

" For research purposes alone. Do not use in diagnostic procedures." !!!

" Dr. Mullis wrote, on May 7, 2013:“PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment. “

No, there is no such thing as a special test for the alleged "covid 19". Covid 19 is the official name they gave this alleged disease. The name for the virus is sars-cov-2. Now, if a virus is inside your body, it does NOT necessarily imply that you are sick. Just that you are "positive" to that particular virus. So : you might be sars-cov-2- positive, but still not have the disease covid 19 : not be sick.

Ok ? This is a very important difference, never forget it . Now : nobody has given us any solid evidence that this alleged new type of coronavirus, sars-cov-2, really exists. And there is no evidence that, IF it exists, it is the cause of the alleged disease called covid 19. What you hear from the massmedia is only lies : in the world of true science, it takes over a year to confirm the existence of a new virus, and its pathogenicity, that is to say, the fact that it does cause a new disease.

Now : there are 2 main types of tests that are believed (falsely) to detect a virus in your body : the first test is called RT-PCR, or just simply PCR ; the second test is called serological, as it analyzes the serum (a part of your blood) in search of antibodies revealing that have been exposed to a virus. Neither of these 2 tests is specific to any particular virus, though they might claim otherwise. Let me give you 2 examples from commercially available PCR tests being used these days , I shall quote from the company package inserts that come with these tests : - Abbott : "Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses...Due to the high sensitivity of the assays run on the instrument, contamination of the work area with previous positive samples may cause false positive results" ; - Accula : " Cross-reactivity with respiratory tract organisms other than those listed in the Analytical Specificity Study may lead to erroneous results…" : what they are saying is : we cannot guarantee through our test that you are positive to sars-cov-2 because our test may confuse sars-cov-2 with just about anything else, any other kind of RNA in your cells or other things !!!

It´s a hoax, it´s a swindle, it is global pharma nazism to terrorize us all into buying their useless and harmful vaccines and drugs and face masks and disinfectants that will only cause one allergies and poisonings, and accept total control of our lives, contact tracing etc., under the false pretext of a pandemic that does NOT exist.

" Dr. Mullis wrote, on May 7, 2013:“PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment. “

PCR testing for the alleged sars-cov-2 virus is fraudulent : here is evidence taken directly from genesig company´s RT-PCR package insert :

" Interpretation of results must account for the possibility of false negative and false positive results.

• False negative results may be caused by:

o Unsuitable collection, handling and/or storage of samples.

o Sample outside of viraemic phase.

o Failure to follow procedures in this handbook.

o Use of unauthorised extraction kit or PCR platform.

• False positive results may be caused by:

o Unsuitable handling of samples containing high concentration of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA or positive control template.

o Unsuitable handling of amplified product.

• All results should be interpreted by a health care professional in the context of patient medical history and clinical symptoms.

• This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other pathogens.

• A negative result for any PCR test does not conclusively rule out the possibility of infection. " :



"Detection of sequences with moderate or high similarity depends on how stringent the hybridization conditions were applied—high stringency, such as high hybridization temperature and low salt in hybridization buffers, permits only hybridization between nucleic acid sequences that are highly similar, whereas low stringency, such as lower temperature and high salt, allows hybridization when the sequences are less similar."

Now highly similar is NOT identical : and since the genome of other known coronaviruses such as especially NL63 causing some 15% of the common cold is highly similar to the alleged, artificially made up genome of this purported "sars-cov-2", a PCR test at best risks branding you positive to covid when in fact all you have is a cold or some other respiratory infection caused by other known coronas. And since stringency parametres can be set at will, the window for outright fraud here is a gaping hole !!!!!!!!


PCR is unreliable when it comes to covid testing : more evidence from the package inserts of some PCR test kits in use :

- Abbott RealTime SARS-CoV-2 : The impacts of vaccines, antiviral therapeutics, antibiotics, chemotherapeutic or immunosuppressant drugs [on the performance of this test] have not been evaluated… Due to the high sensitivity of the assays run on the instrument, contamination of the work area with previous positive samples may cause false positive results.

- Accula Test for SARS-CoV-2 : Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA may be affected by sample collection methods, patient factors (e.g., presence of symptoms), and/or stage of infection… Cross-reactivity with respiratory tract organisms other than those listed in the Analytical Specificity Study may lead to erroneous results… Analyte targets (viral nucleic acid) may persist in vivo, independent of virus viability… contamination of the work area with previous samples may cause false positive results.

Forget about PCR for covid diagnostics : it is fraud.

Ask yourselves whether or not this alleged disease exists at all to begin with.

Simply put : if they perform qPCR testing by the probe method, they can easily skew it to make you test positive to any corona other than the alleged sars-cov-2.

If they perform qPCR on you by the dye method - the most commonly used as it´s way cheaper - then they won´t be able to tell a virus from another or from any type of nonviral RNA, because dye-based qPCR is NONspecific. qPCR = quantitative PCR :

" Two common methods for the detection of PCR products in real-time PCR are (1) non-specific fluorescent dyes that intercalate with any double-stranded DNA and (2) sequence-specific DNA probes consisting of oligonucleotides that are labelled with a fluorescent reporter, which permits detection only after hybridization of the probe with its complementary sequence. " :

Briefly : PCR testing for covid is a fraud - DO NOT DO IT !!!

Next is a protocol for primer design targeting 4 genes of the alleged sars-cov-2 virus :

" the selection of primer sets for target genes (RdRP, N, E, and S) in the genome of interest (SARS-CoV-2)" :

"The first step is to select the target genes (RdRP, N, E, and S) to be detected in the genome of interest (SARS-CoV-2) and design a primer based on the target sequence of each gene."

"Step 1: target genes were selected from genomic databases, and primers were designed using Primer3" :

how do they know databases are reliable ?

"Our primer sets were designed specifically for SARS-CoV-2 so that they did not target other human coronaviruses, such as human coronavirus OC43 (HCoV-OC43), human coronavirus NL63 (HCoV-NL63), human coronavirus HKU1 (HCoV-HKU1), and human coronavirus 229E (HCoV-229E)." :

how did u achieve that, since u targeted nonspecific proteins common to all coronas ?

Now : none of those 4 genes are unique to the alleged sars cov 2 : they are common to all coronas :

RdRP (replicase-transcriptase), S protein (spike), E protein (envelope), N protein (nucleocapsid).

Do those 4 common genes to all coronas allegedly occur in different sequences or quantities for the alleged sars ? (the PCR protocol article states for instance, that E is low for sars, I suppose as opposed to other coronas´s levels).

They may be meaning the quantity of structural proteins : the following article states that S is much more present in sars cov 2 as opposed to sars cov 1 and mers - two highly conjectural viruses themselves ! And that E is in much lower expression again against the other 2 :

But the study did not perform its own analysis of live samples - again resorting to databanks.

And for the alleged sars1 and mers samples there were no human samples, only murine !!!

Therefore, the study did not even bother to check whether or not, in the real world, this alleged sars-cov-2 viral genome in the databank exist or not !!! Acting on blind faith - a mockery of science : such studies are worthless garbage.

So where is a comparison between sars2 and the 4 known coronas ?

Further : the above "study" only could compare subgenomic sgRNA - structural proteins being by implication identical.

I find nowhere, how the alleged sars2 compares to the known 4 :

1. 229E (alpha coronavirus)

2. NL63 (alpha coronavirus)

3. OC43 (beta coronavirus)

4. HKU1 (beta coronavirus)

Here is a better study, but again based on the zhou paper not on direct isolation/microscopy, detailing the alleged differences against other sarses but not the 4 - the only time it mentions one of the 4, it is to say that the second allegedly unique feature of sars cov 2 is really common with HKU1 ! :

" 2. Polybasic furin cleavage site and O-linked glycans

The second notable feature of SARS-CoV-2 is a polybasic cleavage site (RRAR) at the junction of S1 and S2, the two subunits of the spike8 (Fig. 1b). This allows effective cleavage by furin and other proteases and has a role in determining viral infectivity and host range12. In addition, a leading proline is also inserted at this site in SARS-CoV-2; thus, the inserted sequence is PRRA (Fig. 1b). The turn created by the proline is predicted to result in the addition of O-linked glycans to S673, T678 and S686, which flank the cleavage site and are unique to SARS-CoV-2 (Fig. 1b). Polybasic cleavage sites have not been observed in related ‘lineage B’ betacoronaviruses, although other human betacoronaviruses, including HKU1 (lineage A), have those sites and predicted O-linked glycans13."

Again one can see very well here, that whatever structural protein a PCR targets, it is going to be common with the 4 :

except for the presence of some different ORFs - but if your primers bind to the proteins alone, it is the same proteins in the same sequence, so how is cross reactivity avoided with certainty ?

In fact, according to the PCR package inserts collected by Crowe, it NEVER is !!!

Table 2

Percent identity of novel coronavirus SARS-CoV2 strain with different CoV strains. (Chan et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020; Gralinski and Menachery, 2020; Malik et al., 2020; Ren et al., 2020; Zaki et al., 2012; P. Zhou et al., 2020a).

S•No Viral strains Genus Percent identity

1 HCoV-229E α 65.04

2 HCoV-NL63 α 65.11

3 HCoV-HKU1 β 67.59

4 HCoV-OC43 β 68.93

Table 4

Percent identity matrix of major proteins and domains of novel coronavirus SARS-CoV2 strain with other beta-CoVs obtained using CLUSTAL O (1.2.4).


S (spike) 97.71% 32.79% 30.50% 31.26%

E (Envelope) 96.00% 36.00% 28.00% 20.00%

M (Membrane) 89.59% 39.27% 35.29% 38.74%

N (Nucleocapsid) 85.41% 48.47% 34.28% 35.20%

Receptor (ACE-2) binding domain 74.41% 18.75% 24.44% 22.83%

N-terminal domain 52.55% 21.67% 21.49% 20.26%

All of which would appear to suggest that there are indeed big genomic sequencing differences at least between sars2 and two of the 4 : but again, this is referring to a database genome of highly dubious origin (zhou). And even if all these differences were accurate, there´s enough union set to warrant for possible crossreactivity in the PCR test.

Further : why wasn´t the genomic comparison extended to cover 229E (alpha coronavirus) and NL63 (alpha coronavirus) ?

Putting it simply : if you have or have just had a common cold, and get tested, you risk being branded positive to the nonexistent "sars-cov-2" virus - with all the forced consequences that the pharmanazis in power are oppressing us with : quarantene, isolation, more intrusive and dangerous swabs, heavy drugs etc. :

" Potential consequences of false-positive COVID-19 swab test results

Individual perspective


For swab tests taken for screening purposes before elective procedures or surgeries: unnecessary treatment cancellation or postponement

For swab tests taken for screening purposes during urgent hospital admissions: potential exposure to infection following a wrong pathway in hospital settings as an in-patient


Financial losses related to self-isolation, income losses, and cancelled travel, among other factors


Psychological damage due to misdiagnosis or fear of infecting others, isolation, or stigmatisation

Global perspective


Misspent funding (often originating from taxpayers) and human resources for test and trace

Unnecessary testing

Funding replacements in the workplace

Various business losses

Epidemiological and diagnostic performance

Overestimating COVID-19 incidence and the extent of asymptomatic infection

Misleading diagnostic performance, potentially leading to mistaken purchasing or investment decisions if a new test shows high performance by identification of negative reference samples as positive (ie, is it a false positive or does the test show higher sensitivity than the other comparator tests used to establish the negativity of the test sample?)


Misdirection of policies regarding lockdowns and school closures

Increased depression and domestic violence (eg, due to lockdown, isolation, and loss of earnings after a positive test).

Technical problems including contamination during sampling (eg, a swab accidentally touches a contaminated glove or surface), contamination by PCR amplicons, contamination of reagents, sample cross-contamination, and cross-reactions with other viruses or genetic material could also be responsible for false-positive results.

These problems are not only theoretical; the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention had to withdraw testing kits in March, 2020, when they were shown to have a high rate of false-positives due to reagent contamination. "

" It is important to remember that laboratory testing verifies the analytical sensitivity and analytical specificity of the RT-PCR tests. They represent idealised testing. In a clinical or community setting there may be inefficient sampling, lab contamination, sample degradation or other sources of error that will lead to increased numbers of false positives or false negatives. The diagnostic sensitivityand diagnostic specificity of a test can only be measured in operational conditions."

" What causes false positives?

•Cross reactions with other genetic material. Other sources of DNA or RNA may have cross reactive genetic material that can be amplified by the RT-PCR test. False positives were observed unexpectedly in norovirus assays in patients with enterocolitis, due to unusually high levels of human DNA in samples

•Contamination during sampling. This may happen if the swab head accidently contacts, or is placed on a contaminated surface (e.g. latex gloves, hospital surface).

•Contamination during swab extraction. Viral RNA is extracted from swabs in solution; accidental aerosolization ofliquid can cause cross contamination between samples.

•Contamination with PCR amplicon. The PCR amplification process generates millions of copies of the DNA target (amplicon) that can cause false positives in subsequent PCR reactions. If a testing lab is accidently contaminated with amplicon it can lead to sporadic false positives.

•Contamination of PCR laboratory consumables. Contamination can spread from a post-PCR lab into a pre-PCR lab by transfer of equipment, chemicals, people or aerosol. Even experienced national labs can be affected. In early-March 2020, COVID-19 RT-PCR assays produced by the CDC were withdrawn after many showed false positives due to contaminated reagents."

" Why are false positives a problem?

DHSC figures [3] show that 100,664 tests were carried out on 31 May 2020 (Pillar 1 and 2 RT-PCR tests). 1,570 of those tests were positive for SARS-CoV-2 (1.6%). The majority of people tested on that day did not have SARS-CoV-2 (98.4% of tests are negative). When only a small proportion of people being tested have the virus, the operational false positive rate becomes very important. Clearly the false positive rate cannot exceed 1.6% on that day, and is likely to be much lower. If the operational false positive rate was 0.4%, 400 of the 1,570 positive tests would be false positives. That would represent 400 people being isolated when they are well, and much wasted effort in contact tracing. It is possible that a proportion of infections that we currently view as asymptomatic may in fact be due to these false positives.Unless we understand the operational false positive rate of the UK’s RT-PCR testing system we risk overestimating the COVID-19 incidence, the demand on track and trace, and the extent of asymptomatic infection."

" He went on to explain that in PCR tests, or polymerase chain reaction tests, used for COVID-19 diagnosis, genetic materials of the virus amplify during testing, whether it is from a live virus or just from fragments of dead virus cells that can take months to clear from recovered patients.

The PCR tests cannot distinguish whether the virus is alive or dead, he added, and this can lead to false positives."

Furthermore, before PCR, possible viral material in the sample gets inactivated by using buffer solutions for biosafety´s sake - therefore, at he end of the test, how can we be certain that whatever virus was amplified, had been active and thus infective to begin with ?

"A test needs to be tested against a gold standard. In case of an infectious disease, the gold standard remains the demonstration of the microorganism (bacteria, virus or parasite as the case may be).

In case of RT PCR for COVID-19 the virus has so far not been demonstrated. How have we then relied so heavily on a test that has no validation of its reliability?

Over a century ago Robert Koch postulated that in a microbial infection the microbe must be present in every case of the disease. Microbe must be isolated from the patient with the disease and grown in pure culture. The specific disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the microbe is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host.

With certain modifications these postulates have been the basis of defining a microbial disease and have so far withstood the test of time. In the present pandemic, with half a million deaths over six months, the disease is yet to pass muster."

" While that all sounds very convincing, in reality, primers designed to detect viruses often share significant amounts of homology with the human genome – sometimes resulting in false-positive amplification. Even when the homology is far from 100%, primers may still amplify an unintended target as shown below. This most likely reflects the co-evolution of many viruses with humans during which time they have “captured” bits of our genome and “deposited” bits of their own genome.

Mispriming occurs because of poorly optimised conditions or because we haven’t checked whether our sequence will inadvertently bind to an entirely different target entity e.g. a region of the human genome instead of the intended virus genome. Sometimes it just happens.

Mispriming can usually be avoided by more intensive comparison of the primer’s sequence against the GenBank database using the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) at NCBI. Of course, a BLAST comparison will only find matches among those sequences housed in the database. When it comes to PCR where a single nucleotide mismatch can cause amplification to fail, or at least perform with reduced efficiency, BLAST’ing primers can lead to a feeling of very false security.

In some instances, the homology of the PCR primers to their template may indicate a perfect match simply because viral variants have not yet been sequenced and submitted. Also, because there may be many undiscovered viruses and unsequenced non-viral genomes in the world, obviously none of which are represented on GenBank, a specific match, or a “no match”, does not mean that you have exhausted your search for homologues. Take it all with a grain of salt. Designing two pairs of primers around the target region is a good place to start. This helps address the unexpected.

Some early RT-rPCR tests were designed intentionally to allow for sequence variation just in case the virus did a lot of changing early on (it didn’t). "


Ask yourselves the following questions :

- does the alleged sars-cov-2 virus really exist ?

- if so, what precisely is the scientific evidence for its existence ?

- since primers and probes used in PCR covid-testing are based on databank sequences, are test results dependent on whether or not those databank sequences for sars cov 2 are real and truthful, or wrong or fake ?

- why hasn´t anyone so far, control-tested a sample declared positive to "covid", for all of the 4 coronaviruses known to cause 15% of common colds and other respiratory diseases - only way to ascertain possible crossreactivity ?

- and : what if a sample, deemed positive to sars-cov-2, had contained other virus types as well ? How to ascertain, which of the virus types in a given sample is the pathogen for the symptomatic person sampled ?

" Ideally, cross-reactivity should be tested on RNA derived from patient samples. To be deemed adequately specific, the test should not read positive for any virus other than SARS-CoV-2."

Ideally ??? Why don´t you ever do it !!!!!!!!!!!

Not even official authorities dare to claim certainty about the sequencing of this alleged new virus, and thus of the primers and probes based thereupon :

" *****DISCLAIMER******

These sequences are intended to be used for the purposes of respiratory virus surveillance and research. The recipient agrees to use them in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Every effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the sequences, but CDC cannot provide any warranty regarding their accuracy. The recipient can acknowledge the source of sequences in any oral presentations or written publications concerning the research project by referring to the Division of Viral Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Note: Oligonucleotide sequences are subject to future changes as the 2019-Novel Coronavirus evolves. " :

Also notice how authorities do NOT recommend their sequences for diagnostics !!!

Given the probability of false positive results due to, for instance :

- primer dimers

- mispriming

- cross reactivity

- sample contamination

- compresence of undetected other virus types in the sample

- cycles >30

- detection of dead/inactive viral material

- low hybridization stringency,

how can any PCR-based "covid" diagnosis possibly be reliable /certain ?

Even IF the virus really existed, the false-positive rate of the tests is so enormous as to render testing useless and criminally damaging for millions !!!

Here´s another foremost example of the test fraud, quoted from the company´s warnings

themselves :

" Disclaimers:

This assay is for Research Use Only (RUO) and has not been tested on clinical samples. We make no claims on the performance of this assay.

This assay’s design is impacted by the accuracy of the publically SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence.

This assay’s performance is impacted by a range of uncontrolled and un-tested factors such as sample quality, various sample extraction methods, and data analysis variation.

This assay may have cross-reactivity with other coronavirus family members such as causative agents of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).

Stability tests and data are not available at this moment due to the emergency and time limits. We can not guarantee the accuracy of the shelf life, storage conditions, efficiency, etc. "

" However, primers do not need to correspond to the template strand completely; it is essential, however, that the 3’ end of the primer corresponds completely to the template DNA strand so elongation can proceed ":

implying that is the 3´end joined to the template DNA strand, is the same sequence in every corona for any given target gene of choice, your amplicon will easily end up crossreactive !!!

" When designing, if unsure about what nucleotide to put at a certain position within the primer, one can include more than one nucleotide at that position termed a mixed site. One can also use a nucleotide-based molecular insert (inosine) instead of a regular nucleotide for broader pairing capabilities." : no comment !!! That makes it a joke for primer designers to skew their allegedly specific "sars-cov-2" primers into degenerate ones that will bind to any type of corona-like (or even any other) DNA they find !!!

Let us now process the following mainstream pseudoscientific link, meant to prove us that the alleged sars-cov-2 virus has indeed been purified and photographed, and thus exists :


Antibody tests for the alleged virus sars-cov-2 and the relative alleged disease covid 19 are a fraud : what they do is, they produce a synthetic protein in their labs, called S protein because it is allegedly present in the spike of the sars-cov-2 coronavirus : this artificial protein is produced in the lab, according to formulas from genebanks which have never been independently and scientifically verified. So they then proceed to coat their test grid with this S protein, and expose it to serum or plasma : if there are antibodies, for whatever reason, in your serum or plasma, they will attack this S-protein, because the S-protein enters our cells by attaching itself to a substance called ACE2 receptor. So if we develop antibodies that attack these infected cells where the S protein has entered thru this door called ACE2, they´ll say that we are positive to covid 19 - to the alleged disease covid 19. That´s a a lie : because there are other types of known coronaviruses causing for instance some 15% or so of the common cold : and these common coronas, such as NL63, that have been around forever, also feature the S-protein in their spikes, and also use the ACE2 receptor in our cells to enter them.

Therefore if you turn out to be positive to these fraudulent tests, it does NOT imply that you have or have had the alleged disease called covid 19 : you might have responded with antibodies that targeted S-1 because when you have had a cold, that´s what you do. In other words : antibody testing is a fraud, it´s totally artificial, it´s meant to stigmatize as many humans as possible and force them into treatment that is more harmful than what they might really have - often, a common cold. DO NOT GO FOR THESE TESTS, REFUSE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THESE FRAUDULENT, CRIMINAL ANTIBODY TESTING FOR AN ALLEGED VIRUS/DISEASE THAT HAS NOT EVEN BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Even big pharma fraudsters such as the hoffman-family´s roche company, warn us that their sars-cov-2-antibody test is totally unreliable :

" False positive results for the Elecsys Anti‑SARS‑CoV‑2 assay may occur

due to cross reactivity from pre-existing antibodies or other possible

causes " :

"In general, the more common side effects caused by monoclonal antibody drugs include:

Allergic reactions, such as hives or itching.

Flu-like signs and symptoms, including chills, fatigue, fever, and muscle aches and pains.

Nausea, vomiting.


Skin rashes.

Low blood pressure."

Plus worse, potentially lethal ones such as anaphylactic shock :

"However, the immune response to certain antigens may be inadequate, especially in the elderly. Additionally, adverse reactions from these antibodies may occur because of long-lasting response to antigens.[6] Passive monoclonal antibody therapy can ensure consistent antibody concentration, and can control for adverse reactions by stopping administration. However, the repeated administration and consequent higher cost for this therapy are major disadvantages.[6]"

" Major problems associated with murine antibodies included reduced stimulation of cytotoxicity and the formation complexes after repeated administration, which resulted in mild allergic reactions and sometimes anaphylactic shock.[12]

These antibodies suggested as therapy are not natural, they are synthesized in the lab, by mixing human, animal and synthetic sections ; and bear in mind that the spike protein of the new alleged coronavirus sars-cov-2 that these pharma usurers are experimenting with, is also lab-made and not extracted from infected samples ! Lab-made according to a formula registered by the chinese into genebank, a global genomic database, that nobody has verified conclusively so far in the real world.

Mainstream media parrots are making a big deal about new tests targeting specific antibodies, that is sars-cov-2-antigen-specific antibodies : aside from the danger of cross-reactivity, generally speaking, is each antibody specific and unique for each antigen ? Does each virus type produce specific and unique antigens ?

Here´s what doctor David Rasnick said about these proliferating antiboy tests :

" Each virus produces antigens common to the family of viruses, and antigens common to the strain of virus. Viruses (especially RNA viruses) produce different antigens every time they replicate.

Your body produces about one trillion B-cells producing a trillion different antibodies. The trillion different antibodies attach to a protein antigen (most antigens are proteins) strongly (highly specific), moderately or slightly (non-specifically), and the overwhelming majority not at all. The range of these antibodies are called polyclonal antibodies.

Truly specific antigen-antibody reactions exist only in the laboratory—the so-called mono-clonal antibodies. "

Is there a danger there, that these serological tests would detect antibodies to antigens from common coronaviruses, and this might be sold for sars-cov-2 positivity ?

"The antibody tests always show a range of binding between viral test antigens and a person’s polyclonal antibodies. As with the HIV antibody tests, there is an arbitrary cut-off point of antibody-antigen reaction intensity, above the point is positive and below is negative.

There are over 80 documented ways a person who has never been exposed to HIV can have a positive result on the HIV antibody tests. This is true for any virus."

Antibody testing is fraud : from the package insert of one of these bogus test kits : " Results from antibody testing should not be used as the sole basis to diagnose or exclude SARS-CoV-2 infection or to inform infection status. Positive results may be due to past or present infection with non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus strains, such as coronavirus HKU1, NL63, OC43, or 229E." : you´ll test positive even if you have a common cold ! and they will kill you with heavy treatment, quarantine etc.

DO NOT GO FOR IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Antibody testing is unreliable, total fraud - this according to the WHO itself :

" Antibody detection tests targeting COVID-19 may also cross-react with other pathogens, including other human coronaviruses.

Based on current data, WHO does not recommend the use of antibody-detecting rapid diagnostic tests for patient care " :

Antibody tests for this alleged sars-cov-2 virus whose very existence and pathogenicity nobody has proven so far, are a fraud : the alleged spike protein that is supposed to detect antibody response

and thus confirm covid diagnoses is NOT a real protein extracted from live samples of patients : it is a synthetic lab product, made according to a genome formula that was completely made up arbitrarily. So assuming that antibody response to this synthetic lab spike protein, is elicited in the serum or plasma sample, it does NOT mean a patient was infected with any real virus at all - just that his finger prick or serum etc., reacted to an artificial protein thrown into the sample by the tester, not to an alleged virus that does NOT repeat NOT even provably exist :

" Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)

We used a novel ELISA. Recombinant SARS-CoV-2 trimeric spike protein was constructed,

tagged and purified. Immunoplates coated with StrepMAB-Classic were used to capture

tagged soluble trimeric SARS-CoV-2 trimeric S protein and then incubated with test plasma.

Antibody binding to the S protein was detected with ALP-conjugated anti-human IgG or antihuman

IgM." :

Notice how none of this crap has been peer-reviewed - and it never will, for it is absurd and a mockery of science.

(artificial construction of S-protein from databank genome)

(fan wu march 2020)

(alleged genomic structure of sars-cov-2 on genebank)

(NL63 uses S-protein and ACE2 receptor to enter cells. Just like the sars cov corona and the alleged sars cov 2, and is associated with kawasaki as they are now saying of sars cov 2...)

THERE IS NO SARS-COV-2 virus no covid disease no pandemic it´s all a pharmanazi hoax for profit :

(this video has been suppressed by youtube´s fascist censors : it´s a song against bill gates)

(google function on everybody´s smartphones : " notice of exposure to covid" : so if you don´t download their fucking tracing apps, they´ll trace you and control you and blackmail you anyway, under permanent threat of quarantine, isolation, lockdown, forced sanitary treatment, psychiatric ward if you resist etc. : THROW AWAY YOUR SMARTPHONE NOW !!! )

(compulsory "covid"-test swab for all patients awaiting surgery : forced sanitary treatment : auschwitz : all of which, over an alleged disease that DOES NOTEXIST !!

Bill gates and his lackeys the world over are trying to use this false pretext to turn us all into their transhumanistic robotic slaves :



David Crowe, the foremost opinion leader in the fight against the con-vid hoax, has died of cancer reportedly, on July 12, 2020 :

I am struck and deeply affected by his sudden demise. It reminds me of the sudden death of Nobel-prize winner biochemist Kary Mullis, inventor of PCR - against the use of which for diagnostics he strongly warned. He died on August 7, 2019, reportedly of pneumonia. Very convenient timing

for the pharmanazis - a mere few months before their global corona hoax would be launched.

A valiant 911-hoax researcher, Gerald Holmgren suddenly died of cancer back in 2010. He was only 51 or so. David Crowe was 63.

Another early death of a freedom fighter was that of Scott Loughrey, 911-hoax pioneer, some years back, also at 50 or so.

I´ll just ask the Q : is regime terror causing cancer somehow, in these more visible freedom

fighters ?

Geoffrey Callaghan on youtube, october 20, 2020 :

If the Test works - Why the False positives? If the Masks work - Why the Six Feet? If the Six Feet work - Why the Masks? If all Three work - Why the Lockdown? If all Four work - Why the vaccine? If the Vaccine is Safe - Why the No Liability Clause? If SARS-CoV-2 exists - Why has it not been isolated?

October 24, 2020


Report this post as:

© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy