I invite you to check out another great piece by science researcher Mike Stone debunking the manifestly bogus methodology underwriting the pseudoscience of virology.
There is nothing natural nor ethical about the methods used during this human challenge trial. The creation of the GMP goop is not purified/isolated “virus.” The intranasal inoculation of the lab concoction is not a natural mode of infection. The controlled environment does not reflect real world settings. The various tests used to collect the data have never been validated and calibrated against the gold standard and are highly faulty as well as inaccurate. The trial consisted of a small sample size with no controls performed. The researchers admitted that uncertainty remained in directly extrapolating their data to the community. There is no reason to conclude that the “novel” information gathered from this trial can tell us anything about a “virus” at all unless the researchers are using the term to describe their long-winded science fiction.
Recently, a study came out purporting to be the very first successful human challenge trial of the “SARS-COV-2” pandemic or of any other pandemic for that matter. It is claimed that this study was able to use “wild-type virus” in order to infect healthy volunteers and study the early dynamics of “SARS-COV-2” infection. The authors claimed that they were able to uncover “novel” insights using this method. Of course, those who believe in the “SARS-COV-2” fairy tale have turned to this study as definitive proof that the agent identified as “SARS-COV-2” can cause illness in humans. However, does the creation of mild symptoms in half of the participants “infected” intranasally with toxic cell cultured goo actually prove the assumed-to-be-present-within-the-mix “SARS-COV-2” is pathogenic? Does this experimental set-up reflect nature or reality in any way? Can the results obtained from an admittedly small sample size within a highly controlled environment be extrapolated…
View original post 10,531 more words