Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Kevin W. McCairn PhD Profile picture
Kevin W. McCairn PhD
@KevinMcCairnPhD
Fighting the technocrats in the digital trenches. Say no to gene transfection. From Trash Kek Smiles https://t.co/IZQgnPBf2R
Jun 21 • 4 tweets • 3 min read
While everyone’s busy with Father’s Day, X is on a massive suspension roll. Somehow all on purely science-based topics.
@Jikkyleaks Image
Image
Image
Image Additional suspensions. They were literally censoring science which they don’t like.

Appeal @AlmanaLepiz2252 Image
Image
Image
Jan 5, 2025 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
x.com/daoyu15/status…
Of course. “TBD” for a year and a half despite already had all the experimental material requirements from the sourcing genome to the testing set-ups, and have already completed the majority of the tests a year and half before, is indicative of an inconvenient negative result that needs hiding and guarantee the next publication to be deepfake.
May 8, 2024 • 7 tweets • 6 min read
“Next Generation bioweapons: Genetic engineering and BW”

非典非自然起源和人制人新种病毒基因武器-1 scribd.com/document/50951…



Image
Image
Image
Image


Image
Image
Image
Image
May 7, 2024 • 12 tweets • 46 min read

In fact, SARS-CoV-2 is so well adapted to humans from the beginning that PO authors universally agree with it being pre-adapted,
And that the market had far too low a density of animals to drive the necessary selection. Image
Image x.com/daoyu15/status…

x.com/daoyu15/status…
Different public and private opinions.

x.com/daoyu15/status…
Infighting Holmes

x.com/tylerastepke/s…
Insincere KGA

x.com/daoyu15/status…
KGA admit that making an RGS is very easy.

x.com/rebecca2195165…

x.com/rebecca2195165…

x.com/rebecca2195165…

Ghostwriting
x.com/rebecca2195165…

x.com/daoyu15/status…
Political motivation in PO

x.com/daoyu15/status…
Open KGA/ECH fight

x.com/daoyu15/status…
Unfortunately, none of the 3 PO arguments hold.

x.com/biorealism/sta…

x.com/daoyu15/status…

x.com/bryce_nickels/…
To avoid a “shitshow” and further investigation

x.com/rebecca2195165…
PR campaign to counter opinion of others as opposed to doing any kind of “hard science”.

x.com/bryce_nickels/…
Willfully suppressing messages by Fouchier.

x.com/r_h_ebright/st…
#retractproximalorigins

x.com/gdemaneuf/stat…
More infighting holmes.

x.com/daoyu15/status…
All of PO’s talking point for “unlikely” are “indeterminate” internally to the PO authors.

x.com/daoyu15/status…
Polybasic cleavage sites are special and don’t form by infections alone.

x.com/ydeigin/status…
And there are no inserts in RmYN02.

x.com/daoyu15/status…
All 3 PO arguments have been debunked.

x.com/daoyu15/status…
Even the authors themselves do not believe their arguments point strongly toward anything

x.com/biorealism/sta…
“Far too few animals”

x.com/daoyu15/status…
Immediately rolling back their argument after publishing PO.

x.com/daoyu15/status…
“Pressure from on is high” and “causes more formal investigation”

x.com/johnjohnstoned…
“To acquire a burner phone”—Jeremy Farrar
Apr 24, 2024 • 10 tweets • 9 min read


During the construction of full-length genomes by DEFUSE, the actual methodology is “consensus sequence construction”—e.g. they gather multiple sequences, usually a pool of reads, and then during the construction process, reads (and SNVs) are selected based on whether it can generate the correct site for the cloning process, in addition to the usual consensus generation process, where “unique mutations” from batches of QS are specifically singled out, and, if judged to be driven by a likely sequencing error, removed. The introduction of random designed single nucleotide changes to introduce the necessary site would effectively undo the intended utility of consensus construction, where “sufficiently supported” reads from multiple genomes or multiple reads in SRA (note the “Yunnan bats” libraries were constructed and sequenced in mid 2019) are assembled with the constraint of generating an readily clonable genome, and which one to several alternative test sequences (generate and evaluate until 3-5 viable sequences are obtained each year) are evaluated per pool of genomes and reads utilized.
This consensus construction process is constrained by the need to generate a pattern that is easy to clone, and to prevent introducing additional “sequencing errors”, the specific sites are always picked from existing sequences e.g. those that are used in the construction of the consensus. If you just pick a random mutation there is a major risk that (especially in the ORF1ab) the RNA structure is broken and the result is not viable, which is in fact one of the reasons why they want to clone consensus sequences out of sample databases and Short read sequencing data in the full-length QS validation tests, in the first place.gab.com/Flavinkins/pos…
gab.com/Flavinkins/pos…Image
Image
Image
Image Also, if they “don’t leave the sites in”, then they would not have said that they will “link by unique restriction endonuclease sites that do not disturb the coding sequence” because cutting the sites out mean there won’t be a concern to not disturb the coding sequence. You can only disturb the coding sequences and only need to ensure the introduction of only “sites that do not disturb the coding sequences” if you leave the sites in. As they are planning on using several Spike variations per each backbone, leaving the sites in are necessary to make sure that they can then swap the fragments (Spike included) out later. journals.plos.org/plosntds/artic…
Apr 22, 2024 • 21 tweets • 46 min read


When they begun an official censorship campaign on all and anything on the “Wuhan P4 lab”, @AP you know that they are acting out a pre-scripted cover-up effort, and was not “genuingly clueless”. Especially when the expected precaution in response to an ongoing outbreak, such as washing hands, was also intentionally avoided.

The entirety of the “they covered up the market” theory can also be interpreted as that they don’t want to let the NEGATIVE animal samples from being known. They need to shroud it in mystery, or the absence of any secondary spillovers in any other markets in China , when SARS1 have already did 7 times over the same month and a half of no actions , would be confirmed in the total absence of any positive animal swabs at the market.

China, as in the national level, performed sampling of the entirety of the wildlife supply chain toward the market and have officially insisted that “it came from illegal wildlife sold at the Huanan market” up to May 2020. They even tried to blame pangolins, among the others. All the sampling results are negative, and which are in fact leaked even during this period of “you can blame only the animals”.

And once again, a lower down that was tasked to eliminate potential negative evidence by the higher up, but only told to eliminate “potential evidence” in general, can easily come up with conspiracy theories about “they are tasking to eliminate positive evidence”;

When in fact, The fear that a thorough investigation would turn up confirming all animals being negative and that their labs would become blamed immediately, being the the real cause, is evident in both the absence of spillovers anywhere alongside or in any other destinations of the wildlife supply chain, and the leaked preliminary sampling efforts among these supply chains that returned no positivity at all,
Despite at the time when “wild animals illegally traded at the Huanan market” and then “wild animals” was the only permitted origin theory on all official outlets in China (up to May 2020).








And of course, they also attempted to blame it on a smuggled animal, or frozen food, as the negativity of all wildlife sampling (which is already known in Jan-Feb 2020 with the data leaks on failing to get positive results even in the upstream supply farms of the market) in China is confirmed by total absence of secondary outbreaks or secondary spillovers in China when raccoon dogs have already been made livestock and wildlife trade being still alive and well online.
Their evident tampering of the early cases databases
And their blatant and statistically unsound lies over the serology of all the cases before the market outbreak (which none are linked to any wildlife markets at all)

Confirmed that their agenda is to push the outbreak onto the market nomatter what source they have to blame on, even if they have to disclose the negativity of tests as leaked before, they need to find an explanation as “frozen food or smuggled animal”.
archive.md/iw1Pz
archive.md/4rVph


Apr 21, 2024 • 17 tweets • 37 min read

These “infographics” are lies.


gab.com/Flavinkins/pos…
gab.com/Flavinkins/pos…
gab.com/Flavinkins/pos…
Not infecting other markets in China or Hubei certainly is a rule-in for an total absence of infected animals in China.



They moved the first case they ever admitted from right next to the WIV BSL-4 to near the market.



And they tampered with up to one third of all earliest cases to create a false cluster around the market.
the “early cases data” is the most tampered with data in the world.

The only data point in the entire WHO dataset which have media coverage that allow independent verification, and it was tampered with.


The absence of animal infections were actually all 2020-2021 results from China, before “cover up”. Again, lock-down of transportation between cities and rural areas which continued today is a highly effective way to stop potential spillover to animals. In the period which they sampled for origin tracing, the lockdowns worked sufficiently well that all potential pre-pandemic infections of animals have been ruled out.



Again, all of that happened outside China and without effective lockdowns to the rural areas, and all species were not native to China, none were farmed in Southern China. Very different from finding positive farms in China as in SARS-CoV-1.



In fact upon closer examination the entirety of the market samples are caused by contamination induced by the samplers. @BioSRP @CharlesRixey Every single positive sample is found where the samplers either likely kick with their boots (yes that included every single positive sample in that “stall”) or more rarely, in places which the samplers can’t maintain steady hands with the sample tubes and rubbed them onto their suits—the reason why they are PCR-/NGS+ is that the swab itself is clean and negative, but the sample tubes are contaminated on the lip and against each other during transport and storage, meaning that the medium used for the NGS had reads dropped inside. NGS is far more contamination-prone than PCR.



Exactly 0 raccoon dogs have been found infected by SARS-CoV-2 in nature, anywhere in the world. This fact alone dissolved the market completely. Yes. Raccoon dogs are farmed entirely in Northern China which are completely isolated from any bats with a close relative.

Despite surveillance in Europe and Japan, there were zero evidence of natural infections in a raccoon dog anywhere in the world. All upstream suppliers are traced and were negative.


Response against Quillette:

@ydeigin

@ydeigin

Golden triangle

Grant cycle

And this is what that is actually seen once the “genetic data from the market” was released.

Despite Explicit blame on wildlife trade in that period, no animals were found infected in their search.

“Ground glass opacities and anosmia together prior to a COVID outbreak are pretty darn suggestible of COVID, however, Avril Haines can say that you might get GGOs from CMV pneumonia, and anosmia from seasonal allergies”

Even experts say that more than one markets in more than one cities should be infected if animals were.


archive.md/5sdkR
archive.md/1pcCU
archive.md/N0hib
archive.md/VXtu9
archive.is/Kyr1z




archive.md/DChUL
archive.md/4rVph
archive.md/yyX0Z
archive.md/iw1Pz









Apr 17, 2024 • 37 tweets • 40 min read
x.com/vigilantfox/st…
Fauci lied under oath “not funding gain of function (GOF) research”
x.com/charlesrixey/s…
Email:
x.com/texaslindsay_/…
GOF under another name:
x.com/s_q_e_r_l/stat…
Even under their own standards for published results.
x.com/r_h_ebright/st…
Fauci directly offshore GOF.
x.com/hansmahncke/st…

x.com/r_h_ebright/st…
x.com/schwinn3/statu…
Another discrepancy between public propaganda plans and private concerns.
x.com/covidselect/st…

Flip-flop with masks is the least of his worries.
x.com/covidselect/st…
See replies for his past lies.
x.com/covidselect/st…

More about Fauci:
x.com/covidselect/st…

“Fauci's legacy is as honorable as this NIAID report he was obligated to release under a FOIA lawsuit is “packed with information”...”
x.com/williewwilliam…
Fauci lied, people died.
x.com/covidselect/st…
FOIA stuff:
x.com/thackerpd/stat…
WHY holmes is immune to practically everything? x.com/nataliegwinter…
Now: BREAKING: A US official was told by a Director from Fauci’s NIAID to “delete” sections from a government report showing Chinese Communist Party scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were working on “reverse engineering” viruses with 50% mortality rates.

x.com/nuomt/status/1…
Still, ben HU lied.
x.com/daoyu15/status…
Apr 12, 2024 • 21 tweets • 49 min read

In stead of “covering up zoonosis”, the actual way they manipulated “data” seeks to generate zoonosis evidence, except that they generated just as much if not more artifacts when doing so in their samples, and ended up completely destroying the credibility of all their samples, especially those uploaded after 26/03/2023.


The inconsistency in A20 and B5 for sample selection, sequencing date and the inconsistency in the fraction of mammalian host between the metagenomic and amplicon samples for A20,

alongside the inconsistency between 2021 and 2023 versions of the 3 primary politically significant samples, indisputably incriminated China for fabrication and tampering of the already custody-free and impossible-to-be-untampered-with @WashburneAlex @DrLiMengYAN1 China “Huanan market environmental samples” data.




Samples that changes between 2021 and 2023, data that have different structures from 03/03/2023 to 26/03/2023. Incorrect species of badgers in Q61, more virus (which also mean more humans) in Q*, less total contigs left? Remember There is no custody in Chinese data.



Just ask: why there are two alignment counts in 2021 and 2023 publications? If some of the SRAs have been tampered with, how can we be certain that not all of them were being tampered with? Viral amplicon sequencing don’t change the ratio of mammalian host reads within a dataset. With this ratio changed between the lineage reads-free metagenomic and the lineage A “viral amplicons” datasets, with clearly more residual human mitochondrial reads present, this is obviously an act of intentional data tampering—when a demand for “lineage A in the market” was sent.


Some of the samples like Q61, with entirely wrong species of badgers, or B5, which was intentionally kept the same between 2021 and 2023 so the “resequencing” argument can’t be made, as well as the host fraction changes left inside A20, could be attempts at whistleblowing the massive tampering with the “Huanan market samples” dataset.


With exactly zero custody record at all on these extremely politically significant, Inconsistency-ridden “data”,

it becomes impossible to verify any of the “datasets”’ authenticity or originality, and it is more likely than not that every single piece of this “dataset” have been adulterated in-vitro or in-silico.


Some of this included the intentional removal of human contigs that are not a part of a known viral genome from the Q* samples,

resulting in the collateral breakup of mammalian contigs and the curious inverse correlation between the product of viral and residual Homo Sapiens mitochondrial reads and the total number of mammalian contigs above 300nt in size within these samples.


Or the dropping of impossible European badgers into sample Q61.


In fact, all pro-zoonosis datasets from China have been tampered with.


Tamper with data, and you get caught.


And all of the “data” you post loses all credibility.





web.archive.org/web/2023051919…
web.archive.org/web/2023060707…
archive.md/0aHWr
archive.md/B0xlW
archive.md/bK5mh
archive.is/QWngz





archive.md/0aHWr
archive.md/Myt4u
archive.md/52DyQ
archive.md/B0xlW

archive.md/bK5mh






The way they adulterated the post-26-03/2023 datasets is also one of the reason why the jbloom et al datasets gets humans as higher ranked in the alignments in the positive samples compared to all samples in both all and Jan 12—They do it by dropping random human reads into the “negative samples”, all uploaded after 26/03/2023, resulting in an reduction of spread and correlatedness with humans for all samples compred positive samples only.
In fact, all 3 samples that are different between 2021 and 2023 are also samples that have additional datasets uploaded in 26/03/2023 after an 03-10/03/2023 upload. Sample A20 have distinct host composition between the 03-10/03/2023 (without lineage reads) and 26/03/2023 upload, which is not expected from “viral amplicon sequencing” (with lineage A reads) which does not perturb the host reads if genuinely from the same sample.


This is also why the mutual information between SARS-CoV-2 and any species at all, especially all land-dwelling species, are completely destroyed upon inclusion of the 26/03/2023 upload date. These are the species that they seek to scramble reads in order to remove the correlational edge of Homo Sapiens that have remained despite their attempt at filtering their previous “data”.
Apr 5, 2024 • 248 tweets • >60 min read


"Former Acting Assistant Secretary of State Thomas DiNanno tells [Sky News]…that when his team unearthed explosive evidence that pointed to a laboratory leak…, the intelligence community ran interference in support of a natural origin narrative."
















































































































































Details on the DOE Z division.
Also, debunking Angie Rasmussen and ilk there again.































Also

None of their “data” are credible in any way.

















Apr 3, 2024 • 10 tweets • 36 min read

CAS “pathogen host adaptation and immune intervention” is one of such major grants that they continued DEFUSE on.








Image
Image
Image
Image

Politically significant data are state secrets in China. There is no probability that they would remain untampered when released by China.

Lies and cover-up of China proves intent of creating and releasing SARS-CoV-2.
A20, B5, Q61, inconsistency and inconsistency in the China “Huanan market” data and anomalies in data release times indicate significant tampering of these politically significant “data”

It is authoritarian takeover. The CCP and the WEF are both responsible for releasing and then covering up the origin for SARS-CoV-2. All of the “Huanan market” data cases or environmental samples have been tampered with.

Catastrophic data inconsistency and anomalies in outbreak response by China clearly indicate intent in deliberate creation and intentional release of SARS-CoV-2. None of their “data” are trustable in any way.

There in fact is an intent to fabricate data.


The inconsistencies upon inconsistencies and problems upon problems of Chinese “data”.


Tamper with data, and you get caught. And all of the “data” you post loses all credibility.


In fact, all pro-zoonosis datasets from China have been tampered with.




The key problems here is simply that absence proper versioning or custody of “data” they put up, on GISAID or in the WHO report, there is no credibility at all in any piece of “data” China made. @DrLiMengYAN1


A20, B5, Q61, inconsistency and inconsistency in the China “Huanan market” data and anomalies in data release times indicate significant tampering of these politically significant “data”.
web.archive.org/web/2023110113…
archive.md/UODyy
archive.md/kJDII
archive.md/g2L31
archive.md/Z72Mb
web.archive.org/web/2023102417…
web.archive.org/web/2023102909…
archive.md/luOy6
archive.md/ryr5p
resee.it/tweet/17148517…
archive.md/2mQwP
archive.md/VYCRK
web.archive.org/web/2023102417…
archive.md/79xvI
archive.md/bUVYp
archive.md/26Y3G




archive.md/0aHWr
archive.md/Myt4u
archive.md/52DyQ
archive.md/B0xlW
web.archive.org/web/2023110113…
archive.md/kJDII
archive.md/UODyy
archive.md/g2L31
archive.md/Z72Mb
archive.md/AjLkp
archive.md/luOy6
archive.md/ryr5pImage
Image
Image
Image
Mar 31, 2024 • 62 tweets • 105 min read
x.com/angoffinet/sta…
Note: the only sampling that was stopped on the bats and their caves are the Mojiang mineshaft.

Also: Jiufeng zoo and hubei wildlife rescue center (collaborator of the WIV).
gab.com/Flavinkins/pos…

x.com/daoyu15/status…
They operate an entire farm in Yunnan to conduct breeding studies and supply experimental animals for the Jiufeng center and the WIV too. Guess why they need to enact that law specifically preventing used experimental animals from entering the marketplace?

x.com/daoyu15/status…
Own goal, Michael standaert!
x.com/rebecca2195165…
DEFUSE funding happened.

x.com/daoyu15/status…
Guess why gloves and animal cages are there in DEFUSE.
x.com/daoyu15/status…

x.com/daoyu15/status…
The non-transparency on animals—serves only to cover up their real animal work locations.
x.com/daoyu15/status…

gab.com/Flavinkins/pos…
With PRC u watch what they do, NOT saw

Feb 2020 PRC wrote new laws to enforce biosecurity in laboratories doing dangerous research.

It's only mention of wet markets?

"It is forbidden to introduce animals used in experimentation into the marketplace."
chinalawtranslate.com/en/biosecurity…
gab.com/Flavinkins/pos…

x.com/rebecca2195165…

x.com/daoyu15/status…
The program for bat CoV work is performed in the WIV for culture and the WHU for animals, both of which stores the backups and archives of their strains and cultures in the WCDC.

x.com/daoyu15/status…
The WCDC is the “保藏机构” for all pathogen samples in Wuhan.

Nearly all of the animal work is done in the WHU for “pathogen host adaptation and immune intervention”. It interact directly with the Huanan market in this work.

x.com/daoyu15/status…
The Hubei wild animal rescue research and development center, a long time collaborator and the secondary animal sample preprocessing/logistic site for the WIV, operates both the Jiufeng forest zoo in Hubei (closed to all foreigners even after the end of lockdown in Wuhan) and an entire farm in Yunnan to conduct breeding studies and supply experimental animals for the Hubei Jiufeng center and the WIV. (Yes. The operator himself is said to specialize on mink and ducks—where I see ducks elsewhere before?) Guess why they enacted that law specifically preventing used experimental animals from entering the marketplace?

x.com/daoyu15/status…
x.com/franciscodeasi…
Just like the mojiang test site, foreign investigation of or sampling near these facilities are strict forbidden.

x.com/daoyu15/status…

x.com/daoyu15/status…
Congratulations on your own goal, michael standaert.

x.com/daoyu15/status…
x.com/daoyu15/status…
x.com/daoyu15/status…
x.com/daoyu15/status…

So unfortunate. The WHU in fact does half of the batCoV animal work in Wuhan.
x.com/daoyu15/status…
x.com/daoyu15/status…
x.com/daoyu15/status…

x.com/daoyu15/status…
The only kind of bat cave which China hide from foreign access is the Mojiang mineshaft facility itself. 
x.com/daoyu15/status…
Just like the only wildlife farm/facility which no investigation happened at all in China is the Hubei wildlife rescue research development center and its farm that supplied the experimental animals there (and to the WHU) from Yunnan. x.com/daoyu15/status…
x.com/daoyu15/status…
So, why arkmedic.info/p/the-smoking-… there is gloves and animal cages in DEFUSE?
x.com/daoyu15/status…
?
Own goal, mstandaert!
x.com/daoyu15/status…
The only two animal places that they refuses to sample or publish from. And it is not wildlife trade but experimentation.
x.com/daoyu15/status…

x.com/daoyu15/status…
EHA program specified animal collection from markets. The WHU did it.
x.com/daoyu15/status…

x.com/daoyu15/status…
Even Panda (one of the frequent visitor of that one stall worked for the giant panda genome project……) got smeared into there
x.com/daoyu15/status…

Also ask why the “Wuhan P4 lab” got censored in 31/12/2019.

x.com/daoyu15/status…
WHU outbreak=covered up again!
x.com/daoyu15/status…Image
Image
Image
Image
Mar 23, 2024 • 24 tweets • 54 min read
Hi everyone - This is Daoyu
I have provided a compiled article below that would provide information to win the rootclaim challenge.
Please get this to @ban_epp_gofroc and @billybostickson ASAP.
Thank you very much.

It does seems that the viral sequence with the patented CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG sequence is needed to generate a proper immune response.

In fact first infection after mRNA vaccination lead to less immune response than with no mRNA vaccination—to the point that 1: there is no prevention of future infections at all. 2: mRNA vaccination increases the chances of being infected multiple times. No CGG-CGG, no immunogenicity.
The current mRNA vaccines are of negative efficacy and are actively dangerous.
And the cause? The entire CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG provide both high efficacy as a vaccine strain (when inactivated or further cold adapted) and the Proline provide efficient growth in vaccine-relevant and stock-relevant cell lines.



Vaccination now also happened to correlate with more total hospitalization and ICU events (Covid+non-Covid) now. The only “same share per pop” is total deaths. (Which the fraction in total events is the same as the fraction of 0+1 dose population). The hospitalization and ICU counts on the other hand now sat in a flat 0 in these populations.
The choice for CTC(G)CTCGGCGGGCACGTAG is driven by finding the tblastn sequence in the PAT database for synthetic sequences. Ended up with the moderna vaccine patent.

The rebuttal is continued at the following link due to twitter limitations, please share widely.


@CharlesRixey @Jikkyleaks @R_H_Ebright @Bryce_Nickels @BillyBostickson @Kevin_McKernan

archive.md/aMIw7
archive.md/I3GpT

bit.ly/4auS3KZ
Like when data blabbed before the scientists?
Leaked SRA data included both the exact kind of viruses that they claim will not be present in the WIV—and the exact SARS-CoV-2, WA1, cultured in a CoV-specific tailored fusion cell line VERO-CHO never used in China and sequenced before even a sample of WA1 can be taken in China, alongside C/C and B, at high passage depths, and contained within it residual human DNA not from anywhere in central China but in stead right where they were sampling from the 2018 “pathogen host adaptation and immune intervention” grant—the belt and road regions.


Continued EHA human sampling=Yunnan and belt and road DNA.


These seems to be related to cell surface expression that may have an intent for binding studies. They are not vaccines that can be used in humans due to the human signal peptide used and the pcDNA3.1 which contained undesirable proteins. They are also not pseudoviruses. They are plausible nanoparticle candidates for DEFUSE. . There are both virus and animal vaccines against that virus found in the same time. Neither (cell line, strain, plasmid, design ( csabai also have additional ancestral sites that aren’t found in any samples)) published.


gab.com/Flavinkins/pos…


archive.md/1C7om
Mar 21, 2024 • 6 tweets • 48 min read
Someone need to remind that stalls that sold animals from Yunnan and Guangxi are W8-38 and W9-34-36-38. All negative.

FACT: they tampered with the early cases data to pretend that it “started at the market”. The first case they found was moved all the way from the WIV to near the HSM and all December cases in central Wuchang have been moved to the neighborhood of Huanan.
“Earliest cases”? Wuhan authorities after that 2014 incident now targeted only the Huanan market when looking for EID outbreaks—and nowhere else. Hospital reports of cases were ignored until market cases were reported. They tampered with the early cases data To make it look like it “started at the market” when in reality the first case they ever admitted lived right next to the WIV BSL-4. severe discrepancy happening December 2019 and January 2020 indicate tampering with case counts. This is indicative of catastrophic ascertainment bias was going on. None of China’s early cases “data” is credible in any way. to one third of all cases were moved from the lab to the market. Unfortunately there is basically no way Enshi could have the right virus with trend toward similarity being fully mapped out now.
archive.md/zUD1F
archive.md/Pc6gp

archive.md/GvRcD
archive.md/ZgVzp
archive.md/OIGPz
archive.md/VXtu9
archive.md/1x658
archive.md/Ea0Kw
archive.md/5sdkR
archive.md/1pcCU
archive.md/ET1GA
archive.md/p3K3Z
researchgate.net/publication/37…
a separate source in 2021 mentioned body bags dumped outside the WIV and then Zhou Yusen dies without a cause, then the indication that he was killed and that he fell down the roof of the WIV simply indicated that he was likely murdered by the mean of being pushed off the roof.

fact: the first known market case were totally unlinked and are far away from the raccoon dog/wildlife stalls. Said animals are both entirely incapable of carrying SARS-CoV-2 as none show any evidence of infection in nature, and many of their ACE2 are not able to support viral entry.

admitted that Chen in fact did have the first onset before the market. They refused to disclose his true residence because the dot have been intentionally moved toward the market in the WHO map and that this is in contradiction to all of the early media reports for Chen.

the vaccines and therapeutics as well as early news report timeline do show evidence of cases before the market.



researchgate.net/publication/37…
Mar 15, 2024 • 30 tweets • 73 min read
This sound exactly like a proximity ascertainment bias—more bias in the elderly (which is closer to the true distribution given that SARS-CoV-2 generate severe cases to any level of reportability almost exclusively in the elderly) in the linked cases than the unlinked cases because cases are being ascertained in addition to specific restrictively severe symptoms, either link to the market or proximity to the market. The less level of true clustering on the linked cases is expected because linked cases are ascertained by their link that have no geospatial criterion, and is strongly biased by the elderly population. The unlinked cases were ascertained only if they lived in the neighborhood of the Huanan market or have visited a hospital or a clinic nearby, thus despite the same expected demographical drag to the most elderly people locations in Wuhan, this neighborhood only constraint (in addition to the incredibly rare, extremely severe cases that are too few to change anything) (edited)

[21:05]
mean that the unlinked cases, despite the same expected demographics and thus the same level of pull to the elderly population centers (if not expected to be pulled even more given that the overwhelming majority of unlinked cases should have been the result of indoor transmission of linked cases to locations that they frequent that is not the HSM itself, locations that would be found near their residences and even less coupled to the HSM) as the linked cases, were significantly constrained in their ascertainment that they were pulled to the neighborhood of the Huanan market which is where the vast majority of them were ascertained and selectively hospitalized (due to the extreme level of crowding of hospitals in Jan 2020 Wuhan) based on the criterion of “clustered fever cases that Lived Near the market” and “Visited a clinic/hospital near the market”. Linked cases are much more affected by demographic biases than unlinked cases which the opposite should be true for the W/P scenario. Also, people that are not neighbors by residence generally does not share space at all in China other than in their workspaces.

Vendors or people that works at the market share space far away from their home only at the market they work in, business members facing outsiders share space only with customers at work. Other potential space sharings are all far too brief and open to permit transmission, being all open-air.

If the work place for a market visitor is not the market itself, then their primary shared spaces would be near their residences and not the market.

Huanan workers eat their work meal either within the market itself having their relatives bringing food from near their residences to the market, or at a line of restaurants that are identified in the southeastern corner of the market complex. Both would yield only cases that are linked to the Huanan market, and not unlinked ones. These are also the only restaurants cheap enough to provide work meal in the vicinity of the market.


The former would be linked and share spaces with others near their residences, and the latter would once again be considered a part of the Huanan market and thus mark the cases that visited them as linked.
Any socialization needs between workers in China generally happen at work, especially market workers which the market itself provided all the amenities for continued chatting and socialization like with all traditional markets in China. And if there is socialization need outside the market, they would happen between common faces, e.g. within their residential neighborhoods.
Any non-work dining location (e.g. when they dine outside the market(workplace)’s confines or their homes) of traditional market operators, which are not rich, would once again not be expected occur near their residences like all residences. (edited)
[22:56]
And since space sharing between market cases and others occur primarily at the market should they work at it and market workers have all their “other” mutual contact needs already satisfied inside the market itself, boasting a line of restaurants in its SW corner, two gambling rooms within the building itself, and an entire floor for any potential business meeting within the glasses market right above the seafood market, any additional space sharing required to generate unlinked cases would most likely be near their residences, and not near the market itself. If a market case worker or visitor live far away from the market, which most of them are on the WHO map, then they are extremely unlikely to have the majority of their shared spaces not at the market itself to be near the market.

Direct Evidence of manipulation in the WHO database.





Statistical evidence of filtering in the WHO database.

There is a reason why no line lists or raw data was ever provided, and why Chen’s real residence or any specific case residences was never mentioned again since 2021.

Thus there is no expectation for any workers in a Chinese market to have most let alone all space sharing outside the market that were still centered at the market. They would in stead be heavily biased toward the middle point between their residential and work locations, which would also suffer from biases driven by population density in term of the residential addresses of people that uses them, and not remaining on the market itself. e.g. we should not expect a precise centering of unlinked cases onto the market itself like W+P without biased ascertainment or data manipulation.
If W+P is correct and the cases are not biased, once again we would expect that the unlinked cases to cluster near the linked cases and not the market itself given the collective effects of population density shifting the clustering center of even linked cases away from the market.

Also, the coordinates of community shared spaces near the market were also heavily biased, are generally not used by any market workers or visitors unless they also live nearby, and would 1: create a significant bias moving the KDE away from the market by several blocks and 2: would not have been on a case to case basis be the primary shared space of market linked cases other than the market itself worker or visitor. They would only form at most 30%, median 15% of the non-market shared spaces for a worker and at most 5%, median 3% of the non-market shared spaces for a visitor. The unlinked cases thus should still have clustered near the linked cases and not the market itself. (edited)semanticscholar.org/paper/Zoonosis…

researchgate.net/publication/35…
gab.com/Flavinkins/pos…
Apr 21, 2023 • 10 tweets • 9 min read
How to slaughter Mutton.

1. Demonstrate that Spike gene-transfection leads to comparable plasma levels as infection.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
2. Show biological persistence and linked myocarditis from vax.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36647776/
acc.org/latest-in-card…
3. Demonstrate spike amyloidogenic properties.
pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.10…
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34541458/
nature.com/articles/s4146…
4. Demonstrate cross over between amyloidosis, prion like activity and neurodegenerative conditions .
frontiersin.org/articles/10.33…
journals.plos.org/plospathogens/…
mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/1…
5. Roast with a roaring flame
sweardalemutton.com

@CharlesRixey @Jikkyleaks @Fynnderella1 @InCytometry @Mr_Magoo5 @troydee @spursonfifa @IanCopeland5 @TDBSubstac @TakethatCt @HamEggsnSam @ScooterScienceImage Image