Discovery Of A Novel Virus Is The First Thing To Question

Note: I have lost the reference to the context of this - but fairly sure it was on Malcolm's blog.

its basis was to question the validity of not of the test being used or the potential to make it more reliable so as to put the whole thing to rest and get back to normal. In other words the question saw the testing as the key to finding out what is really going on.

I suggest that the 'discovery' of a novel virus is the first assertion or assumption to be thoroughly investigated - not just as asserted and defined but as a proven cause of one condition - that is being presented as a specific disease without clinical symptoms in about half the population. Doesn't that ring doublespeak alarm bells for you?

The primary 'weapon' at work is the framing of the mind of definitions by which to distribute meanings that are emotionally 'loaded' with fear, blame and penalty.

Of course science is supposed to be empirically verifiable peer reviewed reproducible fact.

But all ideas evolve by their application and acceptance to become a basis of justification for the maintaining of narratives by which to evade and direct fear, blame and penalty.

Any system is only as good or workable as the integrity of those who run it. Collective evasion operates as socially invisible.

That somewhat separated out virus cultures are subjected to every kind of mutating effect - including now by splicing new code is simply fact. Probably resulting in auto-immune dysfunction - along with other exposures that undermine cellular integrity.

That viruses are not actually purely isolated in the way the layperson might imagine, means a soup of code fragments that can be from anywhere can be 'made sense of' or interpreted by consensus of an elite specialisation of employed or funded technicians as the 'official discovery' and held as THE standard and definition for tests, diagnosis, and interventions or treatments, to be derived.

Part of this includes the ability to 'clone' the interpreted viral code entity and then use it as the research model. This clone may then leak or simply be communicated into the 'wild'.

Note that if you run PCR test enough times you get 100% positive.

Note - the percentage of matching code required for 'identification' is variable at anything from 60-80% - and may include short sequences that may in fact NOT be unique to one so far 'discovered virus' out of trillions and so this is all a matter of  probabilities at best and programmed 'answer' at worst, with guesswork sitting somewhere in between.

The pathological virological model used is backwards in assigning agency to the code itself (virus). i sketch this out to invite a basis from which to question - rather than automatically run, a pathological belief on your operating system, by which 'Troy' is rendered defenceless from within.