Showing posts from: blog

22 April 2024

The SARS CoV2 virus never existed

The statement published by the US health agency CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) on March 1, 2024, according to which Covid 19 can now be treated like a normal flu caused a stir. In truth, we have known that the disease known as Covid 19 is a normal flu since January 2020, that is, since the study known as Corman Drosten was published. What is Corman Drosten? The Corman Drosten is the scientific study on which the diagnostic methodology used by private and public laboratories in the USA and Europe to screen for the virus known as SARS CoV 2 is based.

On December 14, 2020, after three months of hard work researching and collecting the most relevant scientific literature on the diagnostic methodology known as RT-PCR, I published the following article:

“The Corman Drosten disaster puts an end to the Covid 19 pantomime”.

The article has as its starting point the research work carried out by the group of the Dutch microbiologist Pieter Borger, who, as soon as the Corman Drosten was published in the Eurosurveillance magazine, analyzed it point by point, highlighting the macroscopic errors which converged in a study known as Borger et al. This study highlighted all the discrepancies and inconsistencies of the Covid 19 test and consequently of the SARS CoV2 virus. Pieter Borger’s group subsequently sent a letter to Eurosurveillance demanding the withdrawal of the Corman Drosten.

My research work therefore consisted in making a simple summary of the scientific literature existing up to that moment on the diagnostic methodology used to screen the virus known as SARS CoV 2 and drawing conclusions, these conclusions are that it does not exist and has never existed no new virus identifiable as SARS CoV2.

The conclusions on the non-existence of the virus known as SARS CoV2 are given by scientific evidence provided by the same authors of the Corman Drosten, in whose front cover the authors bluntly declare that at the time of developing the test they did not have a sample of the virus and consequently used one from 2003 (the 2003 SARS CoV) morphologically similar and discovered by Christian Drosten himself.

Without having to go into detail, as established by the authors in the front cover of their own study, the Covid 19 test was developed in the absence of a biological isolate, or morphological body of the virus.

This is because, according to Dr. Victor Corman, co-author of the study and test, “the Chinese government never provided Dr. Drosten the virus isolate but only the virus pattern in digital format.” Since Dr. Drosten and Dr. Corman did not have the isolate of this virus known as SARS CoV2 available, Dr. Drosten by his own admission compared the genomic scheme of the virus in digital format and found that it was very similar to the 2003 SARS CoV , a virus he discovered in 2003.

Therefore the Covid 19 test used in public and private laboratories in the Western world (USA and EU) is based on a virus, the 2003 SARS CoV, discovered by Christian Drosten in 2003 and in circulation since that date. This statement is present on the front cover of the Corman Drosten which you can read below and on Eurosurveillance.

Therefore, when an individual goes to a laboratory to take a Covid 19 test, if they test positive, it means that they are positive for a virus that has currently been in circulation for more than twenty years.

We therefore understood that Christian Drosten used the 2003 SARS CoV virus as the gold standard to develop the Covid 19 test. This virus discovered by Drosten in 2003 is therefore, according to what Christian Drosten states in his 2003 study, known as Drosten et al, the virus that causes SARS. Drosten states that “the virus was isolated by cell culture technique and a 300 nucleotide strand was obtained by RT-PCR amplification.” In the Results section of the aforementioned study Drosten tells us verbatim that: “Genetic characterization indicated that the virus is only distantly related to known coronaviruses (identical in 50 to 60 percent of the nucleotide sequence). Which means that the virus in question cannot be classified as 100% coronavirus but only 50-60%.

In the Discussion section, Drosten tells us that: “Virus was detected in a variety of clinical specimens from patients with SARS but not in controls” (because control studies, which are crucial in order to reach 100% proof of virus isolation were not conducted).

Drosten goes on by affirming that: “One should bear in mind, however, that in the past, viruses have been initially isolated from patients with a specific disease but subsequent investigations revealed no actual association at all. (between the detected virus and the disease)Thus, larger studies with appropriate control groups are needed to verify or eliminate our HYPOTHESIS about the cause of SARS”.

If we read the conclusions of the aforementioned study, Drosten candidly admits that: “The new coronavirus could play a role in causing SARS.” This means that the 2003 SARS CoV is not only not a coronavirus and not even the virus that causes SARS but “it may have a role in causing the syndrome in question”.

In conclusion, the virus used by Christian Drosten as the gold standard for testing Covid 19 is actually only “a hypothesis of a virus”. And this is Christian Drosten himself that tells us this in the front cover of his study Identification of a Novel Coronavirus in Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 15, 2003.

Regarding the sensational news of recent days that the CDC now considers the virus known as Covid 19 as a normal flu, as you can see in the image below and in the link below. The British government agency UK Health Security Service has classified Covid 19 as a non-dangerous virus since March 19, 2020.

And in general if you read my article it is clear that British government institutions such as the UK Health Security Service or academic institutions such as the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) at the University of Oxford have never lied, nor hidden the truth, indeed, all the studies I shared and cited and on which my article is based were mostly published by the University of Oxford. The problem is that people, instead of delving deeper into the topic by seeing what exactly the health or academic institutions were saying, listened to the alarmist campaign of the mainstream media.

The Center for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) is a center for the dissemination of scientific evidence, whose director we remember is Carl Henegan co-author of Jefferson et al, the most complete study carried out on Covid 19 because Dr. Jefferson collected and examined all 29 existing studies up to then on the virus known as SARS CoV 2, highlighting all the inconsistencies and discrepancies but leaving the final judgment to the reader. On the contrary, Pieter Borger’s group in Borger et al openly denounced the Corman Drosten fraud.

The CEBM has always published updates from the studies I cited in the article: Jefferson et al, Bullard et al, Jafaar et al, Young et al etc. Which means that official British science has always known the true extent of this fake epidemic and has always published the results of the studies and it must be recognized that this credit must be attributed to the University of Oxford, without which we would not have known anything about this today fake virus but we would have remained totally in the panic created by our governments and the media.

Unfortunately, my article was not published in a famous scientific journal nor in a mainstream news media but was only published on my amateur blog on the blogspot.com platform and today if you want to read it, Google places two limitations. The first is to warn you that sensitive content is published on my blog and you must declare that you agree. The second is that to read the article you must be of age and therefore log in with a Google account. For this reason I had to publish it on my personal website. Despite all this, the article has been read by more than 50,000 readers from December 2020 to today but has never been reported by any mainstream news media outlet.

7 March 2024

The Corman-Drosten disaster put the word end on the Covid-19 pantomime

Note: this article was originally published in italian language on my blogspot.com on December 18, 2020. Today blogspot in order to access the article requires you to declare you accept the fact that my blog contains sensitive information and also you are required to confirm your age by accessing through your google account.

On September 4 2020 while he was visiting Solihull near Birmingham, to see how the new HS2 Interchange Station development is coming along, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said to the BBC that Covid testing at airports may give a “false sense of security”, as testing on arrival would only identify 7% of virus cases.

Three weeks after such unexpected statement, on September 23 2020, the same statement was made by Dominic Raab, the British Foreign Secretary at SKY News.

At that time, beyond the astonishment for such statements, which seemed to aim at dismantling the reliability of Covid 19 testing, I couldn’t understand for what reason two main representatives of the British government had publicly stated that the Covid testing was unreliable, nor why the world media haven’t provided any kind of follow up to such blatant declaration.

My state of misunderstanding lasted until friday december 4, when the European medical journal Eurosurveillance published this note with which it announced having started an internal investigation to review the content of the Corman-Drosten study they had published on January 23 2020 Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time PCR by Christian Drosten and Victor Corman.

Why this study is so important?

Christian Drosten and Victor Corman are the two authors of the Covid-19 diagnostic test which is adopted both in the private and state labs in Europe and in the U.S.

The Corman-Drosten is the theoretical study upon which the official Covid-19 diagnostic methodology is based. It’s the diagnostic upon which all the Covid-19 official data provided by governments and media are based. Consequently it is also the legal-scientific basis of all the lockdowns and of our freedom restrictions.

This is an extraordinary story and in order to understand it we need to start from the beginning.

Eurosurveillance is a peer-reviewed medical journal covering epidemiology, surveillance, prevention and control of communicable diseases. The journal is published by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control which is an independent agency of the European Union whose mission is to strengthen Europe’s defences against infectious diseases

Usually a scientific study in order to be published must be peer-reviewed and this process normally takes several months of work, especially if the study deals with diagnostic methodology because the processes must be replicated and validated in the laboratory.

This is especially true when it’s about the testing for a global lethal virus that hit the whole planet’s population.

The Corman-Drosten study was sent from the authors to Eurosurveillance on January 21 2020, it was approved for publication on the 22nd and on January 23 was put On-line. Not just this. The Corman Drosten was immediately accepted as the standard of testing internationally, by the WHO, which began sending test kits to affected regions.

In the harrowing months that followed, amid lockdowns, economic collapse, school closures and widespread panic, few were aware of the immense problems with the paper, which tragically offered a testing method that would yield between 80 and 97 percent false positive results, due to a non existent gold standard which would be the virus itself. The emergency situation prevailed on the average level of accuracy normally required to a diagnostic methodology, especially for an epidemic event of global relevance.

In this situation of chaos, the turning point took place on November 30 2020 when the Corman-Drosten was challenged by the ICSLS (International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences) a team of 22 international scientists from USA, Europe and Japan who wrote this letter demanding the paper’s retraction, along with a Review Report, which is indeed a real scientific study, attached to the letter citing 10 errors in the Corman Drosten it deemed “fatal.”

The Corman-Drosten Review Report is an initiative by Pieter Borger, an expert on the molecular biology of gene expression. Several other esteemed names are associated with the paper including Dr. Michael Yeadon, former VP of Pfizer and outspoken critic of much of the so-called science beneath the WHO’s global lockdown, masking, and school shut-down measures.

Celia Farber, is an american journalist known for her oustanding reports on HIV and AIDS back in the 80s. Celia spoke to Dr. Kevin Corbett, one of the 22 authors of the Review Report that dismantled the Corman Drosten:

“When Drosten developed the test, China hadn’t given them a viral isolate. They developed the test from a sequence in a gene bank. Do you see? China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate. They had a code, but no body for the code. No viral morphology.”

What is “viral morphology”?

“In the fish market,” he said, “it’s like giving you a few bones and saying that’s your fish. It could be any fish. Not even a skeleton. Here’s a few fragments of bones. That’s your fish. Listen, the Corman/Drosten paper, there’s nothing from a patient in it. It’s all from gene banks. and the bits of the virus sequence that weren’t there they made up. They synthetically created them to fill in the blanks. That’s what genetics is; it’s a code. So its ABBBCCDDD and you’re missing some what you think is EEE so you put it in. It’s all synthetic. You just manufacture the bits that are missing. This is the end result of the geneticization of virology. This is basically a computer virus.”

But what are the implications of such an incompleteness of the primer concerning the unreliability of the Covid 19 testing?

The implications are easy to understand also from those who haven’t a background in virology. In practice being the initial virus incomplete, that is, composed only by RNA fragments, the setting of the machine that does the RT-PCR cannot go beyond the detection of those fragments that compose the primer in the first place. The machine cannot invent a biological structure that it hasn’t, which means that the PCR machine will classify as positive also a sample that instead of possessing the whole RNA fragment has only a fragment of the said nucleic acid.

The conclusion made by the ICSLS Review Report is that the Corman-Drosten hasn’t been structured to detect the whole virus but only to detect a fragment of it, which is the one they had at their disposal. This means as we’ll see later, that the machine cannot distinguish between a fragment of RNA and the whole virus. This fact also defines the testing as inadequate as a diagnostic tool for the SARS virus infections.

In an interview posted on his Twitter account Pieter Borger said: “The virus wasn’t in Europe and the paper was already finished.” then he added: “Once I heard a good comparison,” he continued. “If you go to a junkyard and you find a wheel or a hubcap from a Mercedes, and a steering wheel of a Mercedes, can you infer that you are in a Mercedes garage at that moment? If you only see those two parts? No, you can’t. You don’t know anything about it… you only know you have a steering wheel, you can find those things everywhere. In every junkyard you can find them.” He describes the RT-PCR tests as having “no relevance for the diagnosis whatsoever.”

What is the RT-PCR testing?

The RT-PCR (Reverse Transcriptions – Polymerase Chain Reaction) is a laboratory technique of molecolar biology allowing reverse transcription of RNA into DNA and amplification of specific DNA targets using polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

Normally the Polymerase Chain Reaction works with a DNA filament or a fragment of it that you want being amplified. The Reverse Transcription instead has an RNA filament or a part of it as a starting point to obtain the DNA filament, and once you obtained the DNA you go on with the amplification process.

That’s why in this context, DNA is called complementary DNA or cDNA (complimentary DNA), because you obtain DNA from RNA which works as a “mirror” or better like “a mold” from which you obtain the complementary shaped object. So before we can do the regular PCR process we must convert isolated and purified RNA into DNA.

Once you have the DNA, this is mixed with primers, which are sections of DNA designed to bind to characteristic parts of the virus DNA. Repeatedly heating then cooling DNA with these primers and a DNA building enzyme makes millions of copies of virus DNA. Fluorescent dye molecules bind to the virus DNA as it is copied. Binding makes them give off more light, which is used to confirm the presence of the virus in the sample. The fluorescence increases as more copies of the virus DNA are produced. If it crosses a certain threshold, the test is positive. If the virus isn’t present, no DNA copies are made and the threshold isn’t reached. In this case the test is negative.

The study made by Pieter Borger and the other 21 scientists that dismantle the Corman-Drosten is structured in 10 crucial flaws.

The first flaw: Drosten developed the diagnostic methodology without having the virus available.

Regarding the first point which is also the main one, Borger et al contests to Corman and Drosten of not having used the virus SARS-CoV-2 as primer for their test but to have used only fragments of it and that they eventually completed the sequence artificially or “in silico”. The labelling “In silico” means that the reproduction of the virus was not biological but they made it using a software hence it’s a computer developed virus. Indeed it’s called “In silico” because silicon is the matter which computers are made of.

The justification brought by Corman and Drosten regarding the fact of not having the isolated virus available is that according to them the Sars-CoV-2 was very similar to the SARS-CoV of 2003 (which was discovered by Drosten himself on 2003)

In practice for the development of the Gold Standard (the referring virus to build the diagnostic test) Drosten thought he could ride on the coattails of another coronavirus which was also his own discovery and to complete the rest of the sequence with the computer:

“the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology”.

Victor Corman, co-author of the Corman-Drosten added: “We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.”

The Corman Drosten front cover. In the Introduction the authors openly state that the test was designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.

According to Dr. Pieter Borger, the promoter of the Corman-Drosten Review Report:

The focus here should be placed upon the two stated aims: a) development and b) deployment of a diagnostic test for use in public health laboratory settings. These aims are not achievable without having any actual virus material available (e.g. for determining the infectious viral load).

The objective of the Corman-Drosten study was to develop a diagnostic tool which was able to detect the presence of the SARS-CoV-2. Although, how can this objective be achievable if you don’t have the Gold Standard which is the virus?

What is the Gold Standard?

In medicine and statistics, a gold standard test is usually the diagnostic test or benchmark that is the most accurate test available. The reliability of a diagnostic test is evaluated upon how accurately a test is able to identify if an individual is healthy or ill. Indeed the Gold standard is nothing but the disease itself. In the case of Covid 19, the Gold Standard is the virus SARS-CoV-2.

Sometimes it can happen, like in the case of Corman-Drosten paper, that the Gold Standard, that is to say the disease, in this case the Covid 19 virus, is not available. That is why it is necessary to perform alternative methods to find it. That’s why the objection raised by Pieter Borger is more than understandable: Drosten wanted to create a test that was able to detect Covid-19 but how could Drosten make a reliable diagnostic Covid test without having the virus available but only its genomic sequence?

I repeat it to you once again: When Drosten developed the gold standard of the covid test he did not have the viral morphology of the virus because the Chinese never gave him the isolated virus but only a part of the genomic sequence and it was not even biological but computer science , because it only had the sequence outline in digital format. By examining the structure of the sequence Drosten realized that the basic structure of the sequence closely resembled a SARS strain he himself discovered in 2003. So he took the genomic sequence of this SARS strain from himself discovered 18 years earlier and following the scheme given to him by the Chinese he added the missing part “in silico” that is, on the computer. And we know this as you can verify for yourself because it is written on the cover of the Corman Drosten, which can be consulted at this web address whose cover is shown in the image below:

This means that there is no new virus in circulation but only a kind of bio-informatic Frankenstein based on a SARS strain that has been circulating for more than 18 years. Because it is the gold standard of Covid 19 testing that determines who is positive for the virus and that tells us what this virus is. And the virus upon which the test is based, apparently is a virus that has been around for almost twenty years. Therefore, when any analysis laboratory on planet earth, after having examined a swab using PCR, establishes that this sample is positive, this means that the subject examined is positive for the 2003 SARS strain, as it is that strain that constitutes the gold standard of Covid 19. Basically it is a normal flu that has been given a new name (covid 19) supplemented by unprecedented marketing in the history of this “civilization”.

We understood that Christian Drosten in order to develop the covid 19 test he used as gold standard the 2003 SARS CoV which he discovered himself back in 2003 because of its similarity to the digital pattern that was provided to him by the Chinese government of SARS CoV 2 at the end of 2019.

BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF WE GO CHECK THE 2003 SARS CoV UPON WHICH THE SARS CoV2 test has been developed?

Let’s find out:

In the RESULTS section of his 2003 study, (Drosten et al) Christian Drosten states that “the virus was isolated in cell culture, and a sequence 300 nucleotides in length was obtained by a polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR)–based random-amplification procedure. Genetic characterization indicated that the virus is only distantly related to known coronaviruses (identical in 50 to 60 percent of the nucleotide sequence). This means that the virus is not classifiable as coronavirus at 100% but only at 50/60%

Always in the RESULTS, Drosten literally states that “Virus was detected in a variety of clinical specimens from patients with SARS but not in controls” (because control studies were not conducted)

Drosten goes on by saying: “One should bear in mind, however, that in the past, viruses have been initially isolated from patients with a specific disease but subsequent investigations revealed no actual association at all (between the detected virus and the disease) Thus, larger studies with appropriate control groups are needed to verify or eliminate our HYPOTHESIS about the cause of SARS.”

If we read the conclusions of Drosten et al, Drosten candidly admit that “The novel coronavirus might have a role in causing SARS.” This means that the 2003 SARS CoV upon which the gold standard of Covid was based not only is not even a coronavirus but it is not the virus that causes SARS. Albeit “IT MIGHT HAVE A ROLE in causing the syndrome.”

In conclusion, the virus adopted by Christian Drosten as gold standard for the test of Covid 19 is in reality only an hypothesis of virus. And this is stated by Christian Drosten himself in the Discussion section of Drosten et al Identification of a Novel Coronavirus in Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome published on the New England Journal of Medicine on May 15, 2003.

The more you delve into this story the more you understand that it is a pantomime.

Consequently, according to Pieter Borger, without the real virus but only with its genomic sequence it wasn’t possible for Drosten neither proceeding to the validation of the diagnostic test.

What is validation?

A diagnostic test is defined validated when you have evidence that the test provides a reliable result on the status of the examined specimen.

The validation of a diagnostic assay is that evaluation process necessary and indispensable to verify the validity of the test under the clinical point of view.

Usually the validation is being made on test animals and it’s a process that is an integral part of the diagnostic methodoloy, because without the validation phase, the diagnostic methodology has no scientific value.

Obviously having not the virus available, Corman and Drosten couldn’t perform the validation phase, hence the Corman Drosten diagnostic assay not only is incomplete but totally irrelevant under the scientific point of view, other than under the clinical one, because the methodology has not been integrated with the animal experimentation which is the condicio sine qua non in order for a diagnostic assay to be defined as such.

Flaw number 3: The amplification cycles

According to the retraction demand of the Corman-Drosten study, the fatal flaw number 3 is that the number of amplification cycles should be less than 35 (25-30)

What are the amplification cycles?

In the polymerase chain reaction, the Ct (Cycle Threshold) value is the number of amplification cycles that are necessary to detect the virus (and to state the subject as positive). In practice Ct is the threshold value of the cycles which are necessary to detect the virus.

The higher is the number of amplification cycles and more accurate is the diagnostic assay. This is one of the main flaws of the Corman-Drosten diagnostics: the fact of having established a too high number of cycles for the virus detection. What does it mean?

It means that if amplification cycles are too numerous they could even detect a flu that you had months ago and that’s why the problem is no more that of false positive results but of the total unreliability of the diagnostics.

In case of virus detection, if the amplification cycles threshold is higher than 35, the detected signals are not associable to an infectious virus, like it has been established by the studies on the cell viral culture, first of all by the study known as Jafaar et al .

Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates.

According to Jafaar et al, if a subject is tested positive with the RT-PCR with a threshold of 35 cycles or higher, the chances that this subject is infected by the virus is less than 3% that’s why the probability that this result is a false positive is of 97%.

Hence, the objections that dismantle the Corman-Drosten are not an exclusive prerogative of the ICSLS and of Pieter Borger. As a matter of fact the Borger initiative is just the lastest of a series of studies, mostly produced by the University of Oxford that had already completely dismantled the Corman-Drosten but without receiving any attention by the mainstream media.

We are talking here mainly of Jafaar et al which has demonstrated that the diagnostic methodology of the Corman-Drosten produces 97% of false positives. And the study Jafaar et al is not properly “new” as it was published on Clinical Infectious Disease on September 28 2020.

Although the statements by Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab were actually made before the publishing of Jafaar et al because the statement by Dominic Raab is of September 23 and that of Boris Johnson is of September 4.

If we read Jafaar et al indeed we find out that Jafaar cites a prior study always published by Clinical Infectious Disease, (a journal of pathogenesis published by Oxford University Press) the now legendary Bullard et al, whose title is: Predicting Infectious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 From Diagnostic Samples published on May 22, 2020.

This is the paragraph in which Rita Jafaar cites Bullard et al:

“However, in an article published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, Bullard et al reported that patients could not be contagious with Ct >25 as the virus is not detected in culture above this value“

In practice Bullard et al proved that patients with a Cycle threshold superior to 25 are not contagious as the virus is not detected in culture above this value.

In addition Bullard et al says literally already in the Background section that the RT-PCR can only and esclusively detect RNA and not the infectious virus:

RT-PCR detects RNA, not infectious virus; thus, its ability to determine duration of infectivity of patients is limited. Infectivity is a critical determinant in informing public health guidelines/ interventions.

I repeat it once again, just in case: the RT-PCR diagnostics can only and exclusively detect the RNA and NOT the infectious virus. Consequently its ability to establish the duration of infectiousness of a patient is extremely limited.

Although the sentence that put the word end on the reliability of the RT-PCR is in the Results section of Bullard et al and it’s the following:

There was no growth in samples with a Ct > 24 or STT > 8 days

There is no viral growth in samples with a Ct higher than 24 or when the time range between the symptoms onset and the test is greater than 8 days.

Probably the British Prime Minister had been informed of this discovery and that’s the reason why on September 4 2020 he publicly stated that tests produced more than 90% of false positives.

Boris Johnson did not wake up the morning of September 4 and decided to dismantle the credibility of Covid-19 testing because he felt to do so. He was forced to do it because the fact of publicly stating it would legally exempt him from possible legal troubles in the moment in which it would have been discovered what thanks to Bullard et al and Borger et al we know today, that means that the Corman-Drosten is a diagnostic methodology which is clinically unreliable and that as we’ll see now a total disaster.

As a matter of fact the fatal blow to the Corman-Drosten and more generally to the RT-PCR as virus detection diagnostic method was not provided neither by Bullard et al nor by Jafaar et al but by a third study, always published by the University of Oxford:

Viral cultures for COVID-19 infectious potential assessment – a systematic review

This study, known as Jefferson et al was published first on August 4 2020 on the Nuffield Department of Primary Care website, then on September 29 on the open source medical journal medRxiv then on December 3 2020 on Clinical Infectious Disease (Oxford University) .

Despite the study is called Jefferson et al it is important to notice that one of the authors is Carl Heneghan, director of the Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford which just by chance on September 5 2020, the day after Boris Johnson released his statement on the false positives, was interviewed by Rachel Schraer, BBC Health correspondant.

On September 5 2020, BBC published this article titled: “Tests could be picking up dead virus”.

In the mentioned article, Schraer invterviewed Carl Heneghan who had published his study more than a month before.

Why Henegan’ study is so important?

Because it’s not a simple study but it’s a study that reviews the most relevant scientific studies regarding the culture of SARS-CoV-2 and he put them into relation with the RT-PCR test results and with other variables that could affect the interpretation of the test, like foreinstance the time range since the symptoms onset.

The main points of Jefferson et al that have dismantled the Corman-Drosten well before Pieter Borger and the ICSLS are the following:

1) According to Jefferson et al, two studies reported the odds of live virus culture reduced by approximately 33% for every one unit increase in Ct.

2) Six of eight studies reported detectable RNA for longer than 14 days but infectious potential declined after day 8 even among cases with ongoing high viral loads.

According to Young et al (always cited in Jefferson et al) which is one of the most famous studies on SARS-CoV-2, the SARS-CoV-2 was detectable from nasopharyngeal swabs by PCR up to 48 days after symptom onset

3) Over 90% of the virus isolates were obtained from specimens with a Ct value below 23 (Jefferson et al page 5)

RT-PCR detects presence of viral genetic material in a sample but is not able to distinguish whether an infectious virus is present.

4) Presence of viral genome on its own is not sufficient proof of infectivity as you need proof that the isolate is capable of replicating.

The inability of PCR to distinguish between the shedding of live virus or of viral debris, means that it cannot measure a person’s viral load (or quantity of virus present in a person’s excreta) that means that the diagnostics is clinically unreliable.

This objection which is based upon Jefferson et al lab test results, it is also shared by England Public Health and it is published on the UK government guide for health workers Understanding cycle threshold (Ct) in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR A guide for health protection teams pag 6.

5) The RT-PCR by itself is not able to tell us if a specimen positive to the Covid-19 test is also able to transmit the infection and as confirmed by the other two main studies Bullard et al and Jafaar et al the specimens > 30 Ct have 0 probability of being infective. (The authors noted that a cut-off RT-PCR Ct > 30 was associated with non-infectious specimens).

6) Zhou and colleagues reported on samples taken from seven areas of a large London hospital (218 surface samples; 31 air samples). Despite apparent extensive air and surface contamination of the hospital environment, no infectious samples were grown.

7) In one study by Andersson et al, 20 RT-PCR positive serum specimens from 12 individual patients were selected at random from a Covid-19 specimen bank at 3 to 20 days following onset of symptoms. None of the 20 serum specimens produced a viral culture

8) The live viral culture time window was much shorter than for viral RNA identification, ranging from less than 8 days from symptom onset to test [w23] and Ct < 24 [w7]. Median duration of viral RNA identification in culture was 4 days (InterQuartile Range: 1 to 8) [w21].

What does this mean? It means that while the virus RNA can be detected in a specimen even after 40 days since the symptoms onset, the live viral culture can be detected in a specimen not beyond 8 days since the symptoms onset.

9) Jefferson et al concluded that the median duration of viral RNA identification in culture was 4 days.

10) Five studies reported no growth in specimens based on a Ct cut-off value ranging from CT > 24 to 35.The estimated probability of recovery of virus from specimens with Ct > 35 was 8.3%.

11) The last point of this list I would like to dedicate it to a less known study named Wolfel et al, Virological assessment of hospitalized patients with COVID-2019 which states as follows: “To understand infectivity, we attempted live virus isolation on multiple occasions from clinical samples (Fig. 1d). Whereas the virus was readily isolated during the first week of symptoms from a considerable fraction of samples (16.66% of swabs and 83.33% of sputum samples), no isolates were obtained from samples taken after day 8 in spite of ongoing high viral loads.

I have cited this study that doesn’t stand out for peculiar virtues compared to the others but confirms those that preceded it (mainly Bullard et al) for a single reason: one of its authors is Victor Corman, the co-author of the Corman-Drosten. Indeed with this citation we reached the scientific paradox through which an author of a study that supports a diagnostic methodology affirms that a virus has a high infectious rate except claiming the contrary in another study.

We have however to notice that Wolfel et al was published on Nature on April 1st 2020 and we cannot exclude the fact that Victor Corman being one of the author is an April fool.

At the point number three of the retraction letter of the Corman Drosten it is affirmed as it follows:

“It should be noted that there is no mention anywhere in the Corman-Drosten paper of a test being positive or negative, or indeed what defines a positive or negative result. These types of virological diagnostic tests must be based on a SOP, including a validated and fixed number of PCR cycles (Ct value) after which a sample is deemed positive or negative. The maximum reasonably reliable Ct value is 30 cycles. Above a Ct of 35 cycles, rapidly increasing numbers of false positives must be expected .

According to Jaafar et al above a Ct of 35 , it is not possible to obtain an isolate virus but only non-infective loads. We want to remind you here for the record that both the Corman-Drosten than the WHO recommend a cycle threshold of 45 cycles.

As a matter of fact the situation is even less dangerous than what Pieter Borger claims because the Bullard et al team had 90 specimen which resulted positive with the RT-PCR diagnostic and the viral culture tests on those specimens demonstrated that no growth happened with Ct>24 or with symptom onset >8 days.

The conclusion of Bullard et al is that the probability to obtain a positive viral culture reaches its peak on the third day since the symptoms onset, then decreases.

Bullard et al also showed that for every 1-unit increase in Ct, the odds of a positive culture decreased by 32%. Hence in practice passing from 25 to 26 Ct the probability to have a positive SARS-CoV-2 result decreases of 32%.

The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) at Oxford University has a page dedicated to the monitoring of COVID 19 (Oxford COVID-19 Evidence Service) recommends as follows: “PCR detection of viruses is helpful so long as its accuracy can be understood: it offers the capacity to detect RNA in minute quantities, but whether that RNA represents infectious virus may not be clear.”

That means that the polimerasis testing can detect a fragment of the virus RNA and identify the specimen as positive but is this a live viral load? Is it infective? We have seen that the RT-PCR testing by itself cannot answer to this question but the protocols put in place by governments to limit our liberties are based exclusively on this blind system.

Dr. Kevin Corbett added: “There are 10 fatal errors in the Drosten test paper. Public Health England is a co-author on it. All the public health authorities across the EU have co-authored this paper. But here is the bottom line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they were doing. The PCR products of the amplification didn’t correspond to any viral isolate at that time. I call it “donut ring science”. There is nothing at the center of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality, or the actual person, the patient.”

In practice this test with which they are determining who is positive and who’s not and upon which the world governments have adopted restrictive measures of the freedom of millions of people is based upon nothing.

Celia Farber, journalist of Uncover DC replied to Dr. Corbett by reading him a few statements in which the covid virus has been isolated in a few labs around the world.

“Yes, there have since been papers saying they’ve produced viral isolates. But there are no controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July, I think it was, where they said: “Here’s the viral isolate”. “Do you know what they did? They swabbed one person. One person, who’d been to China and had cold symptoms. One person. And they assumed he had it to begin with. So it’s all full of holes, the whole thing.”

What has been claimed by Dr. Corbett over the fact that Covid 19 virus still hadn’t been isolated at the moment of the Corman-Drosten publication has been confirmed both by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) the US agency that monitors the Covid-19 and by the EDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control) which is the european correspondant of the CDC.

In the following document, whose title is CDC 2019 nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel – Instructions for Use published on January 12, 2020 which is available on the website of the United States Food and Drug Administration, (PAGE 41 OF THE PDF DOCUMENT) it is clearly stated that “no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available”

In the following document, whose title is Current performance of COVID-19 test methods and devices and proposed performance criteria – Working document of Commission services which was published by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) which is the european agency whose mission is to enforce the European defense against infectious diseases, the ECDC states that at the date of april 16 2020 no virus isolate is available (PAGE 19 of the PDF document).

All this helps to understand the reason of the statements made by prime minister Boris Johnson and the foreign secretary Dominic Raab. In practice Johnson and Raab have felt the need to protect themselves under the legal point of view because with their statements they can claim to have informed the English audience regarding the unreliability of the Covid testing.

The ECDC states “Since no quantified virus isolate of the SARS-Cov2 is available…” and the date of the document is 16 April 2020
While the CDC states “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available” and the date of this document is 13 July 2020.

In practice from these two statements from the two main health institutions of the world which are committed to the study and the monitoring of Covid 19, for the US government and for the European Uunion we understand that nor in Europe nor in the US the Covid-19 virus has ever been isolated. “Isolated” means separated from the dead material contained in the examined specimen, like the patient’s cells or possible bacterias. Although in both these statements the most important element is not the fact that the virus hasn’t still been isolated but the following adjective: “quantified”. It is not necessary to have a degree in virology to understand that if a virus has not been quantified, it means that you don’t even know the percentage that quantifies the virus respect to the leftover material . Nor if the european labs or the american ones are able to know in what percentage the virus is present in the examined specimens, which means that the CDC and the EDC staff members weren’t able to distinguish the virus from the leftover material nor were they able to identify it.

The crucial element of these two documents is the confirmation of the fact that at the date of april 16 2020 both the CDC and the EDC had not isolated the virus of Covid 19, while Eurosurveillance two months before had already approved the Corman-Drosten study as the official screening methodology for Covid 19 and the WHO had already shipped the testing kits to the regions hit by the epidemic.

Dr. Corbett insists on the fact that Eurosurveillance approved the Corman-Drosten Study 24 hours after being submitted:

“That never happens. It takes months to get a review done. They turned this around in 24 hours. It was waved through, it was not peer-reviewed. There’s no standard operational procedure for this test. There’s major and minor concerns about this paper and we go through it all here. it should be retracted. If they retract it, it means the whole thing falls to bits. The whole edifice collapses. It’s a house of cards built on sand and we’ve just moved the sand.”.

Not peer-reviewed – The Corman Drosten front cover on the Eurosurveillance website

Received: 21 January 2020 Accepted: 22 January 2022

However the retraction request letter of the Corman-Drosten made by the ICSLS focused on the fact that their methodology is too much based upon RT-PCR.

“Clinicians need to recognize the enhanced accuracy and speed of the molecular diagnostic techniques for the diagnosis of infections, but also to understand their limitations. Laboratory results should always be interpreted in the context of the clinical presentation of the patient, and appropriate site, quality, and timing of specimen collection are required for reliable test results”. (Kurkela, Satu, and David WG Brown. Molecular-diagnostic techniques Medicine 38.10 (2009): 535-540.)

On July 1994 Newyorker journalist Celia Farber interviewed Kary Mullis for SPIN magazine (pag. 63) Kary Mullis was the inventor of the polimerasis chain reaction for which he received the Nobel prize for Chemistry.

Mullis repeated over and over that RT-PCR wasn’t conceived for the virus diagnostic, so that in the interview with Celia Farber he stated:“PCR can detect HIV in people who tested negative to the antibody test”

The ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control) makes two recomendations:

That a high Ct value (RNA amplification threshold) greater than 35 could be due to contamination by reagents and as a general recommendation at the point number 7

the ECDC clearly states that specimens positive to the SARS Cov-2 must always carry a high viral load, which excludes all the so called “asymptomatic” from the category of individuals who can carry the infection.

Despite the positive results can be indicative regarding the presence of Covid RNA in the patient a clinical correlation with the patient history and other diagnostic informations are crucial to determine the infective status of the subject.

The fact that the Corman-Drosten is unreliable is clearly expressed in the UK government guide for health professionals: Understanding cycle threshold (Ct) in SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR A guide for health protection teams which has been published on October 2020 which on page 6 says clearly: RT-PCR detects presence of viral genetic material in a sample but is not able to distinguish whether infectious virus is present. The quantity of intact virus in upper respiratory swabs will be affected by factors that are endogenous and exogenous to laboratory methods.

According to the ICSLS study in the RT-PCR testing literature it is widely known that there are many risks like the functional false positives, that can lead to misinterpretation of test results. For this reason it is recommended for example by Kurkela et al that the RT-PCR is always used in tandem with a clinical diagnosis of the infection based upon symptoms. There are documented evidences of misinterpretation that created ghost pandemics like the 2004-2006 in which a respiratory disease was exchanged for an epidemic of pertussis thanks to the RT-PCR testing.

To summarise, the fatal flaws of the Corman-Drosten are the following:

1) is non-specific, due to erroneous primer design

2) is enormously variable

3) The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments.

4) has no positive or negative controls

5) has no standard operating procedure

6) It was not peer-reviewed

After the retraction letter sent by Pieter Borger and the other 21 scientists, on december 3, 2020 Eurosurveillance published this statement (web link):

We have recently received correspondence regarding a paper published this year, questioning both the content and the editorial procedures used to evaluate the article prior to publication. We can assure our readers and authors that we take comments relating to scientific content, the processing of articles and editorial transparency seriously. All articles published by the journal are peer-reviewed by at least two independent experts in the field (or at least one in the case of rapid communications). The article in question was also peer-reviewed by two experts on whose recommendation the decision to publish was made. Eurosurveillance is seeking further expert advice and discussing the current correspondence in detail. We will, according to our existing procedures, evaluate the claims and make a decision as soon as we have investigated in full. In the meantime, it would be unfair to all concerned to comment or discuss further until we have looked at all the issues.

According to Irish science writer Peter Andrews (Russia Today link not working in Europe) “All PCR testing based on the Corman-Drosten protocol should be stopped with immediate effect. All those who are so-called current ‘Covid cases’, diagnosed based on that protocol, should be told they no longer have to isolate. All present and previous Covid deaths, cases, and ‘infection rates’ should be subject to a massive retroactive inquiry. And lockdowns, shutdowns, and other restrictions should be urgently reviewed and relaxed”.

RNA Test devices not validated

There are 78 CE-marked RNA tests in the market. Nevertheless it is difficult to link scientific publications to specific CE-marked devices as said devices do not disclose the RNA sequences detected by the test. However what matters for us is that none of these tests has been controlled, inspected nor validated (the CE Mark label does not imply validation) and it’s the European Commission that states this in the document: Current performance of COVID-19 test methods and devices and proposed performance criteria (link). As a matter of fact, validation is not legally obligatory for testing devices and this is the heart of this whole story. Since the European legislation doesn’t require the testing devices to undergo validation in order to be CE marked, therefore it shouldn’t surprise that the Corman Drosten has not been validated.

The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) at the University of Oxford is a centre for the divulgation of scientific evidences whose director is Carl Henegan who is the co-author of Jefferson et al, which as we have seen above is one of the most relevant studies made until now on the Covid 19.

Since the Covid 19 emergency started, the Centre continuosly updates their website Covid 19 Evidence Service.

We have to acknowledge that CEBM has always been publishing updates that were excerpts from the studies we have been citing here: Jefferson et al, Bullard et al, Jafaar et al, Young et al etc. This means that the official British science always knew the real reach of this epidemic and always published the studies results and we have to acknowledge this merit to the University of Oxford without which today we would know nothing of this virus and we would be wandering among the darkness of ignorance and the panic created by our governments.

Unfortunately for our governors the University of Oxford does exist and works unspeakably well and very soon when such publications will enter the mainstream media our governments will have to take them into account.

The following notice on the status of COVID-19 is published on the UK health security website and it says literally: As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID) in the UK.

The 4 nations public health HCID group made an interim recommendation in January 2020 to classify COVID-19 as an HCID. This was based on consideration of the UK HCID criteria about the virus and the disease with information available during the early stages of the outbreak. Now that more is known about COVID-19, the public health bodies in the UK have reviewed the most up to date information about COVID-19 against the UK HCID criteria. They have determined that several features have now changed; in particular, more information is available about mortality rates (low overall), and there is now greater clinical awareness and a specific and sensitive laboratory test, the availability of which continues to increase.

The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID.

The above notice is published on the UK government guidance on Covid 19 which you can find it here and this is the official statement of the British Government regarding Covid 19 and that IS NOT A HIGH CONSEQUENCES DISEASE.

As you can read yourselves, the labelling of Covid 19 not as a HCD from the British government, dates back to March 13 2020 and it is the stance recommended to the British government from the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens. Such position is officially documented by this letter sent from the president of the Advisory Committee Prof. Tom Evans to Public Health England on March 13 2020 when the Committee expressed itself unanimously.

The problem is that despite the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens which is a government outlet and despite the scientific papers published by the University of Oxford, the British government keep implementing restrictive measures which are in total contradiction to what is being affirmed by the major scientific institutions of the planet.
We have to acknowledge that even on the CDC website (the U.S. agency for the monitoring of diseases) both Bullard et al and Young et al are cited and in general it is acknowledged the non infectivity of Covid 19 after 10 days since the symptoms Onset but despite this the government institutions are implementing restrictive measures of our freedom of movement while forcing people wearing masks as if they are living into a parallel reality.

The question is: until when governments will ignore the medical scientific institutions?

Political consequences of the Borger et al initiative

At european level, the only administrative provision enacted until now that takes into account the above mentioned studies is a decision taken by the appeal court of Lisbon which ended a quarantine ordered by the local health department of the Azzorre islands to four german citizens.

According to the Court decision:“The PCR test is unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that a positive result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus” The judges cited Jafaar et al and Surkova et al published on the Lancet: False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs.

Following a notice published on December 14, the World Health Organization on January 13 published this notice whose recipients are the IVD users (In Vitro Diagnostic Users) who adopt the Corman-Drosten diagnostics. In the notice the WHO requests users to follow the instructions for use (IFU) when interpreting results for specimens tested using PCR methodology.

“Users of RT-PCR reagents should read the IFU [Information for Use] carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is necessary to account for any background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a positive result.”

In practice the WHO in this paragraph states that adopting a high Ct (cycle treshold) can lead to false positive results.

“In some cases, the IFU will state that the cut-off should be manually adjusted to ensure that specimens with high Ct values are not incorrectly assigned SARS-CoV-2 detected due to background noise.”

Performing the test with a high Cycle Treshold yields “background noise” that is false positive results. In practice the patient is told that he’s positive while he’s not.

“The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus and so the Ct value will be low. Conversely, when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.”

When the test is performed by adopting a high cycle treshold is not possible to establish a difference between “irrelevant” and “meaningful”

As science never stops in the past few months scientific research went on and another study on Covid-19 was published on Nature: Van Kampen et al, whose title is Duration and key determinants of infectious virus shedding in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). The study not only confirms what Borger et al already found out regarding the false positive results produced by the RT-PCR but from the lab tests it seems the quantity of false positive goes well beyond 90% of results.

However the Corman-Drosten upon which the Covid 19 diagnostic is based and all the data produced and divulgated by governments and media worldwide is practically crumbled on itself and in the scientific world it has now lost all its credibility.

Now the ball is in the hands of those who have to bring this information to the public, which means publishers and journalists.

The objective of this article was just to provide an overview and for what it was possible for a non-scientific piece the fallacy of the diagnostic methodology known as Corman-Drosten.

However it is not possible not to notice an abysmal discrepancy between scientific awareness regarding the scarce infectious potential of Covid 19 and the restrictive measures put in place by governments. We must conclude that the restrictive measures put in place to stop the spreading of Covid 19 have no scientific basis and they should cease immediately or the governments that implemented them they have the a duty to tell us why such measures have been put in place because covid 19 is not the real reason.

Gianluca D’Agostino worked for CNN in Washington DC and for Associated Press in Rome. D’Agostino has a Ph.D in Theory of Communication and Information at the University of Macerata. Former researcher at the Center for the study of the Novel at Stanford University, Visiting Scholar at the Film Studies Program at University of California Berkeley and Visiting Scholar at the Media and Communication Department of Fordham University NY.

https://unimc.academia.edu/GianlucaDAgostino

10 September 2023

Artificial intelligence is a scam to keep you away from Consciousness

I decided to write this story after reading this article about the South African entrepreneur Elon Musk announcing the start of research on artificial intelligence.

In reality, research into artificial intelligence began when the Czech writer Karel Čapek published the drama Rossum’s Universal Robots in 1920. Instead, according to the American scientist John McCarthy, artificial intelligence is “the science and development of intelligent machines”.

Let’s start from the fact that the expression “artificial intelligence” is an oxymoron, because Intelligence by definition and by the very nature of the Multiverse can NEVER be artificial because intelligence presupposes Consciousness and Consciousness presupposes a biological system. Consequently, a machine or software cannot have Consciousness nor can it be implanted in it, because machines are made of inert and non-biological material.

For this reason, this topic must be addressed with an approach that is exactly the opposite of that proposed by Elon Musk. Which means that to develop any technology that can be defined as relevant in terms of technological evolution it is necessary to start from conscious material or living biological material.

Conscious material is any living biological tissue which as such has a vibrational frequency that can be aligned with ours through resonance. Resonance allows you to increase the intensity of a specific signal, and also allows tuning to certain frequencies or functions. It is only when we resonate with the right frequency that we tune the radio and decipher the particular program we want to listen to, otherwise we are completely excluded from the information transmitted.
The technology of consciousness is based entirely on this: alignment of the vibrational frequency between two living and therefore conscious beings. Matter also has a frequency but it will never be as high as that of a living being.

The technology we are talking about cannot therefore be defined as “Artificial Intelligence” but rather as “technology of Consciousness” or “Conscious Technology”. This definition, however, has a transitory nature and will be used by us at least until we understand that Consciousness is the one and only technology that can be defined as such. But to get to this we will have to wait until our evolutionary process has progressed enough to be able to understand this assumption.
Therefore when we address the topic of intelligence “other” than human intelligence we must talk about Technology of Consciousness and not Artificial Intelligence which in practice means “anti-intelligence” therefore AI is a totally meaningless expression, although knowing the direction of circus in which we live I believe it was chosen precisely for its ironic streak.

On the contrary, in the narrative of the mainstream media the technological/futuristic scenario proposed always shows us robots and cyborgs that become immortal or machines that become human. School examples in this regard are films such as Blade Runner (1982), Terminator II (1991) and many others. This is the narrative that has been presented to us a million times from 1920 to the present day.
Let’s try to understand why.

I think it is useful to remember that the word robota in the Czech language but also in Russian means “work” and in fact when we talk about artificial intelligence we always talk about replacing human work with that of robots. This type of dystopian scenario has always been used to create a state of fear associated with technological progress. As if in the future cyborgs and machines will replace humans at work, thus generating the fear of man-versus-machine competition. All this means only one thing: Slavery. Yep, because if man’s reference model becomes the machine, which is more efficient, doesn’t go on holiday and doesn’t bother us, that’s where the techno-financial regime wants to take us.

The biped without Consciousness or with limited Consciousness will thus be tempted to imitate the machine because this is the model by which the regime wants us as human beings to be inspired: to become machines. The seed of this emulative psychological condition has already been sown in the flock of sheep of which our society is made up in the majority, because the race for the latest gadget, expertly instilled by advertising, has already managed to produce the pseudo-archetype of the technology enthusiast. technology. This is a Boeot who is ready to embrace any type of submission that bears the AI mark even if this meant continuous surveillance, loss of freedom and ultimately loss of his own Conscience.

Meanwhile, the mainstream narrative has prepared us for this scenario of the replacement of man with robots and the revolt of the machines, because this will have to be the context in which the Neanderthal will have to make the choice to embrace the new slavery, exchanging it for freedom, progress and evolution. In practice, technological evolution is always associated with the image of slavery. Which coincidentally is precisely the antithesis of Consciousness and its evolution whose essential prerequisite is freedom.

But why is technological evolution associated with the image of automated work and therefore with slavery? Because this is the basic scenario in which the human being will have to operate once the plan of total submission to the will of the god AI is completed.

The Neanderthal tech-enthusiast ignores that the only possible evolution passes through Consciousness because this individual has been conditioned to make evolution coincide with technological evolution but above all, another fundamental manipulative concept, the biped has been led to believe that it is the brain and only the brain is the physical place where intelligence resides, thus completely removing the concept of Consciousness. In reality no study in the world has so far managed to localize the area of the brain where consciousness is located, although the majority of the scientific community is convinced that consciousness is located in some region of our brain, the idea is gaining ground , as this article by the editorial staff of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggests, that Consciousness actually has an autonomous location with respect to our brain and also our body.
The brain alone cannot do anything without Consciousness, because the brain is home to the neurological functions that coordinate responses to stimuli, therefore the brain can perform mechanical functions mediated by reasoning, such as driving a car or using a computer but what is missing to the brain is the primary inspiration, the initial breath, what Hindus call prana and Catholics call the Holy Spirit. Without this primary “drive” the brain is of little use. And this push, however, can only be received by Consciousness as a whole and not by a single organ such as the brain.

Therefore if we want to talk about true technological evolution we must address the topic of Consciousness which in the end we can use as a synonym for Intelligence and which still today constitutes a dark and unfathomable mystery for our official science. If you notice, the word “Consciousness” is never used or spoken in any media either on entertainment programs or in the news.

In fact, for official science the word “Consciousness” is considered a taboo. Despite the fact that in 1803 the English scientist Thomas Young through the double-slit experiment demonstrated that light takes the form of a wave or a particle, depending on whether the observer is present or not.

In practice, Young’s experiment demonstrated that light can take the form of a wave and therefore energy or a particle and therefore matter, depending on whether the observer observes the behavior of the light or not.

This means that there is a direct connection between the human being or consciousness, if you prefer, and matter. This connection is not a passive connection but it is man who determines whether the surrounding reality exists in the form of energy or matter. This experiment forms the basis of quantum physics.

The implications of a quantum universe are simply revolutionary in scientific, philosophical and metaphysical terms, because this discovery places man at the center of what philosophy and science define as the Universe. In practice, if it is man who determines the form that reality takes, this attributes to man a capacity that we can define as divine, as it is man who constitutes the prime mover of creation.

If observation determines the form of matter and more generally we understand that it is Consciousness that creates what we define as reality, this also means that space and time are not pre-existing elements of consciousness but are themselves produced by consciousness. In practice, everything that we are used to conceiving and defining as “reality” is nothing more than the product of our thoughts.
The Double Slit experiment therefore unequivocally demonstrates the role of Consciousness not only as the source of creation but as the ontological foundation on which the entire Multiverse is based. Think of the reaction that Thomas Young had when he realized that the light behaved in one way rather than another depending on whether he was present or not at the experiment.

Young’s experiment, in addition to demonstrating the existence and role of Consciousness and quantum physics as the dynamics of the relationship between spirit and matter, has practically canceled the raison d’être of Aristotelian causal logic, replacing it with the symbolic dynamics of Synchronicity.

According to Carl Gustav Jung “the general concept of synchronicity is the temporal coincidence of two or more events without a causal link between them but with the same meaning.”
Therefore the connection between two events in quantum physics does not have a causal matrix but a symbolic one, which means that their relationship does not pertain to a mechanical principle or scope but the connection pertains to a relationship based on meaning, which therefore goes beyond the purely physical sphere and can therefore be defined as metaphysical.

Despite being a recently coined term, the Jungian concept of synchronicity has an origin traceable to the philosophical tradition of Neoplatonism. Plato already supported the existence of an intelligent reality, the ideas, which form and direct the material one, in such a way that the phenomena of nature are connected to each other by a superior law which he called dialectics.

The presence of the divine in the events of the world was subsequently understood by the Stoics as συν-παθεία (syn-pathèia), by virtue of which they believed that any event, even minimal or very distant, had repercussions on every other, in contrast to the mechanistic conception of the Epicureans.
Instead, it is with the Neoplatonists and in particular with Plotinus that the synchronic dynamics of natural phenomena is explained with the notion of Soul of the world.

The concept of World Soul represents the unifying principle of nature, regulated by intimate connections between its parts, like an organism from which individual living beings take shape; the latter, although each one is articulated and differentiated according to its own individual specificities, are nevertheless linked to each other by a common universal Soul.

According to Plotinus therefore:
«… those who believe that the manifested world is governed by luck or chance, and that it depends on material causes, are far from the divine and the notion of One.”
However, official science has always pretended that Young’s experiment and the resulting physical law did not exist, living in a state of denial of Consciousness, a denial that continues to this day, in an exponentially inexplicable way.

In fact, our official science is still stuck in the period preceding the law of wave-particle dualism and, despite this being a physical law, official physics continues to pretend that this law does not exist, stating in their own embarrassment that quantum mechanics is applicable only at the level of atoms and photons, while for classical physics quantum is inexplicable and therefore cannot be applied.

That is, in practice according to “science” quantum mechanics applies only to the microcosm and not to the macro. I’ll repeat it once again in case you haven’t understood: to this day, official science defines Quantum Physics as “inexplicable”.And this is not a phrase said at the bar, this is the official position of Earth science regarding Quantum Physics.

Official science persists in the Neanderthalian vision according to which the universe exists only as a physical and visible element, a manifestation of an objective reality, even if Quantum Physics has demonstrated the opposite, annihilating the very essence of the notion of physical object and very concept of matter which for quantum physics is just another form that energy takes.

Despite the mortal blow dealt to it by quantum science, official science still supports the idea of a physical and non-hologrammatic universe as it really is. That’s why ambiguous characters like Elon Musk can announce nonsense projects such as artificial intelligence or talk about cyborgs and other nonsense of this type, because they are still consistent with their denial of Consciousness.

The adherence of a character like Elon Musk to the obscurantist position of official physics can be understood from some delusional statements made by Musk, who on the strength of his “experience” with the space exploration company he owns, Space X, has repeatedly declared that “there are no other forms of life in the universe besides ours, because I would know it by now”.

Now I don’t think there is any more denial of Consciousness than this egoic-narcissistic declaration. And as someone said, presumption is just the other side of ignorance. Another parameter to verify the absence of conscience is the magnitude of a person’s ego, when there is an ego there is no conscience and vice versa. In Musk’s sentence the ego is clearly expressed in the final part of the sentence “I would know by now”.

This scenario of denial of Conscience does not surprise us but rather is perfectly consistent with the model of underdevelopment of the society in which we live which is based on the principle of the domination of a minority over the majority. The study of quantum physics would have devastating consequences for the current socio-economic structure of the world in which we live, the system would in fact have to recognize that the entire Multiverse is made up of points connected to each other, that all human beings are connected to each other and that even human beings, the planet we live on and all the galaxies are all connected by an invisible network. This vision has irrepressible and inevitable metaphysical implications such as, for example, that man possesses within himself a dimension that cannot fail to be considered divine because the fact of literally being the creator of the universe places him in a condition of absolute freedom.

Furthermore, a direct consequence of this vision is that there is no dimension “external” to man but it is the entire Multiverse that is contained within us starting from space and time. All this is not good at all for the regime we live in which is based on domination because according to these people we are no more or less than insects and we must be slaves to their materialistic vision of the world.
And it is for this reason that the system invented this genius of artificial intelligence, because this serves to prepare the ground for the slavery that they want to impose on us with the deadly embrace of their dystopian vision called Transhumanism, according to which the development of the human being will be conditioned by technological development. While in reality in nature and from what we have said so far the opposite is true.

In practice, according to this “philosophy” of artificial intelligence, human beings will have to integrate their body, in particular their brain, with technological devices that lead them to develop capabilities that they otherwise could not have.

This assumption starts from the denial of the role of Consciousness as the basis of the Multiverse but above all it starts from the denial of the Multidimensionality of our consciousness. We cannot go into this area now but it will be enough to consider the fact that our consciousness is multidimensional because consciousness is capable of experiencing and living in countless dimensions.

And the human being does not need any technological integration to evolve because he is already equipped with the most sophisticated technological equipment in existence: his own Consciousness.

In conclusion, this reflection only serves to remind the reader that the only possible evolution is the evolution of Consciousness and not technological evolution because without the former the latter cannot take place.

Although this is a scientifically proven reality, we live in an era in which many are enthusiastic about technology and these individuals are ready to welcome all the technological and slave initiatives that the techno-financial regime wants to make them swallow, because according to their conditioned minds, technology and evolution are the same thing. The system will take advantage of technology enthusiasts to impose continuous surveillance, both at home and outside the home, first taking away our freedom and ultimately also our soul.

Online teaching is the first step to impose surveillance and make it embraced as evolution. The technology enthusiast is happy with this evolution because his children are monitored by the telematic eye and are therefore made harmless by a remote controller which solves the problem of making them study.

The Neanderthal, however, ignores that surveillance is a direct attack on Consciousness, because it is conditioning, a denial of freedom. The Neanderthal is unaware that their children will become automatons with a unique thought, compared to which the word conformism will seem like the greatest euphemism in human history. In fact, if online teaching becomes the rule we will have cookie-cutter beings, because they will all come from the same matrix. Therefore the communication will be the same, the facial expressions will all be the same, the way of speaking and breathing will be the same, the gestures will be repetitive and always the same, this is because a screen is a limited one-dimensional surface, where even communication is limited. Which means that when people see each other face to face, that is, in person, they will be terrified of physical confrontation, of seeing themselves reflected in an image that is not reflected by a screen but is a multidimensional mirror. The result is that we will create a generation of mentally and physically disabled people who will be terrified of meeting each other.
So the question is: how can the herd be enthusiastic while running towards the slaughterhouse?

The answer is that since this civilization has lived for tens of thousands of years under a regime of slavery in the most disparate forms, a sort of enlarged Stockholm syndrome has developed in man, thanks to which man not only does not complain about own state of slavery but also began to love their slavers. Being a slave is therefore such a natural condition for the biped of this planet that without submitting to someone’s yoke and in a condition of total freedom, the human being would not know what to do and would panic.

Yet it doesn’t take much to understand that human relationships cannot be replaced by an image on a screen. In interaction between humans, communication is made up of a non-verbal part which, according to Albert Mehrabian, Emeritus of Psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles, is 93%. I repeat: the non-verbal component constitutes 93% of a dialogue between human beings. Do you understand now why I talk about Neanderthals, Boeotians and flocks running towards the slaughterhouse?

It can easily be understood that if official science continues to deny the role of Consciousness, we as a civilization will not be able to make any progress in terms of technological evolution because it would be like trying to build a ship by denying the existence of water.

As Deepak Chopra said: “Consciousness is fundamental and causeless. It is the basis of existence. As conscious beings, humans cannot experience, measure, or conceive of a reality emptied of Consciousness.”

Because one thing is certain: if we don’t put Consciousness at the center of all scientific research we will remain where we are stuck now: in the darkness. If this is the situation, why does official science still deny the very existence of Consciousness and its crucial role in technological evolution?

One of the reasons that come to mind for perpetuating the denial of Consciousness as the ontological basis of the Multiverse or of Quantum Physics as a mechanics for understanding the relationship between Consciousness and energy or Consciousness and matter is due to the fact that if one delves into the study of Consciousness and of Quantum it turns out that the entire Multiverse is composed of energy, that everything is energy and that even matter is energy with a higher level of density.

The direct consequences of this reasoning is that if energy is everywhere in the Multiverse, why can’t we use this energy? And in fact it is this 600 trillion dollar question that has put a brake on research into Quantum Physics and Consciousness by mainstream science. If official science had been free from the yoke of oil multinationals, by now all the inhabitants of this planet would have been able to enjoy free energy thanks to the Quantum Vacuum or empty space energy or zero point energy. When Nikla Tesla explained to his financier, banker J.P. Morgan, in 1903, that he was able to build an apparatus that could produce free energy for all the inhabitants of planet earth, the banker was not impressed by this discovery: “The problem is that if this stuff is free I won’t do anything with it and you won’t be able to do anything with it either because no one wants energy to be free”. Therefore, if this planet is still in a primitive condition on an energetic level, we owe it to the banker J.P. Morgan and subsequently to all those representatives of industry and finance who, like him, believe that energy should not be free but must be paid for.

In this regard, on June 12, 2023, at the National Press Club in Washington D.C, a series of two-day meetings dedicated to life in the Multiverse and zero-point energy was held. The meetings were organized by the Disclosure Project, a non-governmental organization founded by Dr. Steven Greer, which since 2001 has brought together more than 1000 witnesses including former soldiers and members of US Intelligence who have worked in the context of the so-called “black projects “, completely illegal military research projects, as they are not supervised by the government. The Disclosure Project was the first organization in the world to officially ask the US government to end the secrecy regime regarding the existence of other civilizations in the universe, the existence of zero point energy and to promote the vision of the quantum universe according to which is the conscience to be the center and the creative matrix of the whole.

The meetings ended with the screening of the film “The Lost Century”, a documentary dedicated to these hundred years that have just passed, during which humanity had to renounce its technological, spiritual, political and social evolution because the global military industrial complex it has in fact hidden and therefore prevented the development and diffusion of zero-point energy.

Another possible material reason for the denial of Consciousness as the engine of the Universe could be the weapons industry, because obviously in a world centered on Consciousness weapons do not find much application. “Stephen Hawking wrote in an editorial published in the Independent in 2014 that “With the development of artificial intelligence the military is considering weapons systems that can choose and eliminate targets autonomously.” With this statement Hawking implicitly admits the possibility that artificial intelligence may have its own will and decision-making autonomy, which is impossible for the reasons we explained at the beginning.

So why do scientists and billionaires insist on these wacky and baseless theories?

Here is the answer:
Unfortunately for Mr. Hawking, if you start developing conscious technology it is essential to be on the side of Consciousness. Which means that the entire prerequisite for the development, application and purpose of the project must be respectful of the essence of Consciousness which is life. Which means that living and therefore conscious material cannot be used to pursue an objective that is contrary to the principle of life. For example, if you build a weapon that is conscious, that weapon will never fire for reasons that are wrong or that go against Consciousness and therefore against life. And that’s why this technology finds such strong resistance on this planet. In fact, our civilization still stands out today for being of a psychopathic nature: wars and killings in this temporal dimension are considered ordinary administration and our governments exercise their power by maintaining a permanent state of fear and terror which are the exact opposite of a civilization based on Consciousness and therefore on the principle of Life.

Can you imagine industries on this planet developing technology that has no military applications and leading ineluctably to universal peace? Can you imagine the military industrial complex developing a technology that has the prerequisite of excluding the possibility of unjustly killing or harming?

Or even worse, a technology capable of instantly vaporizing any human fear?
All this is not possible. Not in this dimension.

Fear is the main tool of control used by the elite that reigns on this planet. If fear vanished, panic would break out among members of the establishment and stock markets around the world would collapse instantly. In light of these considerations, this aversion to Consciousness makes complete sense and is also consistent with the pursuit of nonsense like artificial intelligence.

This is because thanks to artificial intelligence we could offload our responsibilities for the malfunctioning of machines or relegate the authority to decide for us to them.
In fact, in recent years we have read about dystopian scenarios that warn us of the possible dangers deriving from artificial intelligence: from the loss of jobs to the revolt of the machines, up to the slavery of humanity, which is always associated with the theme of the technological future. The assumption of this reasoning on the danger of intelligent machines seems to be that there is no thinking being who can control their development or supervise their activity. And it is precisely this false psychological assumption that is the basis of all this manipulation and this assumption is the impotence of man compared to the will and power of the machine. In practice the assumption is that man is a powerless being in front of the machine and this is a real blasphemy because man, as demonstrated by quantum physics, is the creator of the universe. Do you understand why the role of Consciousness is totally denied? Because Consciousness represents eternal freedom, liberation from the chains of slavery of the mind and death. The mind and death are instead the only places where those who direct this circus would like to relegate man in order to subjugate him.
In this regard, it is interesting to note that those who warn us of the dangers of artificial intelligence are the same people who are working on its development, starting with Elon Musk. So the thing is rather strange, because it is the same sponsors of the Artificial Intelligence project who warn us of the possible risks linked to the development of this research.
In truth, this psychological terrorism has a meaning and how. As with other threats already perpetrated in the past by this technocratic-financial regime, the threat always brings with it the solution. For example, when the threat was terrorism, the solution was military intervention, when the threat was the pandemic the solution was the vaccine and now that the threat is Artificial Intelligence, the solution has Neuralink, the company Elon Musk producing microchips implantable in the human brain.

In fact, the message that these people want to convey is that human beings are threatened by artificial intelligence, which can take away their jobs, start a war, etc. In order to be able to “compete” with AI, the human being must be equipped with a microchip installed in the brain, so that it becomes machine enough to be able to compete with the machine. More denial of Consciousness than this…
I don’t know if you realize the level of nonsense these people tell you, but a machine can never be as intelligent as a monkey, because a machine does not have a neurological system capable of coordinating its reactions in response to sensory stimuli. And even if this were possible, there would always and only be one algorithm at the base and an algorithm cannot escape the scope of imitation. What does this mean? That at most a machine can emulate human intelligence or at most mimic it but the bipedal enthusiast of technology doesn’t know this.

Therefore this threat from artificial intelligence is not only false but constitutes a dangerous scam because on the basis of this falsehood they will push (as happened with the false pandemic) millions if not billions of people to have a microchip installed in their brains. Therefore the real threat is not artificial intelligence itself which is anti-intelligent by definition, the real threat is those who want you to believe that this threat exists. A film already seen but terrestrial bipeds don’t seem to learn from their mistakes.
The cover-up about Consciousness Technology is so great that these people are using every means to misinform the public on this topic.

I just found this article published by none other than the World Economic Forum, whose title is “What is Conscious Technology?”. However, if you read the article after two lines you redirect the discussion on artificial intelligence and the omnipresent danger represented by its development because cyborgs could turn against us, etc. In short, a series of warnings that only serve to misinform the reader and which undermine the reputation of an organization like the WEF.

On the other hand I found someone who really understood what Consciousness Technology is and I’m talking about Dr. Rachel Armstrong, who talks about “Living Architecture” and “Living Spaceships” and this is exactly what I mean when I’m talking about Technology of Consciousness. In any case, here we are not interested in the reasons why official science refuses to open up to the technology of Consciousness, this article has the sole purpose of making the reader understand that artificial intelligence is a pseudo-scientific scam, which it only serves to stop any attempt to bring us any closer to developing any technology that has Consciousness as its premise.

It may seem paradoxical but the scheme is working great, if you consider that official science has been able to relegate Quantum Physics to a rank of studies of minor importance and has also been able to stop the state of evolution of physics in 1803. We’re talking 200 years ago! To succeed in such an operation, either you are Houdini or you have an audience of narcoleptics.
Official science can rest assured that it can make us believe that artificial intelligence is the future because for two hundred years it has blocked the technological evolution of an entire planet. And in any case the advantage of Conscious Technology is that being the only way to true Evolution, sooner or later we will be forced to study and develop it. In that time that is getting ever closer, no one will remember people like Elon Musk anymore because we will finally be evolved and above all free human beings.

Gianluca D’Agostino

19 June 2019

Corporate Storytelling: How Businesses turn into Storytelling machines

EN Business Narratives, Corporate Storytelling….what’s this all about?

The Coca Cola Company website has become a storytelling factory.

“The most outrageous way to share a coke” is the headline of a number of videos posted by Coke consumers who engage with the concept of sharing.

Coca Cola leads the way in the world’s Corporate communication and shows the market main trend.

In today’s world, citizenship moved, where everyday we meet with our friends as we do at the coffee shop or at the pub, we do make new acquaintances and we work jobs, so it’s a sort of life-double.

In this new world, business has transformed itself into a narrative machine. Why? Because the main activity that people do in this new world is basically READING. We enjoy this new life by reading everything, anything and all the time, as that’s the new world’s form. It’s a world made of images and words and the best way to organize a world of images and words is to rely upon the most perfect organization scheme we know about storytelling: the Hollywood Narrative Formula.

I would start from the very beginning, with a famous statement: “The hero is the Story”.

That’s Robert Mckee’s legendary statement. McKee can probably be defined as the King of Hollywood Storytelling Formula, he’s been even portrayed (by himself) in Adaptation (2002) a Hollywood movie where the protagonist (Nicolas Cage) struggles with himself while trying to write a script so he splits into an improbable double who slowly gains self confidence and he actually manages to steal his double life.
Obviously this whole situation drives the hero crazy.

And the absolute masters of this formula are Robert McKee, Syd Field, Chris Vogler, Lew Hunter, (which wrote the foreword of my book) then we have John Truby and Luigi Forlai. All these people are Storytelling theorists who made their own fortune by holding seminars around the world and publishing books on how to write great stories both for movies than for books.

Who would ever thought that in the new virtual world, businesses had to rely on storytellers to organize their marketing? Simply Ridiculous! However that’s the way it works today and I am absolutely happy about that because that’s the field on which I invested my whole post-graduate education, in particular my Theory of Communication Ph.D.

Although let’s see in what form this new world relies upon storytelling and its formula. Well the fact is that as I have said before, in this new world made of images and words, the best way to organize communication is to write a story which is able to identify the reader through an “audience identification process”. And what’s an audience identification process? Well an AIP is a narrative system through which the narrative or you can call it the story is able to catch the reader’s interest through the creation of an empathy’s feeling in the reader (or the viewer if the story rolls in a video format).

How do you create an empathy feeling into the reader/viewer? Well that’s the $1 million question!

However I can tell you that empathy can be developed into the reader’s mind by constructing a series of events and actions that unveil two narratives levels: one is conscious and another is unconscious. These two narrative levels are able to involve the viewer into the story in a way in which he can identify himself into the hero’s main problem and goal.

This is the core of the narrative system.How this can be translated into Business Narratives? Well that depends upon the storyteller’s talent. In any case, you have to understand in today’s media, time is key and we need short stories, that are however able to develop empathy.

Pick up Coca Cola’s biggest competitor: Pepsi! They are doing exactly the same thing. If you want an example about creating empathy with short stories, you can take a look at the first episode of X Factor USA 20012 – The Auctions. You will watch many short stories that are totally able to create empathy in the viewer really within a short time.

It’s Storytelling time for Business, it’s Corporate Storytelling, it’s Business Narratives!