CDC (Center for Disease Control) scientists made some COVID admissions
that totally destroy the official COVID narrative in a study published in June 2020 entitled Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States. The interesting thing about this whole scamdemic is that when you dig deep enough, the truth is out there – and it is admitted by official sources – however it does take a lot of persistence to cut through the propagandistic maze of disinfo. In this article, we’re going to take a look at the significance of what the CDC scientists revealed, namely that for their research involving the allegedly new virus SARS-CoV-2, they only used 37 base pairs from actual sample tissue and filled in the rest (around 30,000 base pairs) with computer generated sequences, i.e. they made it up! The other of the COVID admissions is equally as stunning: after testing they found that SARS-CoV-2 could not infect human tissue.
#1 COVID Admission: The Computer-Generated Frankenstein Virus: CDC Scientists Admit Only Using 37 Base Pairs from Real Tissue to Assemble SARS-CoV-2
In a previous article, I talked about how SARS-CoV-2 is a stitched-together, Frankenstein virus, because it is a computer-generated, digital, abstract creation, not a real living virus. It has never been properly purified and isolated so that it could be sequenced from end-to-end once derived from living tissue; instead, it’s just digitally assembled from a computer viral database. The CDC scientists state they took just 37 base pairs from a genome of 30,000 base pairs! That means that about 0.001% of the viral sequence is derived from actual living samples or real bodily tissue. Here is the quote:
We designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence (GenBank accession no. NC045512). We extracted nucleic acid from isolates and amplified by using the 37 individual nested PCRs.”
Interestingly enough, in the next paragraph, the CDC scientists say they used “quantitative PCR” for further analysis/construction, which goes against what Kary Mullis,