Pseudoviruses for a Pseudo-pandemic

May 29, 2024

Whilst reading the trail protocols for the covid vaccines, I came across something very interesting. When testing their products for efficacy, neither Moderna nor Astra Zeneca tested them against the actual wild-type covid virus. Although Pfizer, initially claimed in their protocol that they were testing their vaccine against the wild strain, they later amended it to clarify that they were not. What all three companies were testing their products against were, in fact, pseudoviruses.

When attempting to ascertain how effective a vaccine is against a virus, pharmaceutical companies use a test called a neutralising antibody assay. The idea is to get a blood sample from someone who has been vaccinated against the disease and collect the antibodies that the vaccine has supposedly induced their body to create. They then introduce the antibodies into a cell culture infected with the virus to see how long it takes the antibodies to neutralise a specific amount of the virus. However, nothing is quite what it seems.

Why Big Pharma claims it uses pseudoviruses

In this case, instead of using the actual virus, they use a pseudovirus, which is a sort of hybrid Frankenvirus cobbled together from the spike protein of the covid virus and the spine of another completely different virus, usually the vesicular stomatis virus (VSV) or the HIV virus. This is common practice for testing other vaccines, not just covid vaccines. They claim the reason why they use pseudoviruses is because the wild type virus is too dangerous and can only be handled in Biosafety level 3 security labs.

Level 3 security involves wearing full overalls, gloves, shoe coverings and respirator mask and all experiments must be done in a biosafety cabinet to contain any possible contamination. Yet, in real life, we were told that any old piece of dirty rag stuck to our face would be sufficient to halt the spread of the virus.

Frontiers | Resilience and Protection ...

Another reason why pseudoviruses are used is that the wild type virus is allegedly hard to obtain! This was supposedly the most infectious, transmissible disease in history. We were told it was on every door knob, every dollar bill, every supermarket trolley, up everybody’s nose. All they had to do was go outside with a jam jar, open the lid, wait a few seconds, close the lid and millions of covid virions would be captured.

How a pseudovirus is constructed

Leaving that issue aside, there are many problems with concluding that the effect antibodies created by a vaccine has on a pseudovirus in a laboratory is similar to the effect they will have on a wild type virus in reality. The most glaringly obvious is that the pseudovirus bears little resemblance to the wild virus as it contains the genetic material of another virus. Moreover, the spike protein supposedly derived from the Sars-Cov-2 virus is, itself, recombinant, i.e, genetically modifed, the DNA of which is synthetic. Not only that, but additional genetic material is added in the form of what is known as a reporter gene. This is used to help track the movement and condition of the pseudovirus within the cell culture. The reporter gene mostly used for this purpose in the covid pseudovirus is Luciferase, an enzyme extracted from fireflies that causes bioluminescence.

In addition, whereas the wild type virus will replicate numerous times, the pseudovirus will only replicate once. The pseudovirus also needs assistance in actually infecting the cells in the cell culture to begin with, unlike the wild virus which will penetrate the cells naturally.

In fact, according to an article in Microbiological research -

“To a large extent, pseudoviruses can only simulate the role of the envelope protein of the live virus in mediating the virus into the cell in vitro, but the process of proliferation and release after entering the cell cannot be simulated.”

So, it is admitted that the natural process of viral infectivity cannot be replicated by using pseudoviruses.

The pseudoviruses are constructed by transfecting cells in a culture with genetic material that will express the synthetic spike protein and the VSV or HIV packaging virus containing Luciferase. The cell culture used is known as the HEK293 cell line, which is derived from the kidney cells of female human foetus which have been genetically manipulated by adding in the genetic material of an adenovirus. The cell culture, containing the spike protein DNA and viral DNA is then treated with various substances such as bovine serum, powerful antibiotics and different salts and amino acids. Monkey kidney cells are also sometimes used in the process. The pseuodviruses are then harvested This is a very similar process to how viruses for vaccines are produced.

The Western blot test and the antibody problem.

In order to confirm that the pseudoviruses produced actually do exhibit the spike protein, they are then tested using the Western blot test. This basically consists of using specific anti-Sars-Cov-2 antibodies to attach to it, to prove its existence indirectly. The odd part about this is that they use animal derived antibodies, frequently from rabbits, not human ones. Surely there is no guarantee that an antibody from a rabbit would react the same way to the covid virus as an antibody derived from a human. You would think that considering that millions of people allegedly had covid, using human anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies would be the better choice but apparently not.

At this point, one must ask the question, how is the rabbit anti-SARS-Cov2 antibody created? It can’t be done by using the wild type virus because, as already seen, it is too dangerous and can only be used in BLS 3 labs. In fact, on checking the manufacturer’s site of the rabbit antibody used in one of the experiments mentioned in the sources section below, the immunogen, or the substance used to create the antibody, is labelled as synthetic. Therefore, it would appear that to test if there is a spike protein attached to the pseudovirus they are using an antibody created by another pseudovirus. Presumably the evidence of a spike protein in that pseudovirus would then have to be tested in the same manner. So basically, the existence of the pseudo spike protein is being tested against another version of itself, which in turn, is tested against another version of itself and so on. Nowhere is the ‘real’ covid virus used in this process.

Moreover, there are a number of problems associated with the Western blot test. One of the main ones, which would seem to make the whole test invalid, is the potential for the antibodies to cross-react with proteins other than the spike protein. So, the supposed covid antibody could bind to protein that is not a spike protein at all, and yet this is what they use to verify the spike protein’s existence in the pseudovirus!

It is interesting to note, that in the production of animal-derived antibodies, they frequently use a substance called Freud’s adjuvant, to increase the production of antibodies. It would be a fair question to ask if the animal can’t produce enough antibodies against the spike protein without the aid of an adjuvant, are the antibodies produced actually against the spike protein at all or something that is included in the adjuvant? It so happens, that Freud’s adjuvant contains tuberculosis bacteria and antibodies against tuberculosis do indeed cross-react with SARS-Cov-2 proteins making the use of the antibodies to specifically detect SARS-Cov-2 completely worthless.

Efficacy of vaccine not directly based on how much virus is neutralised.

The next problem arises because the vaccine manufacturers do not make their declarations of efficacy based on the direct action of the neutralising antibodies on the pseudovirus itself. They do it indirectly, by measuring the reduction in bioluminescence transmitted from the luciferase gene. They assume that the decline in bioluminescence is due solely to the pseudovirus, which incorporates the luciferase gene, being neutralised by the antibodies. However, it is well known the there are many substances that can inhibit the luciferase gene, making any accurate measurements impossible.

According to the journal, “Current Opinion in Chemical Biology”

“Whereas most light-based assay interference is due to spurious events or occurs only at a high(er) compound concentration(s), compound fluorescence and luciferase inhibition show reproducible concentration dependence, making their identification initially more challenging.”

Some of these are known to be in the actual assays that measure for luciferase bioluminescence.

“Some compounds that inhibit the FLuc enzyme appear to be active in cell-based FLuc reporter gene assays due to the interaction of the compound with the FLuc enzyme.”

In fact, one of the products that is used to aid in transfecting the cell culture with the virus is called Lipofectamine, which is known as a cationic lipid reagent. However, it is well established that cationic lipids interfere with luciferase activity.

According to the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University -

“The usage of less reagent is beneficial to the fluorescence. Since the cationic formulation appears to inhibit luciferase activity, it was imperative to see the effects of more luciferase with less transfection reagent.”

“These consolidated results confirmed the hypothesis that cationic lipid-based reagents interferes with luciferase activity.”

Clearly then, this is not an accurate means of measuring the efficacy of antibodies to destroy a virus.

Despite this, the pharmaceutical industry claims that tests using pseudoviruses produce the same results as tests using the wild type virus. There is an obvious problem with his claim. On the one hand they are telling us that using pseudoviruses is necessary because the wild strain is too dangerous and yet they have supposedly already carried out the same tests using the wild strain, in which case why do they need to use pseudoviruses? Like everything else associated with the covid scam, it doesn’t make any sense.

Summary of how we got here.

In 2019, some people in Wuhan were hospitalised with symptoms of pneumonia, a very common illness in the one of the most polluted cities in the world. In fact, it was originally called Wuhan Pneumonia. For an unspecified reason, Chinese doctors decided to remove fluid from the lungs of these patients and test it because they suspected a new virus was the cause. Despite claims they isolated the virus, as many people have pointed out, they didn’t. The mixture of fluid, lung tissue and other genetic material was tested and they found what they believed were a few genes related to corona viruses. They then fed details of the few genes of the supposed virus into a computer which then created a computer-generated genomic sequence of the alleged Covid virus. It was this computer-generated sequence that was sent around the world and not the actual virus. The virus, would theoretically be back engineered from this according to an article in Science Insider.

The ludicrous reason why the ‘live’ virus could not be transported to Western labs was because “Bureaucratic hurdles would make it difficult for China to ship the actual virus quickly to other countries.” This statement was made in the Science Insider article by Corona virus researcher Ralph Baric whose lab in North Carolina is “one of the few labs in the world that can re-create coronaviruses just from their sequences.”

A PCR test was then quickly assembled to test for the covid virus despite the fact the people who created the PCR test for Covid admitted they had no actual covid virus in their possession -

“We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.”

How long after I get COVID-19 will I test negative?

In a scathing review of the original PCR test, published in Research Gate by Pieter Borger et al, they point out that a relative of the alleged covid virus was used in the original PCR Test, not Sars-Cov-2 and its existence was confirmed by a theoretical viral sequence on a computer only not an actual genetic sequence of the real virus -

“In short, a design relying merely on close genetic relatives does not fulfil the aim for a “robust diagnostic test” as cross reactivity and therefore false-positive results will inevitably occur. Validation was only done in regards to in silico (theoretical) sequences and within the laboratory-setting, and not as required for in-vitro diagnostics with isolated genomic viral RNA. This very fact hasn’t changed even after 10 months of introduction of the test into routine diagnostics.”

So, one has to ask, what was the test actually testing for when one tested positive? The PCR test was then used to diagnose patients with covid, despite the fact that its inventor, Kelly Mulis said it was not supposed to be a diagnostic tool and the actual manufacturer’s instructions also said the same thing. Moreover, the tests were run at 45 cycles around the world when, even according to Anthony Fauci, anything over 35 cycles rendered any result useless because any amount of virus detected would not be sufficient to cause illness.

With the number of cases completely fabricated using the PCR test and the instructions that anyone that tested positive using the dodgy test and died within 28 days was to be cited as a covid death, even if they got run over by a bus or died of any other illness, the fake pandemic was born.

As there was no actual pandemic, the amount of deaths were increased by ensuring the deaths of the elderly in care homes by neglect, starvation, illegal Do Not Resuscitate notices and the excessive use of midazolam or remdesivir.

With the fear propaganda ratcheted up to the maximum, the calls for a vaccine grew louder. However, to have a vaccine approved they had to prove their effectiveness in trials. As we have seen, to do this they used an antibody neutralising assay.

This involved, not the real virus, but a Frankenvirus combining, once again, not the actual covid spike protein but a synthetic, genetically modified spike protein stuck on to another completely different virus embedded with the DNA of a firefly.

The existence of the spike protein of the pseudovirus itself was then tested, not against human derived antibodies from the actual covid virus but rabbit-derived antibodies from presumably another pseudovirus. The antibodies themselves are not even necessarily specific to the SARS-Cov-2 virus.

After all that, to test the efficacy of vaccine-induced antibodies they do not actually measure how much virus the antibodies neutralise but how much reduction there is in the bioluminescence emitted by the firefly luciferase despite the fact it can be inhibited by numerous factors, including Lipofectamin, the reagent used in the transfection stage of the pseudovirus production process itself.

This, claim, the pharmaceutical companies, proves the efficacy of their vaccine against the natural strain of the virus in real life! In reality, the only thing it proves is that the vaccine industry is a complete scam and based on nothing but pseudo- science.

Sources

https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577/suppl_file/nejmoa2034577_protocol.pdf

https://www.nih.gov/research-training/medical-research-initiatives/activ/sars-cov-2-vaccine-clinical-trials-using-activ-informed-harmonized-protocols

Induction of Cross-Reacting Antibodies Against the COVID-19 by BCG Vaccination in the Mouse Model - PMC (nih.gov)

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein antibody - Coronavirus (ab272504) | Abcam

Freund’s Adjuvant, Complete (F5881) - Product Information Sheet (sigmaaldrich.com)

Making the Switch to Non-Animal Derived Antibodies | Bio-Rad (bio-rad-antibodies.com)

Western Blotting Immunodetection Techniques | Bio-Rad

Production and characterization of lentivirus vector-based SARS-CoV-2 pseudoviruses with dual reporters: Evaluation of anti-SARS-CoV-2 viral effect of Korean Red Ginseng - ScienceDirect

Western Blotting Antibody Considerations | Bio-Rad (bio-rad-antibodies.com)

file:///C:/Users/smcmu/Downloads/ReviewCorman_Drosten_Paper_Final_Version_10-3-Public_final.pdf

Efficient production of recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein using the baculovirus-silkworm system - PMC (nih.gov)