Feb 21, 2022·edited Feb 21, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

If you want to understand anything China does, understand this:

To China, it is the center of the world. China is the normal that all others aspire to and deviate from, period.

This is ingrained in chinese main culture to the point of gravity or air. Meaning that every action taken by China is taken with this mindset, as something that simply is. The ascendancy of the West, especially the subjugation of China by foreigners, was a culture shock which we westerners lack context to enable understaning of. The west is a dirty, chaotic and smelly dump littered with uncouth barbarians trying to usurp the rightful masters of the world, sums up the underlying currents of chinese party culture.

So think about what things in mainstream americanised western culture chinese party officials would abhore. Democracy. Freedom of opinion, speech and expression. Free art. Free to pursue non-tradtional lifestyle choices simply because the individual (also a totally foreign concept to China, the way we understand it) so desires, freedom of choice and more.

Minor example of differences: A northern european worker does his best, period, as long as he's paid fair wages. A chinese worker does his best as stated by the manual and nothing more. We are very good at using personal autonomy to improve on the works of others: they are very good at rote training in following instructions. And so on.

Ethnicity and culture matters; doesn't mean we can't make nice and be friends, but it does mean that we can't use one measuring rod for all peoples, precisely because we are different in many other ways than skin deep.

Sorry for the OT-tangent, but you did ask and I know about as much of genetics as does Marvel Comics.

I'm not falling for anything, I'm remaining open minded about it all. Even if 2020 deaths were nothing to go by, I'd still like to know what is in the vaccines and why the pressure to inject everyone.

Feb 21, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

Agreed. If it were purely monetary motive, they could have injected everyone with inert or even beneficial substance, but instead, who knows what this crap is. We're not allowed to analyze it.

Feb 22, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

Lots of people lived longer because they couldn’t get to a doctor ( the No. 1 cause of death ) and those deaths were substituted by reclassified flu and other deaths.

Feb 21, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

So they have isolated any of these viruses and shown that they can replicate and infect others? Or do they continue to create computer models based on assumptions?

Thanks, as I say I will write an article on the isolation point but isolated or not, if a patented gene is turning up in it, then there is something to investigate?

Feb 21, 2022·edited Feb 21, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

Also, be sure to include any information whatsoever on how they have discovered variants and how they test for them. I think you'll find that there is nothing there. Also, how do they determine that something is a COVID variant and not just another common cold being called a variant?

Feb 21, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

I read that the old test could not diversify between flu, cold and covid. A friend was sick early on and they tested first for flu, and then for covid. It was neither. And from doctors in CA an article said that they had 1500 or so patients testing positive and they all had the flu.

Feb 21, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

Yes, the FDA itself explains on their PCR EUA that the test cannot differentiate between viruses, bacteria and other orhanisms, and they had not isolated SARS-CoV-2, so the test was based on influenza and other coronaviruses (colds). It's in FDA's own report.

Feb 21, 2022·edited Feb 21, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

I have none and I have never seen anything that is in any way credible. It's something that has been glaringly absent in both the establishment and the resistance.

They just announce a new variant and no one even bothers to question anything about it.

And when something is not brought up as a talking point by anyone in the conspiracy theory world or the establishment, that is usually the indication of the biggest truth being hidden.

Feb 21, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

Sure, investigate the patented computer generated gene that they base fake PCR tests and fake vaccines on. Still doesn't mean it's a virus isolated from an infected person.

Feb 21, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

I came here to make the same point.... I do not expect an answer. This lab leak theory is the preferred oppositional narrative but is no more the truth than believing in natural pandemics.

Feb 21, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

Didn't the Chinese say from the getgo that the virus was somehow related to the US? They even named the lab where it was being developed. And it is know for quite some time from Dr. Martin and Dr. Fuelmilch that the US had multiple patents on the virus. I think the video is still online, probably on Rumble ( must be a year old or so)

Feb 21, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

So. Moderna will be too important to fail? We hid information from you and we told you untruths and sacrifices must be made, but it was all in the pursuit of a more noble purpose. So let it go subhuman.

Feb 22, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

All these “ players “ are red herrings. If you have been following my posts you will know by now that shell companies like Moderna are only used to bring to market ideas and products that have been made by the intelligence community like DARPA & The CIA. Facebook is a prime example. Did you look at Zuckeberg and wonder how that pathetic dweeb managed to get that company off the ground? Well he didn’t, he had help. You can see that these operations are cross border as well, like gain of function research. This shows you the hand of globalists in action. Moderna is no different, it’s just a vehicle to advance the DARPA agenda.

Feb 21, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

This is NOT known yet and it may be Chinese scientists also. Do not rush to conclusions. Covid was lab created and Moderna was likely in on it. Who exactly did it and how it was released is not yet determined.

The Russian intelligence always said that Covid was created at UNC and purposely brought to military games in Wuhan. But it could be BS

Feb 21, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

In 2015 Shi Zheng Li was working with Baric at UNC and she was so proud of herself when she gain-of-functioned a coronavirus she wrote a wrote an article about it.

She also returned to Wuhan with this knowledge. Don't know her itinerary dates.

Feb 21, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

Activities at Baric's lab have been under-reported. He had a lab leak of SARS1 which infected about 20 or so people, but was contained (circa 2017?). All sorts of stuff going on there. In addition to Shi there were several other Chinese virologists working at his lab. Have to check his NIh grants.

Feb 21, 2022·edited Feb 21, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

The probability calculations in this paper, and even by my mouse hero, are way way off. "Roundingtheearth" should address this, because I only took two quarters of undergrad intro to statistics.

The question we should ask is what is the probability that we find the 19nt sequence ANYWHERE in the Moderna portfolio. The txt document has sequence, headers, and invisible formatting characters. I am guessing that there are about 1-2 million sequence positions (opportunities to win the lottery), also called "sliding windows", which have the potential to match the 19nt. I will assume 1 million opportunities. The authors of the paper assume 81 million opportunities. My estimate comes from the character count of my word processor, which was something like 2-3 million by memory, and I would not be at all surprised if a 92 MB txt file broke my word processor's ability to count characters.

At this point, before I go any further, just to set the mood, I recommend that you search youtube for the following 3 tutorials on probability theory. The 1st tutorial is the song/video "Get Lucky" by Daft Punk. The 2nd and 3rd tutorials are clips from the Clint Eastwood movie "Dirty Harry" where in two scenes, the monolog is the same but the outcome is different. The sum of all probabilities for a given question equals 1, the question in the Dirty Harry movie being " 'Do I feel Lucky?' Well do ya Punk?". The probability of a "Punk" , or even a "Daft Punk", surviving an encounter with Dirty Harry, is "Get_Lucky" = (1 minus "Get_UnLucky")

Feb 21, 2022·edited Feb 21, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

The authors make probability calculations for "P1", and then "P3", which in turn depends upon "P1". "P1" is the probability of finding the 19nt sequence in SARS2, and "P3" is the probability of finding the 19nt sequence in both SARS2 AND the Moderna Portfolio. This seems to me to be a big mistake starting right here, because of deep philosophical underpinnings of probability theory. And I need roundingtheearth to comment if I am on the right or wrong track.

First, to calculate the probability of finding the 19nt in SARS2 is a form of "counting the data twice". Because its discovery within SARS2 is what triggered our inquiry in the first place.

Second, In terms of conditional probability, the presence of the 19nt within SARS2 is a "given". The probability of finding it within SARS2 is "1 out of 1", not "1 out of 10 million" as the authors claim, because we already found it there.

Third. Two examples:

A) I plan to toss a coin 8 times. The probability that I will get 8 tails in a row is 1/256.

B) I tossed a coin 7 times and got 7 tails. I plan to toss a coin an 8th time. The probability that I end up with an 8th tail is 1/2, not 1/256.

C) Attempting to calculate the probability of finding the 19nt sequence within SARS2, and then using that to calculate the probability of finding that same sequence within both SARS2 AND the portfolio, is like thinking that the correct answer to "Example B" is 1/256

Fourth, to put the it another way, calculation of probability is sensitive to time travel technology. Finding the 19nt within SARS2 happened in the past, and all events in the past have a probability of "1", because all past events happened already. But searching for the very same 19nt within the Moderna database would be a future event for which we can calculate probability. Now of course the 19nt being in either SARS2 and/or the Moderna portfolio in reality are actually past events, but we can pretend to have time travel technology. Traveling back in time before the discovery of the 19nt in SARS2 would be cheating (you flipped the coin 7 times already!!!), but traveling back in time to after the discovery of the 19nt in SARS2 (but before its discovery in the Moderna portfolio) would not be cheating.

Feb 22, 2022·edited Feb 22, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

The probability of the 19nt sequence is described as 1/(4^19) or 3.64 EE-12, or 1 out of 275 billion. But this is a big mistake. The defense lawyers for Moderna, at the Nurenberg 2.0 trials, will pounce on you for this one. It is better that I catch it first, and embarrass you all, than the defense lawyers. We are permissive for either the coding strand as found in SARS2, or its reverse compliment as found in Moderna's MutS. We must multiply by 2; so 7.23 EE-12 or 1 out of 137 billion. Its only off by a factor of 2 (out of billions!!!), but the tribunal of judges are no longer impressed by your math, and Moderna gets off.

"1 out of 137 billion" is the probability of a match for any given sliding window position, a single "opportunity" to Get_Lucky (back to Dirty Harry and Daft Punk), while ignoring any or all other opportunities to Get_Lucky. Let us call this "Get_Lucky_Here". Moderna gives us many opportunities to "Get_Lucky", and lets call that "Get_Lucky_Anywhere" (lucky at least once, using up all opportunities all at once, to Get_Lucky). "Get_Lucky_Here" is buying 1 lottery ticket. "Get_Lucky_Anywhere" is buying many tickets all at once.

Feb 22, 2022·edited Feb 22, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

The authors give a probability calculation "P2", starting with the example of an "average" sequence within the Moderna portfolio, of being 3300nt in length. The 19nt query sequence from SARS2 slides from left to right like a sliding window, and the number of window positions or opportunities is 3282 for an average sequence.

To generalize, the Number_of_Opportunities (to Get_Lucky) for any given sequence equals "Sequence_Length" minus ("Query_Sequence_Length" minus 1). Hence in the example "3300 - (19 - 1)" = "3282".

In this example, "Get_Lucky_Here" would be "7.23 EE-12" (they use "3.64 EE-12) and they propose a formula for "Get_Lucky_Anywhere (in this sequence)" equals "Get_Lucky_Here" times "Opportunities". Or by specific example "7.23 EE-12" times "3282" = "2.39 EE-8" (they get "1.19 EE-8").

I don't believe that this is the correct formula. It looks OK because "Get_Lucky_Here" is a very small number. But let us assume that "Get_Lucky_Here is big, like "0.5", ie., a coin toss. By analogy, they are arguing that if I toss a coin 8 times, the probability that I get at least 1 tail equals "0.5 x 8" = 4. But probabilities can only equal "0", "1", or any number in between. "4" is greater than "1", so this formula can't be right.

Back to my first post. The probability that a punk survives an encounter with Dirty Harry is this: "Get_Lucky" = 1 minus "Get_UnLucky". And we can rearrange this to yield "Get_UnLucky" = 1 minus "Get_Lucky". And to get more specific:

To calculate "Get_Lucky_Anywhere" (where "Anywhere" is a single Moderna sequence but it could be their entire portfolio), we must first calculate "Get_UnLucky__Anywhere"

"Get_Lucky_Anywhere" = 1 minus "Get_UnLucky_Anywhere"

"Get_Unlucky_Anywhere" also equals ("Get_Unlucky_Here" ^ "Opportunities")

Or failure to win any of your lottery tickets equals failure to win a single lottery ticket raised to the Power of all lottery tickets purchased (assuming equal and independent probabilities).

'Get_Lucky_Here" equals "7.23 EE-12"

while "Get_UnLucky_Here" equals "1 minus 7.23 EE-12"

If I were to do this calculation, I think that it would break my spreadsheet program, and I don't have the spreadsheet or calculator skills, software, and machine to do it with. I am speculating that you may have to go to 128 bit floating point precision (64 bit for sure). I assume that the most important bottleneck is to get "1 minus 7.23EE-12" into a sufficiently precise form, then everything follows from that.

Last post in probability thread. Thanks to you all.

Yes. I read it a few weeks ago and and even made comments there, but not about probability per se. The very beginning of my probability thread made mention of "...my mouse hero..." in homage to one of "Arkmedic's" multiple aliases. In fact, for the past several weeks I wanted to post about probability there, but his comment section became way too crowded. So I was so happy to see the "frontiers" paper published and then covered by "the naked emperor". But I assert that the frontiers paper needs correction, quick!

I would like to know specifically which of my assumptions are off? Assumptions about probability per se such as "philosophical foundations" or "choice of equations"?

Or assumptions on the outside such as my choice of "Anywhere"? My choice of "Anywhere" is the Moderna Portfolio (or a single sequence therein) and this is also the choice of the Frontiers paper. Arkmedic's choice of "Anywhere" is the universe of virus sequences within Blast (and perhaps adding all eukaryotes or all higher animals) with a specific exclusion of bacterial sequences. Arkmedic's tutorial goes into Blast's use of "E-values", and I skip this entirely because my universe of "anywhere" is not the Blast universe per se.

My post has hidden assumptions (and I may not even know all of them). I ignore "rare codons" by assuming that all codons have equal probability. I ignore stop codons.Worst of all, I assume that there is such a thing as a "random" nucleotide sequence (outside of those created by DNA synthesizers), an assumption that I don't really believe in at all. I ignore the fact that the 19nt sequence from SARS2 yields 2 hits (not just 1) within the Moderna portfolio because my interest is "anywhere" which means "at least once". Furthermore, I assume "independence" even though the existence of the 2 hits violates this assumption, but I do it anyway.

I did make an initial size estimate of the Moderna portfolio, but I may not have been very clear that I switched from my estimate to the size claimed in the Frontiers paper.

Another thing. One of my big points, maybe not explained very well, is that for each position of the sliding window, we have two chances to Get_Lucky (or more precise, to Get_Lucky_Here). There are two chances to match, not one. We have 1) the coding strand and 2) its reverse compliment. Nobody else, and I mean nobody else, brought this up, and everybody else has a probability calculation that is off by a factor of two.

I remember when I downloaded a few patents from Google, did a "Find" command and could not find the 19nt sequence within any patent. I later found the 92 MB txt file, and even after that I could not find the 19nt sequence at all. I saw one poster on social media could not find it either and he even suspected that "the lab mouse" was a fraud.

When Arkmedic posted his Blast substack article I finally noticed something. The Query 19nt sequence (from SARS2) started with a low number, listed the 19nt, and then ended with a higher number. But in contrast, the Matching 19nt sequence (from Moderna) started with a higher number, but ended with a lower number.

This told me that the Moderna sequence was a reverse compliment. Blast did a 1) an automatic translation and 2) an automatic flip. That the match is a reverse compliment is hidden by Blast unless you are very observant. By hand and eye, I reversed the translation and reversed the flip. Finally, I was able to find the reverse compliment within the Moderna portfolio.

I made several comments in Arkmedic's substack about the match being a reverse compliment, but only in context of its biological meaning, not its effect on calculating probability.

My apologies. I list some "hidden assumptions", and then mock some of them, and then I get flippant as I defiantly keep the assumptions just after mocking them. I apologize for mocking and being flippant. I have a theme of quoting Daft Punk and Clint Eastwood. To continue this theme, another Dirty Harry movie has the line "A man's gotta know his limitations". Having an imperfect spouse, "with limitations", is not an excuse for divorce. Or "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".

Given problems with the probability calculations (which I don’t pretend to comprehend - I know my limitations!), how does that impact on the overall hypothesis that point to the virus being engineered?

I don't completely know, because what I believe to be the correct formula, takes skill to implement, and I have not done the calculations. For the example of a single sequence, it would take 3282 multiplications. Consider a snowball rolling down a hill, getting larger, becoming an avalanche by the time it hits bottom. Each multiplication may introduce a tiny error, but there are at least 3282 of them, and then a lot more.

I first became aware of the engineered hypothesis maybe a week or so before the 2020 election when Li-Ming Yan was on Fox news. It was April 2021 before I read her reports, and I found her arguments to be strong (I still have not made up my mind as to "accidental escape of an experiment gone bad" versus "deliberate release of a bioweapon".) It is not any single argument, but the collection of all of them.

Completely independent of probability issues, this paper that appears in Frontiers, actually weakens the hypothesis that the virus was "engineered". Several weeks ago, Arkmedic posted on his substack an article about searching on BLAST, and I sort of explored this exact point in one of my comments. The Frontiers paper argues that the 19nt segment from Moderna accidentally recombined into the SARS2 precursor. In other words, in my mind "engineered" implies "design" and the direct intervention by humans. But the Frontiers paper argues that the 19nt segment was a combination of "accident" and indirect intervention by humans.

The 19nt segment in SARS2 is a part of the "Furin Cleavage Site" and there at least four other candidates, besides the Moderna sequence, for its origin: 1) it could be designed from a sequence found in the AIDS virus, 2) it could be designed from a sequence found in a human sodium channel, and 3) it could be designed from snake venom neurotoxins, or 4) designed from the bacterial toxin "SEB". In my view, all 5 alternatives are still in play.

A very fair comment. The authors do somewhat beg the question by arguing for accidental recombination, but then scratching their heads as to how that possibly could have happened. Of course, many things can be possible, but is it probable?

And appealing to “design” in the context of evolutionary genetics is about as popular as suggesting that the jab might hurt you… Paley’s Watchmaker anyone?

Feb 21, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

Thank you for this very important information.

(One possible typo, which I am sure did not mislead even close readers: 4th (or 5th, depending) paragraph, "3.21 ×10 −11 (a ridiculously big number)," big should be little.)

Feb 22, 2022·edited Feb 22, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

Actually "11 zeroes BEFORE the three" doesn't change the number if you don't also move the decimal 11 places (which would put 10 zeroes before the three and after the decimal point) when you drop the scientific notation.

There; I fixed it for all three of us! (pun/double-entendre intended.)

Feb 22, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

Is this virus/injection event an attempt to lower lifespans and birth rates of which they screwed up on and now we face extinction much faster than of left to normal natural fluctuations?

Feb 22, 2022Liked by NE - nakedemperor.substack.com

I can't imagine this article being published without express permission of the CCP. Maybe they're trying to push blame back toward the American interests that initiated and funded the research?

Excellent share. Thank you. Wished I could take it over to my alma marter integrative genomics lab but I might get the PoPo called on me again lol.

(Kudos for "po-po.")

"again"??? i'd like to hear that story...

Thank you for simplifying--as much as possible--a difficult subject many of us would like to understand.

edited Feb 21, 2022If you want to understand anything China does, understand this:

To China, it is the center of the world. China is the normal that all others aspire to and deviate from, period.

This is ingrained in chinese main culture to the point of gravity or air. Meaning that every action taken by China is taken with this mindset, as something that simply is. The ascendancy of the West, especially the subjugation of China by foreigners, was a culture shock which we westerners lack context to enable understaning of. The west is a dirty, chaotic and smelly dump littered with uncouth barbarians trying to usurp the rightful masters of the world, sums up the underlying currents of chinese party culture.

So think about what things in mainstream americanised western culture chinese party officials would abhore. Democracy. Freedom of opinion, speech and expression. Free art. Free to pursue non-tradtional lifestyle choices simply because the individual (also a totally foreign concept to China, the way we understand it) so desires, freedom of choice and more.

Minor example of differences: A northern european worker does his best, period, as long as he's paid fair wages. A chinese worker does his best as stated by the manual and nothing more. We are very good at using personal autonomy to improve on the works of others: they are very good at rote training in following instructions. And so on.

Ethnicity and culture matters; doesn't mean we can't make nice and be friends, but it does mean that we can't use one measuring rod for all peoples, precisely because we are different in many other ways than skin deep.

Sorry for the OT-tangent, but you did ask and I know about as much of genetics as does Marvel Comics.

The character for Zhong shows it - a box with a line through the center…

2020 total deaths in line with past years, with convid average age of death around life expectancy... What engineered virus?!?

Ugh falling for the fear porn of the lab leak

https://viroliegy.com/2022/02/15/dna-and-rna-shearing-fragmentation/

I'm not falling for anything, I'm remaining open minded about it all. Even if 2020 deaths were nothing to go by, I'd still like to know what is in the vaccines and why the pressure to inject everyone.

Agreed. If it were purely monetary motive, they could have injected everyone with inert or even beneficial substance, but instead, who knows what this crap is. We're not allowed to analyze it.

How is it fear porn to examine the source of the pandemic? Is it fear porn when they suggested it might be a pangolin or a bat?

And Moderna managed to create a “vaccine “ for Covid 19 in two days? And still haven’t been able to make one for Omicron?

Lots of people lived longer because they couldn’t get to a doctor ( the No. 1 cause of death ) and those deaths were substituted by reclassified flu and other deaths.

2016 flu deaths 64,000 ( source Daily Mail )

Total Covid deaths 17,500

So they have isolated any of these viruses and shown that they can replicate and infect others? Or do they continue to create computer models based on assumptions?

I will write an article on the isolation point. But isolated or computer model, the fact that a patented gene is there needs investigating.

The entire SARSCov2 genome is computer generated.

EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH MHRA Dec 2020 - Uncovering the SARSCov2 mRNA genomic sequence

https://hive.blog/proofofbrain/@francesleader/email-exchange-with-mhra-sarscov2-mrna-genomic-sequence-is-synthetic-3rd-edition

Thanks, as I say I will write an article on the isolation point but isolated or not, if a patented gene is turning up in it, then there is something to investigate?

edited Feb 21, 2022Also, be sure to include any information whatsoever on how they have discovered variants and how they test for them. I think you'll find that there is nothing there. Also, how do they determine that something is a COVID variant and not just another common cold being called a variant?

I read that the old test could not diversify between flu, cold and covid. A friend was sick early on and they tested first for flu, and then for covid. It was neither. And from doctors in CA an article said that they had 1500 or so patients testing positive and they all had the flu.

Yes, the FDA itself explains on their PCR EUA that the test cannot differentiate between viruses, bacteria and other orhanisms, and they had not isolated SARS-CoV-2, so the test was based on influenza and other coronaviruses (colds). It's in FDA's own report.

Feel free to send me any information you have

edited Feb 21, 2022I have none and I have never seen anything that is in any way credible. It's something that has been glaringly absent in both the establishment and the resistance.

They just announce a new variant and no one even bothers to question anything about it.

And when something is not brought up as a talking point by anyone in the conspiracy theory world or the establishment, that is usually the indication of the biggest truth being hidden.

Sure, investigate the patented computer generated gene that they base fake PCR tests and fake vaccines on. Still doesn't mean it's a virus isolated from an infected person.

It doesn't but it points to the culprits.

I absolutely agree on that point.

I created some diagrams a while back to debate the whole "isolation" malarky with friends and colleagues, but didn't really get anywhere with them :-) Feel free to use as desired. https://www.dropbox.com/s/9r71wg1c1zzwlim/rona%20diagrams.docx?dl=0

I came here to make the same point.... I do not expect an answer. This lab leak theory is the preferred oppositional narrative but is no more the truth than believing in natural pandemics.

https://francesleader.substack.com/p/no-more-narratives-please?utm_source=url

Didn't the Chinese say from the getgo that the virus was somehow related to the US? They even named the lab where it was being developed. And it is know for quite some time from Dr. Martin and Dr. Fuelmilch that the US had multiple patents on the virus. I think the video is still online, probably on Rumble ( must be a year old or so)

Yes, this has all been know for a while. See some of my old articles but gradually becoming more mainstream like this latest article.

So. Moderna will be too important to fail? We hid information from you and we told you untruths and sacrifices must be made, but it was all in the pursuit of a more noble purpose. So let it go subhuman.

edited Feb 21, 2022Great article, I mention it in my own to give you credit -- and explain how this could have happened.

Sars-Cov2 may have been grown in Moderna patented cell lines.

And they say "Moderna invented vaccine in just two days"? Hahaha

https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/how-did-modernas-patented-sequence

Thanks Igor!

Just FYI, I do not see any substacker as a competitor -- we are all partners and team members. Always love to give credit when it is due.

I agree, the more we all grow the better. All our different articles and theories will help the truth come out!

All these “ players “ are red herrings. If you have been following my posts you will know by now that shell companies like Moderna are only used to bring to market ideas and products that have been made by the intelligence community like DARPA & The CIA. Facebook is a prime example. Did you look at Zuckeberg and wonder how that pathetic dweeb managed to get that company off the ground? Well he didn’t, he had help. You can see that these operations are cross border as well, like gain of function research. This shows you the hand of globalists in action. Moderna is no different, it’s just a vehicle to advance the DARPA agenda.

Was it Moderna or was it the NIH scientists who collaborated with Moderna that created the sequence that was patented?

This is NOT known yet and it may be Chinese scientists also. Do not rush to conclusions. Covid was lab created and Moderna was likely in on it. Who exactly did it and how it was released is not yet determined.

The Russian intelligence always said that Covid was created at UNC and purposely brought to military games in Wuhan. But it could be BS

In 2015 Shi Zheng Li was working with Baric at UNC and she was so proud of herself when she gain-of-functioned a coronavirus she wrote a wrote an article about it.

She also returned to Wuhan with this knowledge. Don't know her itinerary dates.

And Baric wrote like 200 articles

There are many things to point to UNC as the birthplace, with the accidental or intentional release or, testing of a LAV occurring in Wuhan.

Activities at Baric's lab have been under-reported. He had a lab leak of SARS1 which infected about 20 or so people, but was contained (circa 2017?). All sorts of stuff going on there. In addition to Shi there were several other Chinese virologists working at his lab. Have to check his NIh grants.

https://rumble.com/vrr1pm-dr.-david-martin-presents-the-practical-plan-to-end-the-pandemic-and-great-.html

Dr Martin seems to think it came from the US

Enjoyed that rumble, exciting, thanks Ingrid.

edited Feb 21, 2022The probability calculations in this paper, and even by my mouse hero, are way way off. "Roundingtheearth" should address this, because I only took two quarters of undergrad intro to statistics.

The Moderna patent portfolio is immense. Here is the link: https://seqdata.uspto.gov/?pageRequest=docDetail&start=1&DocID=9587003. There are two files and one of them, after unzipping, is a 92MB txt file of thousands of sequences.

The question we should ask is what is the probability that we find the 19nt sequence ANYWHERE in the Moderna portfolio. The txt document has sequence, headers, and invisible formatting characters. I am guessing that there are about 1-2 million sequence positions (opportunities to win the lottery), also called "sliding windows", which have the potential to match the 19nt. I will assume 1 million opportunities. The authors of the paper assume 81 million opportunities. My estimate comes from the character count of my word processor, which was something like 2-3 million by memory, and I would not be at all surprised if a 92 MB txt file broke my word processor's ability to count characters.

At this point, before I go any further, just to set the mood, I recommend that you search youtube for the following 3 tutorials on probability theory. The 1st tutorial is the song/video "Get Lucky" by Daft Punk. The 2nd and 3rd tutorials are clips from the Clint Eastwood movie "Dirty Harry" where in two scenes, the monolog is the same but the outcome is different. The sum of all probabilities for a given question equals 1, the question in the Dirty Harry movie being " 'Do I feel Lucky?' Well do ya Punk?". The probability of a "Punk" , or even a "Daft Punk", surviving an encounter with Dirty Harry, is "Get_Lucky" = (1 minus "Get_UnLucky")

more to come

edited Feb 21, 2022The authors make probability calculations for "P1", and then "P3", which in turn depends upon "P1". "P1" is the probability of finding the 19nt sequence in SARS2, and "P3" is the probability of finding the 19nt sequence in both SARS2 AND the Moderna Portfolio. This seems to me to be a big mistake starting right here, because of deep philosophical underpinnings of probability theory. And I need roundingtheearth to comment if I am on the right or wrong track.

First, to calculate the probability of finding the 19nt in SARS2 is a form of "counting the data twice". Because its discovery within SARS2 is what triggered our inquiry in the first place.

Second, In terms of conditional probability, the presence of the 19nt within SARS2 is a "given". The probability of finding it within SARS2 is "1 out of 1", not "1 out of 10 million" as the authors claim, because we already found it there.

Third. Two examples:

A) I plan to toss a coin 8 times. The probability that I will get 8 tails in a row is 1/256.

B) I tossed a coin 7 times and got 7 tails. I plan to toss a coin an 8th time. The probability that I end up with an 8th tail is 1/2, not 1/256.

C) Attempting to calculate the probability of finding the 19nt sequence within SARS2, and then using that to calculate the probability of finding that same sequence within both SARS2 AND the portfolio, is like thinking that the correct answer to "Example B" is 1/256

Fourth, to put the it another way, calculation of probability is sensitive to time travel technology. Finding the 19nt within SARS2 happened in the past, and all events in the past have a probability of "1", because all past events happened already. But searching for the very same 19nt within the Moderna database would be a future event for which we can calculate probability. Now of course the 19nt being in either SARS2 and/or the Moderna portfolio in reality are actually past events, but we can pretend to have time travel technology. Traveling back in time before the discovery of the 19nt in SARS2 would be cheating (you flipped the coin 7 times already!!!), but traveling back in time to after the discovery of the 19nt in SARS2 (but before its discovery in the Moderna portfolio) would not be cheating.

more to come, back in several hours

edited Feb 22, 2022The probability of the 19nt sequence is described as 1/(4^19) or 3.64 EE-12, or 1 out of 275 billion. But this is a big mistake. The defense lawyers for Moderna, at the Nurenberg 2.0 trials, will pounce on you for this one. It is better that I catch it first, and embarrass you all, than the defense lawyers. We are permissive for either the coding strand as found in SARS2, or its reverse compliment as found in Moderna's MutS. We must multiply by 2; so 7.23 EE-12 or 1 out of 137 billion. Its only off by a factor of 2 (out of billions!!!), but the tribunal of judges are no longer impressed by your math, and Moderna gets off.

"1 out of 137 billion" is the probability of a match for any given sliding window position, a single "opportunity" to Get_Lucky (back to Dirty Harry and Daft Punk), while ignoring any or all other opportunities to Get_Lucky. Let us call this "Get_Lucky_Here". Moderna gives us many opportunities to "Get_Lucky", and lets call that "Get_Lucky_Anywhere" (lucky at least once, using up all opportunities all at once, to Get_Lucky). "Get_Lucky_Here" is buying 1 lottery ticket. "Get_Lucky_Anywhere" is buying many tickets all at once.

more to come, back in several hours

edited Feb 22, 2022The authors give a probability calculation "P2", starting with the example of an "average" sequence within the Moderna portfolio, of being 3300nt in length. The 19nt query sequence from SARS2 slides from left to right like a sliding window, and the number of window positions or opportunities is 3282 for an average sequence.

To generalize, the Number_of_Opportunities (to Get_Lucky) for any given sequence equals "Sequence_Length" minus ("Query_Sequence_Length" minus 1). Hence in the example "3300 - (19 - 1)" = "3282".

In this example, "Get_Lucky_Here" would be "7.23 EE-12" (they use "3.64 EE-12) and they propose a formula for "Get_Lucky_Anywhere (in this sequence)" equals "Get_Lucky_Here" times "Opportunities". Or by specific example "7.23 EE-12" times "3282" = "2.39 EE-8" (they get "1.19 EE-8").

I don't believe that this is the correct formula. It looks OK because "Get_Lucky_Here" is a very small number. But let us assume that "Get_Lucky_Here is big, like "0.5", ie., a coin toss. By analogy, they are arguing that if I toss a coin 8 times, the probability that I get at least 1 tail equals "0.5 x 8" = 4. But probabilities can only equal "0", "1", or any number in between. "4" is greater than "1", so this formula can't be right.

Back to my first post. The probability that a punk survives an encounter with Dirty Harry is this: "Get_Lucky" = 1 minus "Get_UnLucky". And we can rearrange this to yield "Get_UnLucky" = 1 minus "Get_Lucky". And to get more specific:

To calculate "Get_Lucky_Anywhere" (where "Anywhere" is a single Moderna sequence but it could be their entire portfolio), we must first calculate "Get_UnLucky__Anywhere"

"Get_Lucky_Anywhere" = 1 minus "Get_UnLucky_Anywhere"

"Get_Unlucky_Anywhere" also equals ("Get_Unlucky_Here" ^ "Opportunities")

Or failure to win any of your lottery tickets equals failure to win a single lottery ticket raised to the Power of all lottery tickets purchased (assuming equal and independent probabilities).

'Get_Lucky_Here" equals "7.23 EE-12"

while "Get_UnLucky_Here" equals "1 minus 7.23 EE-12"

So...

"Get_Lucky_Anywhere(single sequence)" = 1 - ((1 - 7.23EE-12) ^ 3282)

If the authors are correct, and the Moderna portfolio contains 24712 sequences

"Get_Lucky_Anywhere(entire portfolio)" = 1 - (((1 - 7.23EE-12) ^ 3282) ^ 24712)

If I were to do this calculation, I think that it would break my spreadsheet program, and I don't have the spreadsheet or calculator skills, software, and machine to do it with. I am speculating that you may have to go to 128 bit floating point precision (64 bit for sure). I assume that the most important bottleneck is to get "1 minus 7.23EE-12" into a sufficiently precise form, then everything follows from that.

Last post in probability thread. Thanks to you all.

edited Feb 22, 2022Error! Error! Oops! I should have written:

"Get_Lucky_Anywhere" = 1 minus "Get_UnLucky_Everywhere"

...not...

"Get_Lucky_Anywhere" = 1 minus "Get_UnLucky_Anywhere"

------

"Get_Unlucky_Everywhere" = "Get_Unlucky_Here" ^ "Opportunities"

where "Opportunities" = "Number_Of_Sliding_Window_Positions"

I should have better explained the Lottery example:

"Win_This_LotteryTicket" = 1 minus "Lose_This_LotteryTicket"

"Win_Any_LotteryTicket" = 1 minus "Lose_All_LotteryTickets"

"Lose_All_LotteryTickets" = "Lose_This_LotteryTicket" ^ "Number_Tickets_Purchased"

"Get_Unlucky_Everywhere(single sequence)" = "(1 -7.23 EEE-12) ^ 3282"

"Get_Unlucky_Everywhere(entire portfolio) = "((1 - 7.23EE-12) ^ 3282) ^ 24712"

This remains the same:

"Get_Lucky_Anywhere(entire portfolio) = "1 - (((1 - 7.23EE-12) ^ 3282) ^ 24712)"

This older substack does a good job on explaining probability in the context of using BLAST for nuceleotides and proteins: https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/how-to-blast-your-way-to-the-truth So some of your assumptions are off.

Yes. I read it a few weeks ago and and even made comments there, but not about probability per se. The very beginning of my probability thread made mention of "...my mouse hero..." in homage to one of "Arkmedic's" multiple aliases. In fact, for the past several weeks I wanted to post about probability there, but his comment section became way too crowded. So I was so happy to see the "frontiers" paper published and then covered by "the naked emperor". But I assert that the frontiers paper needs correction, quick!

I would like to know specifically which of my assumptions are off? Assumptions about probability per se such as "philosophical foundations" or "choice of equations"?

Or assumptions on the outside such as my choice of "Anywhere"? My choice of "Anywhere" is the Moderna Portfolio (or a single sequence therein) and this is also the choice of the Frontiers paper. Arkmedic's choice of "Anywhere" is the universe of virus sequences within Blast (and perhaps adding all eukaryotes or all higher animals) with a specific exclusion of bacterial sequences. Arkmedic's tutorial goes into Blast's use of "E-values", and I skip this entirely because my universe of "anywhere" is not the Blast universe per se.

My post has hidden assumptions (and I may not even know all of them). I ignore "rare codons" by assuming that all codons have equal probability. I ignore stop codons.Worst of all, I assume that there is such a thing as a "random" nucleotide sequence (outside of those created by DNA synthesizers), an assumption that I don't really believe in at all. I ignore the fact that the 19nt sequence from SARS2 yields 2 hits (not just 1) within the Moderna portfolio because my interest is "anywhere" which means "at least once". Furthermore, I assume "independence" even though the existence of the 2 hits violates this assumption, but I do it anyway.

I did make an initial size estimate of the Moderna portfolio, but I may not have been very clear that I switched from my estimate to the size claimed in the Frontiers paper.

Looking forward to your response.

edited Feb 23, 2022Another thing. One of my big points, maybe not explained very well, is that for each position of the sliding window, we have two chances to Get_Lucky (or more precise, to Get_Lucky_Here). There are two chances to match, not one. We have 1) the coding strand and 2) its reverse compliment. Nobody else, and I mean nobody else, brought this up, and everybody else has a probability calculation that is off by a factor of two.

I remember when I downloaded a few patents from Google, did a "Find" command and could not find the 19nt sequence within any patent. I later found the 92 MB txt file, and even after that I could not find the 19nt sequence at all. I saw one poster on social media could not find it either and he even suspected that "the lab mouse" was a fraud.

When Arkmedic posted his Blast substack article I finally noticed something. The Query 19nt sequence (from SARS2) started with a low number, listed the 19nt, and then ended with a higher number. But in contrast, the Matching 19nt sequence (from Moderna) started with a higher number, but ended with a lower number.

This told me that the Moderna sequence was a reverse compliment. Blast did a 1) an automatic translation and 2) an automatic flip. That the match is a reverse compliment is hidden by Blast unless you are very observant. By hand and eye, I reversed the translation and reversed the flip. Finally, I was able to find the reverse compliment within the Moderna portfolio.

I made several comments in Arkmedic's substack about the match being a reverse compliment, but only in context of its biological meaning, not its effect on calculating probability.

My apologies. I list some "hidden assumptions", and then mock some of them, and then I get flippant as I defiantly keep the assumptions just after mocking them. I apologize for mocking and being flippant. I have a theme of quoting Daft Punk and Clint Eastwood. To continue this theme, another Dirty Harry movie has the line "A man's gotta know his limitations". Having an imperfect spouse, "with limitations", is not an excuse for divorce. Or "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".

Given problems with the probability calculations (which I don’t pretend to comprehend - I know my limitations!), how does that impact on the overall hypothesis that point to the virus being engineered?

I don't completely know, because what I believe to be the correct formula, takes skill to implement, and I have not done the calculations. For the example of a single sequence, it would take 3282 multiplications. Consider a snowball rolling down a hill, getting larger, becoming an avalanche by the time it hits bottom. Each multiplication may introduce a tiny error, but there are at least 3282 of them, and then a lot more.

I first became aware of the engineered hypothesis maybe a week or so before the 2020 election when Li-Ming Yan was on Fox news. It was April 2021 before I read her reports, and I found her arguments to be strong (I still have not made up my mind as to "accidental escape of an experiment gone bad" versus "deliberate release of a bioweapon".) It is not any single argument, but the collection of all of them.

Completely independent of probability issues, this paper that appears in Frontiers, actually weakens the hypothesis that the virus was "engineered". Several weeks ago, Arkmedic posted on his substack an article about searching on BLAST, and I sort of explored this exact point in one of my comments. The Frontiers paper argues that the 19nt segment from Moderna accidentally recombined into the SARS2 precursor. In other words, in my mind "engineered" implies "design" and the direct intervention by humans. But the Frontiers paper argues that the 19nt segment was a combination of "accident" and indirect intervention by humans.

The 19nt segment in SARS2 is a part of the "Furin Cleavage Site" and there at least four other candidates, besides the Moderna sequence, for its origin: 1) it could be designed from a sequence found in the AIDS virus, 2) it could be designed from a sequence found in a human sodium channel, and 3) it could be designed from snake venom neurotoxins, or 4) designed from the bacterial toxin "SEB". In my view, all 5 alternatives are still in play.

A very fair comment. The authors do somewhat beg the question by arguing for accidental recombination, but then scratching their heads as to how that possibly could have happened. Of course, many things can be possible, but is it probable?

And appealing to “design” in the context of evolutionary genetics is about as popular as suggesting that the jab might hurt you… Paley’s Watchmaker anyone?

I've proved this already (in February of 2020 and much more. Please watch and share this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM-ROTLKos8&lc=UgyWDqstkwX0UnVJznN4AaABAg.9YiN-ptAEt_9YieLiVh_5A

The graphic was very helpful. I'll admit I still don't completely understand. But I get the larger theme.

Side note: I saw Francis Collins got a promotion.

This whole thing is giving me resting B*tch face.

Thank you for this very important information.

(One possible typo, which I am sure did not mislead even close readers: 4th (or 5th, depending) paragraph, "3.21 ×10 −11 (a ridiculously big number)," big should be little.)

Good spot! thanks.

Isn't that just equal to 11 zeros before the three? So really really small.

Yes. That's what I said. Sorry if my wording mis-lead.

They probably didn't. ; )

edited Feb 22, 2022Actually "11 zeroes BEFORE the three" doesn't change the number if you don't also move the decimal 11 places (which would put 10 zeroes before the three and after the decimal point) when you drop the scientific notation.

There; I fixed it for all three of us! (pun/double-entendre intended.)

edited Feb 22, 2022Haha. That is what I meant. Old people short hand. That's where half the dialog does not make it out the mouth or fingertips. God help me. Sigh.

Ha, ha, ha! No worries!

Is this virus/injection event an attempt to lower lifespans and birth rates of which they screwed up on and now we face extinction much faster than of left to normal natural fluctuations?

I can't imagine this article being published without express permission of the CCP. Maybe they're trying to push blame back toward the American interests that initiated and funded the research?