RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
I haven’t investigated this topic thoroughly, but if those facts all check out it seems to me like it at let’ least meets the standard for a civil conviction, though maybe not a criminal conviction.
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3;…
Sources for point 9 include: 9) WIV research article and erratum at https://t.co/ybAOOAx1X8 and https://t.co/sI2lv8C8K3; and news stories at https://t.co/wHrn9mZXFf; https://t.co/IM93QUWCjJ; and https://t.co/lrw0Aodh1u
@440_drums @02btc0 ウイルスの研究をしている者です。 その対照実験を行っている論文をあなたに過去2回も示していますよ。 検体を添加していない細胞では、細胞変性効果が見られなかったことが示されています。 https://t.co/dlpbQHpcs9 https://t.co/nLcga64eTc
@EthicalSkeptic 🧵17/ genome, but 96.2% similarity to a highly questionable bat “Coronavirus” named RaTG13, https://t.co/rJFFtyjr4Z, in which study Zhou did not purified &isolated a replication-competent intracellular parasite capable of causing disease
@QMusashi @440_drums @440_drums 対照実験も示されていますよ! ↓は新型コロナウイルスの分離に関する最初期の論文ですが、陰性Controlが置かれています。 https://t.co/wyINZdBB6l "事実から目を背けず"に理解出来るようになりましょう! https://t.co/UcEDbVd6CE
RT @MartinaSisters: 26.- Comparado por ZhengLi con SARS-CoV-1, no con SARS-CoV-2 https://t.co/iTqYLKEmWs https://t.co/5zMYyDfFlm
RT @flodebarre: A *very niche* thread on the absence of mention of SARS-CoV-2's furin cleavage site (FCS) in Zhou et al. (2020)▫️1/19 tl;d…
26.- Comparado por ZhengLi con SARS-CoV-1, no con SARS-CoV-2 https://t.co/iTqYLKEmWs https://t.co/5zMYyDfFlm
@iWGkrg8OWVw1OC0 @noahopayoku こんにちは。ウイルスの研究をしている者です。 「分離が存在証明にならない」ことの科学的根拠はありますか? 細胞を用いたウイルスの分離は既に確立された方法で、新型コロナウイルスについても論文が公開されているのですが。 https://t.co/wyINZdBB6l
@Hjorvik @69200mu @OscarGenomics Os adjunto más detalles que ayudan a entender que pueden haberlo utilizado. Su fuera natural no se molestarían en ocultarlo. Es lo que pienso. https://t.co/iTqYLKEmWs
貴方も騙されてますよ「論文」と言う権威に😭。これ以上は絡まないで、面倒なので。 🦠を特定する為に不可欠の実験は、ある症状の人から原因と思われる🦠を抽出して、それを他人に移して、同じ症状が出るかどうか実験する事。その実験があれば教えて😀
@AKISAN0530 @Minidgp @pariparisenbe1 @gararusanda 新型コロナウイルスの論文ありますよ。 この論文は新型コロナウイルスの分離に関する論文ですが、3年以上前からずっと公開されています。 https://t.co/wyINZdBB6l また感染研は世界で初めて分離に成功した訳ではありませんよ。 論文はこちらです。 https://t.co/I17ZT0oV1z
@michisleepy こんにちは。ウイルスの研究をしている者です。 素人質問で恐縮ですが、下記のような論文を始め、新型コロナウイルス及びCOVID-19に関する論文等の情報が数多く公開されているにも関わらず、何を根拠として『実在が確認されていない』と仰っているのですか? https://t.co/wyINZdBB6l
@nknekotaroh COVID-19の原因であるSARS-CoV-2は既に分離されており、3年以上前からずっと論文が公開されていますよ。 「学術的知識云々の前に」とのことですが、SARS-CoV-2の分離に関しては科学の分野なので、もろ"学術"ですよ。 https://t.co/wyINZdBB6l
RT @minimikan_ver2: @Lucky65057280 @rosee0000 新型コロナウイルスはとっくに分離されていますよ。 論文が公開されてからもうすぐ3年が経つのですが。。 https://t.co/wyINZdBB6l
@THC1001 @genki_sudo 他のウイルス同様、新型コロナウイルスも既に分離されており、3年以上前から論文が公開されていますよ。 https://t.co/wyINZdBB6l
@pNuA0AxbDyJrOrs @LY1FOLZTB2cVCXW 新型コロナウイルスに関する論文は、3年以上前からずっと公開されていますよ。 懸賞金については、ウイルスの特性上無理難題ないちゃもんを付けてるだけで、全く科学的なものでは無いですよ。 https://t.co/wyINZdBB6l
@LY1FOLZTB2cVCXW 普通に論文ありますよ。 3年以上前からずっと公開されてます〜 https://t.co/wyINZdBB6l
@ZoneZexy @AwakenedJapane2 新型コロナウイルス特異的なプライマーを用いているので、PCR検査で特定可能ですよ。 またSARS-CoV-2は3年以上前に分離同定されています。 https://t.co/wyINZdBB6l
@Censored4sure @sense_strand @amitrippedcat This is the email I received from one of the authors of https://t.co/O0is0EBDun Notice they use double the anti-anti's in the Experimental group over the control group. https://t.co/1QOmKpukCI
@goddeketal 🧵16/ genome, but 96.2% similarity to a highly questionable bat “Coronavirus” named RaTG13, https://t.co/rJFFtyjYUx, in which study Zhou did not purified &isolated a replication-competent intracellular parasite capable of causing disease in
@KanekoaTheGreat @RobertKennedyJr @jimmy_dore 🧵16/ genome, but 96.2% similarity to a highly questionable bat “Coronavirus” named RaTG13, https://t.co/rJFFtyjr4Z, in which study Zhou did not purified &isolated a replication-competent intracellular paras
@NO02417599 @kuramochijin 3年以上前に分離同定されているのに、いまさらする意味とは? https://t.co/wyINZdBB6l
@sambadouro @hodoyokukareta @Lucky65057280 @1A1NYBjUqlGu1Fp @Holly37914026 厚労省・国立感染症研究所所有の行政文書に、SARS-CoV-2の存在を明確に示す文書なし、ということですね。 当然ですがこれはウイルス不存在とは別の話です。 ウイルスの存在報告は以下の論文が有名ですが、ここに記載無くこの論文は保有された行政文書ではないんですね。 https://t.co/UEm4YG0qOs
@janmariatalar @robinmonotti @CochraneLibrary genome, but 96.2% similarity to a highly questionable bat “Coronavirus” named RaTG13, https://t.co/rJFFtyjYUx, in which study Zhou did not purified &isolated a replication-competent intracellular parasite c
@ViroLIEgy Im saying three papers, https://t.co/8Id0njLdvl https://t.co/BJ4WFJ4QOw https://t.co/zHluchxUAz independently sequenced SARS-CoV-2 at the same time and are considered the originals for CoV2.
@ViroLIEgy the Fan Wu paper was published at the same time. As was this other one. Fan Wu was published on page 265, this one is published on page 270 of the same journal. So no all the sequences don't come from 1 lab or patient & the 3 papers are cons
@smrwhitetoyou @GillGripper @AaronParnas @JaredEMoskowitz COVID is designed. Follow the money and Fauci financed it ;) Look at all the articles Fauci is cited on and he's way down the list so he was a peer reviewer ;) https://t.co/jVB8jg64xH https://t.co/2
RT @Ayjchan: When trying to find the closest relative to SARS-CoV-2, the Zhoushan SARS viruses paper was accidentally pulled up. Reminder t…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for posts 4-7 include the following: 4) NIH documents at https://t.co/V8NUnIQLFg 5) DARPA documents at https://t…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for posts 4-7 include the following: 4) NIH documents at https://t.co/V8NUnIQLFg 5) DARPA documents at https://t…
@hinomarist @kohhei_kohhei 新型コロナウイルスはとっくに分離されて論文になってますよ… https://t.co/wyINZdBB6l
@440_drums @nakaihiroshi2 @02btc0 @i_mugimugi_love @YUBnec5idCZbVM7 ウイルスの存在は既に確認されていますし、今は遺伝子編集で新たなウイルスを作成できる時代ですよ。 また細胞を用いたウイルスの分離は既に確立された方法です。論文でもControlが置かれていますよ。 https://t.co/wyINZdBB6l
@P_McCulloughMD genome, but 96.2% similarity to a highly questionable bat “Coronavirus” named RaTG13, https://t.co/rJFFtyjr4Z, in which study Zhou did not purified &isolated a replication-competent intracellular parasite capable of causing disease in h
@profvrr What is Prof. Holmes' point when he says, "It was not easy to get whole virus genomes"? What's so hard about next generation sequencing? Source: https://t.co/IsNtcY126b https://t.co/Fn2AMempZg
@ReneeHillUSA @RepMikeGarcia Like this one? Cited in the article? https://t.co/ibGfMV5I8d
@edwardcholmes It left people wondering about the 100% similarity between 4491 and RaTG13 for a while, until it became actually clear it was the same virus. https://t.co/WzNtt1rY3f
@franciscodeasis In this paper, it appears like they still had the actual RNA sample in 2020? "We carried out full-length sequencing on this RNA sample." https://t.co/WzNtt1rY3f https://t.co/usGhBnK31B
@_everythingism @MiamiAron @BlaneErwin @besttrousers @NateSilver538 It's not an exaggeration. Read the citation https://t.co/BdXcIlf6da
@PeaceLillie33 @SwaledaleMutton @bambkb Yet incidence of idiocy isolated frequently… https://t.co/leTwh8clER https://t.co/gjXV1SriYK https://t.co/YfBFLnEpU0 https://t.co/TbUZfRdJcG https://t.co/S8bSRZxxJ6 https://t.co/ef1lnSwDL2 https://t.co/QVdprLe
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for posts 4-7 include the following: 4) NIH documents at https://t.co/V8NUnIQLFg 5) DARPA documents at https://t…
RT @MonaRahalkar: This is how they cultured Sars2: https://t.co/2YaiJlLCLl
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for posts 4-7 include the following: 4) NIH documents at https://t.co/V8NUnIQLFg 5) DARPA documents at https://t…
RT @MonaRahalkar: This is how they cultured Sars2: https://t.co/2YaiJlLCLl
RT @MonaRahalkar: This is how they cultured Sars2: https://t.co/2YaiJlLCLl
RT @MonaRahalkar: This is how they cultured Sars2: https://t.co/2YaiJlLCLl
RT @MonaRahalkar: This is how they cultured Sars2: https://t.co/2YaiJlLCLl
@MonaRahalkar The WIV submitted 'two papers' on exactly the same date, 20th January '20. Zenghli was co-author on both? Who was in control of the WIV? Internecine DURC 👇 https://t.co/XNIvOWxQiM https://t.co/BIbMo5g23W https://t.co/sfPOKL4GNZ
@HimaSagary @wjmdaj 検索できない方のために置いときます〜 https://t.co/wyINZdBB6l
RT @MonaRahalkar: This is how they cultured Sars2: https://t.co/2YaiJlLCLl
@breakfast_dogs
RT @MonaRahalkar: This is how they cultured Sars2: https://t.co/2YaiJlLCLl
This is how they cultured Sars2: https://t.co/2YaiJlLCLl
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for posts 4-7 include the following: 4) NIH documents at https://t.co/V8NUnIQLFg 5) DARPA documents at https://t…
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for posts 4-7 include the following: 4) NIH documents at https://t.co/V8NUnIQLFg 5) DARPA documents at https://t…
Nel 2020 la stessa Zhengli-Shi si dimentica dell'F-CoV tra gli Alpha-Cov...... https://t.co/R74G1Q0lY9 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 https://t.co/LuMDLrE6lq
@qYZv4bevQ0z9GPS @matatabi_catnip 3年以上前に分離されていますよ。。 https://t.co/wyINZdBB6l
@masaworks4u @Angama_Market @nichetopia 3年以上前に分離されていますよ… https://t.co/wyINZdBB6l
RT @jljcolorado: 112/ Some early scientific and public health reports out of China state that COVID-19 has airborne transmission: https://…
@cestmirstrakaty @durcak_michael @JiriSkrampal Napr. Tieto 2 clanky z nature: https://t.co/fYwyx68nr6 https://t.co/30fABSDbpq Mnohi to interpretovali ako "dokaz" ze vir je 100% prirodny a media a socky dlho spochybnovanie tohto nazoru oznacovali za jasne
RT @R_H_Ebright: Sources for posts 4-7 include the following: 4) NIH documents at https://t.co/V8NUnIQLFg 5) DARPA documents at https://t…