More on ACE2: Some truth in a time of frenzied controlled opposition alternative media hysteria-stoking misdirection

The time has come again to convey to the FBEL readership (which is fortunate indeed to have found what could very well be the only creator of “alternative media” that isn’t on the government payroll) some more findings regarding the central significance of ACE2 levels in the disease that is being called Covid-19 (not to be confused with “Covid-19”†), but here (and only here, it seems) is called out as a condition that has been around for a long time, perhaps being overlooked or misdiagnosed, but in the early years of the 21st century was called Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). An article on the survival of SARS to Covid-19 is long overdue.

The ACE2 bulletin, this time, is a very significant one because, along with presenting a number of studies confirming high ACE2 level as cause of Covid-19, it constitutes the keeping of a long-held promise that this site would direct its readership to a study into the relationship between prescription drugs for  hypertension and related illness, and increased ACE2 levels, and therefore more susceptibility to Covid-19. And it was because the subject matter requires focus for maximum impact that it was decided to preface it with this article, which will deal with a fair amount of associated peripheral material. The forthcoming main piece is due by the end of the current week‡.

So, with all the necessary explanation being done, a start can be made without further ado.

If the reader remembers back to the end of 2019, and beginning of 2020 – and also the early coverage of Covid-19 at FBEL where this information was being recorded –  Chinese medical practitioners were using CT scans to diagnose what was being called novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia (NCIP). What the doctors were looking for was the build-up of damage on the lining of the lung caused by ACE2 (present on the surface of lung cells) being bound to by the SARS-COV pathogen.

Now, a little aside is necessary here, because SARS-COV-2 is called SARS-COV hereabouts on the basis that the former has never been isolated, but that the illness stemming from the latter was a known quantity, and despite all the things it could be apart from a virus, SARS-COV is a convenient label for the pathogen that is a known component in the genesis of the developed illness (which is ultimately a pneumonia). In fact, it appears as if there may be a family of SARS coronaviruses, which are called variants, and corporate-media on behalf of government regularly makes claims that they are newly evolved (which doesn’t have to be the case), and this information is used in the construction of a myth of new waves of Covid-19, it seems. Crucially, from the author’s research, unless a variation enables a pathogen to bind with an ACE2 protein more efficiently or effectively, it is a redundant matter. And it is here, of course, that we arrive at the redundancy of spread of the pathogen, and therefore the utter undermining of central Covid-19 mythology.

Back to the Chinese and their CT scans, that the same diagnosis technique wasn’t used (it appears) in the UK is another indication that the UK Government wasn’t interested in filtering out real cases of Covid-19 from the ones that would be attributed to “Covid-19” and that had manifested because of flawed testing (that would produce the impression of a pandemic when there never was one). In fact, this extract from a Sun article from 16th April, 2020, offers an early insight as to why:

CT scans could be a better way to diagnose coronavirus than swab tests, experts have argued.

The technology was widely used to diagnose cases in China where scientists say they were able to detect “tell-tale” signs of Covid-19.

It comes amid reports that the current nasal and throat swab tests for coronavirus are missing up to 30 per cent of infected people – known as “false negatives”.

To reduce the risk of a second wave and ensure an exit strategy can go ahead, some doctors are calling for CT scans to become a more routine method of testing.

CT scans are able to identify hazy, patchy, “ground glass” white spots in the lung – a telltale sign of the killer illness, according to Stat.

A recent study, published in the journal Radiology, found that scientists in China were able to detect 97 per cent of Covid-19 infections from chest CTs.

In comparison, the research found that 48 per cent of patients who had negative results on the swab test actually had the disease.

The point here is to again demonstrate that Covid-19 is a real physical condition that can be detected by observation. Furthermore, it serves to remind that the reason for the condition was understood even at the time of the SARS “outbreaks” in 2002 and 2004, and that there has been agreement for a long time about the mechanics and the explicit involvement of SARS-COV binding to ACE2 at the lung – which is something that has been discussed and shown over again in countless studies.

Now, as real as all these simple truths are, they routinely fail to be reported in corporate-media – except for an outbreak of honesty at the start of the “pandemic” when some UK newspapers reported the link with ACEIs and ARBs. More importantly, they are not – never – addressed by alternative media – which is now, in a display of its usual improbity, pushing “vaccine shedding” as a new ridicule-inviting, radicalising fear porn replacement for, or even enhancement of the 5G obfuscation and hysteria-raising that it drove particularly right at the beginning of the episode. Incidentally, it appears to the author that the idea of “Covid-19 vaccination”  side-effects being suffered by unvaccinated people who have had the condition spread to them is ultimately coming from a shyster element of American homeopathy who won’t disagree about the orthodoxy of “Covid-19”, but in fact have something to sell with regards to it.

The reason for the failure to bring news of SARS-COV to ACE2 binding to a broad audience is clear to see: it devastates the mythology. When one follows the trail created by the knowledge, one cannot then deny that ACE2 is the chief factor in the disease, with the question that needs to be asked above all others being, where does ACE2 come from? Moreover, ACE2 as the primary element in the genesis of the illness means that any hypothesis regarding cause of Covid-19 must consider the condition of the pre-existing microbiome, into which the pathogen required for the interaction might even be self-produced, rather than received after transmission from external sources. Moreover, the illness might need to be understood as  developing only after the other part required for the interaction, the ACE2, creates susceptibility by being made (through artificial stimulus) to be more expressive. Here is why spread of a “virus” would be a redundant issue.

That the truth of the redundancy of viral spread is so explosive is why all alternative media (which is therefore controlled from top to bottom), so resolutely, will not touch ACE2 with a barge pole. Of course, not being on the government payroll is why there has been a freedom at FBEL to explore the topic regularly in the past year. And in 2021, although it is only now that an opportunity has arrived to present the material, the author has discovered papers and articles, by what might be called high profile medical professionals who are sceptical of lockdowns that, quite unintentionally we might surmise, support the radical notion that everything that the allopathic medical industrial complex and the power structure relying on it says about Covid-19 is back to front.

There are two issues: i) The myth of spread, which is a core plank in the coronahoax, and ii) The myth of (ever recurring) newness, which is also a core plank in the coronoahoax.

Regarding issue i, a January 2021 paper by Carl Heneghan et al reviewed research into airborne transmission of SARS-COV-2. It concludes as follows:

SARS-COV-2 RNA can be detected intermittently by RT-PCR in the air in a variety of settings. A number of studies that looked for viral RNA in air samples found none, even in settings where surfaces were found to be contaminated with SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The lack of recoverable viral culture samples of SARS-CoV-2 prevents firm conclusions to be drawn about airborne transmission. The current evidence is low quality, and there is an urgent need to standardise methods and improve reporting.

The reason why this is so significant is because of the deduction anyone can make from the real information regarding how, if it is spread, SARS-COV must be received by a host, which is via the respiratory tract into the lung – as covered in the previous FBEL report on ACE2 titled, New Study Acknowledges Increased Levels Of ACE2 As Factor In Contracting Covid-19; Who Will Take Any Notice?

If it is found that there is poor chance of SARS-COV generally being present in the air (during the era of SARS, SARS-COV was thought to have been spread amongst a Chinese community via aerosolised toilet water from shared tenement plumbing – which is pretty specific), then an hypothesis for the presence of the pathogen might lean towards it being an exosome created internally in a detoxification process.

Regarding issue ii, the following is a piece by the pathologist Dr Clare Craig et al (January 2021), which has been hosted at the lockdownsceptics.org site – thus a place where its real significance would have been unappreciated by a thick-as-pig-crap audience. For the FBEL reader, however, it supports the hypothesis held in these parts that the condition now being called Covid-19 had been around for a long time:

What is little understood is how often respiratory infections can be identified in hospitalised patients… There are three ways that [a Spanish study showing post-mortem discovery of respiratory virus in 47% of patients, with only 7% having being diagnosed as having a respiratory infection before death]… could be interpreted:

Respiratory viruses precipitated other problems e.g. myocardial infarctions that then led to death (and has previously been a massively underdiagnosed contributor to death that we have managed to live with)

Patients who are very ill and dying are highly susceptible to respiratory infection

Respiratory viruses are innocent bystanders present at death i.e. not contributing to the underlying cause of death

Because we have never routinely tested for respiratory viral infections in such volumes previously, we do not know what we would have found previously had we done so.

The significance of finding a respiratory virus in the dying is therefore uncertain and given the lack of excess deaths we should conclude that one or more of the three scenarios above must also apply to Covid.

To apply the ideas specifically in the case of SARS now Covid-19, in a real case that has been overlooked in the past (in the case of interpretation 1), there will presumably have been diagnosis using a symptom of an incidental condition, or a characteristic of a reaction (after a resultant pneumonia) rather than an understanding of what has happened at the lung (remember, the Chinese deployed CT scanning to ascertain if a patient had Covid-19).

The state of a person’s health (in the case of interpretation 2) to the point they are dying may present an opportunity for the development of a respiratory condition, but this is irrelevant in the case of SARS now Covid-19 unless the state of health introduces the specific means by which the mechanics of lung damage can occur. Granted, the whole point is that it would escape notice anyway, even if did have a bearing on a death.

In the case of interpretation 3, the presence of the pathogen (which is superfluous if required levels of ACE2 are not expressed at the lung) will not have been detected when a patient expires of something unrelated because of there being no routine process in which it was tested for. Of course, it is the essence of the coronahoax that detection of the harmless pathogen is what forms the basis of a diagnosis of “Covid-19” – although this is not the whole story, because a test won’t necessarily detect SARS-COV to still yield a positive result. Furthermore, the ability to create the perception of a pandemic comes in the capability to detect the harmless pathogen (or something else) in at least 95% of all deaths (an educated estimate) being attributed to Covid-19 which are in fact due to something else.

And yet, the responsibility for the continuation of the huge fraud belongs not only to the allopathic industrial complex and government reliant on it, but to the widely consumed conveyors of information, media outlets who claim to be independent, and who by reputation stand against the corporate-government and so should have exposed the mythology with easy demonstrations, but who in this sorry episode have revealed themselves for what they are, and have not lifted a finger to do such a thing. Also implicated are the hundreds of thousands (which is a huge potential power base for anyone who leads it) who frustratingly cannot demonstrate possession of a modicum of discernment, and consume the gatekeeping material (and even pay to be abused by it) so that a capacity to form effective defence against being preyed upon by UK Government is never realised.

† “Covid-19” is the death and illness attributed to Covid-19, but is not.

‡ Update, 9th May: Studies Suggest That Medicine For Hypertension Causes Increased ACE2 Levels, And Therefore Facilitates Covid-19 (link)