COVID-19 'STATS' ... Imaginary numbers.
Magic is illusions.
An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2, and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful.
Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty.
Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.
As reported from Portugal...
Additionally, “Any person or entity that gives an order that leads to deprivation of physical, ambulatory, freedom of others (whatever the nomenclature that this order assumes: confinement, isolation, quarantine, prophylactic protection, health surveillance, etc.), which do not fall under the legal qualifications, namely not provided for in article 27 of the CRP, you will be making an illegal detention, because ordered by an incompetent entity and motivated by a fact for which the law does not allow it”,
The court stated, the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used and the viral load present.
Citing Jaafar et al. 2020, the court concludes that:
if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person IS infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.
The court further notes that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown.
The threshold cycles used in PCR tests in India is between 37 and 40, which makes the reliability of the PCR test less than 3% and the false positive rate as high as 97%."
The court’s summary of the case to rule against the Regional Health Authority’s appeal reads as follows:
"Given how much scientific doubt exists — as voiced by experts, i.e., those who matter — about the reliability of the PCR tests, given the lack of information concerning the tests’ analytical parameters, and in the absence of a physician’s diagnosis supporting the existence of infection or risk, there is no way this court would ever be able to determine whether C was indeed a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or whether A, B and D had been at a high risk of exposure to it.
It is also important to remember PCR was invented as a way to create copies of genetic material. Its was never intended to be a diagnostic tool.
The standard coronavirus tests are throwing up a huge number of positive cases daily. These tests are done based on faulty WHO protocols which are designed to include false positives cases as well."
This fact about false positives of PCR Tests was first noted in public by Dr. Beda M. Stadler, a Swiss biologist, emeritus professor, and former director of the Institute of Immunology at the University of Bern.
"So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left?"
"Correct: Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected]."
Earlier, the WHO’s testing protocol was even questioned by Finland’s national health authority.
In India where the standard cycle threshold is between 37 and 40, the reliability of the PCR test there is similarly less than three percent, with a false positive rate as high as 97 percent.
Even The New York Times told the truth once by revealing that most people who test “positive” using a PCR test are actually negative and healthy.
Even fearmonger-in-chief Anthony Fauci has publicly stated and was videotaped stating that anything over 35 is totally unusable.
Testing data collected from Massachusetts, New York, Nevada and elsewhere show that upwards of 90 percent of people who test “positive” with a PCR test are perfectly normal and disease-free.
“Given how much scientific doubt exists – as voiced by experts, i.e., those who matter – about the reliability of the PCR tests, given the lack of information concerning the tests’ analytical parameters, and in the absence of a physician’s diagnosis supporting the existence of infection or risk, there is no way this court would ever be able to determine whether C was indeed a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or whether A, B and D had been at a high risk of exposure to it,” the Portuguese court corroborated about the faulty nature of the PCR test.
It is important to keep in mind that the PCR was intended to be used as a method of trying to copy genetic material, which is NOT how it is being used in Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) testing.
In essence, if a PCR test is conducted on an immune person and turns up “positive,” what it is actually pulling up is perhaps a “shattered part of the viral genome.”
“Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected],” Great Game India further notes.
The ‘gold standard’ in testing for COVID-19 is laboratory isolated/purified coronavirus particles, free from any contaminants and particles that look like viruses but are not, that have been proven to be the cause of the syndrome known as COVID-19 and obtained by using proper viral isolation methods and controls (not the PCR that is currently being used or Serology /antibody tests which do not detect virus as such).
[Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”
When Off-Guardian asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “may be the best available gold standard,” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn’t be the best available/possible gold standard. But she hasn’t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded to the rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd: “I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.”
MY NOTE: That article by Off-Guardian is an incredibly well-documented, informative read. ]
The CDC also notes that virus fragments have been found in patients up to three months after the onset of the illness, although those pieces of virus have not been shown to be capable of transmitting the disease.
BUT THEY ALSO SAY PCR TESTS DETECTS THOSE FRAGMENTS, SO HOW CAN THEY SEPARATE THE RECOVERED PAST-INFECTED WITH "FRAGMENTS" FROM THE ACTIVELY INFECTED WITH THE FULL VIRUS GENOME PRESENT?
“You could be positive by PCR test long after no longer being infectious,” Brett Giroir, the assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services, said during the Health and Human Services briefing July 14. Some people were getting tests four to six times. You don’t need to be be retested unless you’re critically ill or immunosuppressed in which you could shed virus longer.”
It was to be used to quickly REPLICATE DNA.
CORONAVIRUS HAS NO DNA, IT REPLICATES ITS RNA GENOME TO SPREAD.
"Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a method widely used to rapidly make millions to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample, allowing scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it to a large enough amount to study in detail."
[See "Primer-directed enzymatic amplification of DNA with a thermostable DNA polymerase". Science. 239 (4839): 487–91.]
AGAIN, SARS-CoV2 HAS NO DNA.
THEY'RE USING A TEST THAT DETECTS, AMPLIFIES AND THEN REPLICATES DNA TO LOOK FOR A NOVEL VIRUS.
Reverse transcription converts RNA into DNA, so that must be utilized as the "detection" of the coronavirus, but many coronaviruses look very similar. HOW are they separating the one that causes common cold from the one that causes SARS-Cov2?
Drosten et al. remarked that for 2003 SARS, "from a diagnostic point of view, it is important to note that nasal and throat swabs seem less suitable for diagnosis, since these materials contain considerably less viral RNA than sputum, and the virus may escape detection if only these materials are tested."
Sensitivity of clinical samples by RT-PCR is 63% for nasal swab, 32% for pharyngeal swab, 48% for feces, 72–75% for sputum, and 93–95% for bronchoalveolar lavage.
Some studies have found that saliva yielded greater sensitivity and consistency when compared with swab samples.[40][41][42]
Of course, that leads to the question of why rely on them at all. “At face value, obviously they shouldn’t be doing it,” Dr. Perl said. But, she said, often when answers are needed and an organism like the pertussis bacterium is finicky and hard to grow in a laboratory, “you don’t have great options.”
Waiting to see if the bacteria grow can take weeks, but the quick molecular test can be wrong. “It’s almost like you’re trying to pick the least of two evils,” Dr. Perl said.
At Dartmouth the decision was to use a test, P.C.R., for polymerase chain reaction. It is a molecular test that, until recently, was confined to molecular biology laboratories.
“That’s kind of what’s happening,” said Dr. Kathryn Edwards, an infectious disease specialist and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University. “That’s the reality out there. We are trying to figure out how to use methods that have been the purview of bench scientists.”
The Dartmouth whooping cough story (a FALSE positive PCR test on several individuals led to an epidemic scare) shows what can ensue.
"To say the episode was disruptive was an understatement," said Dr. Elizabeth Talbot, deputy state epidemiologist for the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services.
“You cannot imagine,” Dr. Talbot said. “I had a feeling at the time that this gave us a shadow of a hint of what it might be like during a pandemic flu epidemic.”
What is the relationship between the spread of testing and the “spread” of a new virus? How do we know what we are experiencing, in comparison to what we are assuming we are experiencing?
The above article was written by a journalist who interviewed Mullis before he died and at that time, Mullis was very angry that his PCR find was being used to "diagnose" AIDS.
Mullis himself came to the front line arguing against PCR as a diagnostic tool after it was used to do that.
Imagine his ire today!
From an email from Kary Mullis, to the widow of boxer Tommy Morrison, whose career and life were destroyed by an “HIV test,” and who litigated ferociously for years, against test manufacturers, Dr. Mullis wrote, on May 7, 2013:
“PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment. “
If things were done right, “infection” and "cases" would be a far cry from having a positive PCR test.
“You have to have a whopping amount of any organism to cause symptoms. Huge amounts of it,” Dr. David Rasnick, bio-chemist, protease developer, and former founder of an EM lab called Viral Forensics told me.
“You don’t start with testing; you start with listening to the lungs. I’m skeptical that a PRC test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine. 30% of your infected cells have been killed before you show symptoms. By the time you show symptoms…the dead cells are generating the symptoms.”
I asked Dr. Rasnick what advice he has for people who want to be tested for COVID-19.
“Don’t do it, I say, when people ask me,” he replies. “No healthy person should be tested. It means nothing but it can destroy your life, make you absolutely miserable.”
“Every time somebody takes a swab, a tissue sample of their DNA, it goes into a government database. It’s to track us,” says David Rasnick. “They’re not just looking for the virus. Please put that in your article.”
“PCR is really a manufacturing technique,” Crowe explained. “You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it. You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength.
These questions are being raised by many physicians around the world, not only in the United States but also in France, Belgium (Belgium Health Experts Demand Investigation Of WHO For Faking Coronavirus Pandemic), France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, the United States and the United Kingdom. in Germany, Spain…
In the New York Times (NYT), Saturday, August 29, experts compiled three datasets with officials from the states of Massachusetts, New York and Nevada that mention them.
Conclusion?
“Up to 90% of the people who tested positive did not carry a virus. »
The Wadworth Center, a New York State laboratory, analyzed the results of its July tests at the request of the NYT: 794 positive tests with a Ct of 40.
“With a Ct threshold of 35, approximately half of these PCR tests would no longer be considered positive,” said the NYT.
“And about 70% would no longer be considered positive with a Ct of 30! “
In Massachusetts, between 85 and 90% of people who tested positive in July with a Ct of 40 would have been considered negative with a Ct of 30, adds the NYT.
The court stated, the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used and the viral load present.
Citing Jaafar et al. 2020, the court concludes that:
if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person IS infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.
The court further notes that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown.
The threshold cycles used in PCR tests in India is between 37 and 40, which makes the reliability of the PCR test less than 3% and the false positive rate as high as 97%."
The court’s summary of the case to rule against the Regional Health Authority’s appeal reads as follows:
"Given how much scientific doubt exists — as voiced by experts, i.e., those who matter — about the reliability of the PCR tests, given the lack of information concerning the tests’ analytical parameters, and in the absence of a physician’s diagnosis supporting the existence of infection or risk, there is no way this court would ever be able to determine whether C was indeed a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or whether A, B and D had been at a high risk of exposure to it.
It is also important to remember PCR was invented as a way to create copies of genetic material. Its was never intended to be a diagnostic tool.
The standard coronavirus tests are throwing up a huge number of positive cases daily. These tests are done based on faulty WHO protocols which are designed to include false positives cases as well."
This fact about false positives of PCR Tests was first noted in public by Dr. Beda M. Stadler, a Swiss biologist, emeritus professor, and former director of the Institute of Immunology at the University of Bern.
"So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left?"
"Correct: Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected]."
Earlier, the WHO’s testing protocol was even questioned by Finland’s national health authority.
In India where the standard cycle threshold is between 37 and 40, the reliability of the PCR test there is similarly less than three percent, with a false positive rate as high as 97 percent.
Even The New York Times told the truth once by revealing that most people who test “positive” using a PCR test are actually negative and healthy.
Even fearmonger-in-chief Anthony Fauci has publicly stated and was videotaped stating that anything over 35 is totally unusable.
Testing data collected from Massachusetts, New York, Nevada and elsewhere show that upwards of 90 percent of people who test “positive” with a PCR test are perfectly normal and disease-free.
“Given how much scientific doubt exists – as voiced by experts, i.e., those who matter – about the reliability of the PCR tests, given the lack of information concerning the tests’ analytical parameters, and in the absence of a physician’s diagnosis supporting the existence of infection or risk, there is no way this court would ever be able to determine whether C was indeed a carrier of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or whether A, B and D had been at a high risk of exposure to it,” the Portuguese court corroborated about the faulty nature of the PCR test.
It is important to keep in mind that the PCR was intended to be used as a method of trying to copy genetic material, which is NOT how it is being used in Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) testing.
In essence, if a PCR test is conducted on an immune person and turns up “positive,” what it is actually pulling up is perhaps a “shattered part of the viral genome.”
“Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected],” Great Game India further notes.
The ‘gold standard’ in testing for COVID-19 is laboratory isolated/purified coronavirus particles, free from any contaminants and particles that look like viruses but are not, that have been proven to be the cause of the syndrome known as COVID-19 and obtained by using proper viral isolation methods and controls (not the PCR that is currently being used or Serology /antibody tests which do not detect virus as such).
When Off-Guardian asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “may be the best available gold standard,” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn’t be the best available/possible gold standard. But she hasn’t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded to the rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd: “I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.”
MY NOTE: That article by Off-Guardian is an incredibly well-documented, informative read. ]
PCR basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies DNA to look for ‘viral sequences’, i.e. bits of non-human DNA that seem to match parts of a known viral genome.
The problem is the test is known not to work.
It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very, very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analyzed. Obviously any minute contaminations in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery.
Additionally, it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues.
AS NBC REPORTED IN JULY:
The problem is the test is known not to work.
It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very, very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analyzed. Obviously any minute contaminations in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery.
Additionally, it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues.
AS NBC REPORTED IN JULY:
The CDC also notes that virus fragments have been found in patients up to three months after the onset of the illness, although those pieces of virus have not been shown to be capable of transmitting the disease.
BUT THEY ALSO SAY PCR TESTS DETECTS THOSE FRAGMENTS, SO HOW CAN THEY SEPARATE THE RECOVERED PAST-INFECTED WITH "FRAGMENTS" FROM THE ACTIVELY INFECTED WITH THE FULL VIRUS GENOME PRESENT?
“You could be positive by PCR test long after no longer being infectious,” Brett Giroir, the assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services, said during the Health and Human Services briefing July 14. Some people were getting tests four to six times. You don’t need to be be retested unless you’re critically ill or immunosuppressed in which you could shed virus longer.”
HANG ON!
IN THE SAME ARTICLE, WE'RE TOLD THAT PCR DETECTS ONLY "ACTIVE CASES", NOT RECOVERED ONES.
HERE'S THE QUOTE:
"A PCR or polymerase chain reaction test detects coronavirus genetic material that’s present when the virus is active."
DOUBLESPEAK LIVES AT THE CDC/HHS.
After 60 cycles, every test for COVID-19 is positive.
Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner, never intended that his PCR test invention be used to diagnose a single viral pathogen.It was to be used to quickly REPLICATE DNA.
CORONAVIRUS HAS NO DNA, IT REPLICATES ITS RNA GENOME TO SPREAD.
"Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a method widely used to rapidly make millions to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample, allowing scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it to a large enough amount to study in detail."
[See "Primer-directed enzymatic amplification of DNA with a thermostable DNA polymerase". Science. 239 (4839): 487–91.]
AGAIN, SARS-CoV2 HAS NO DNA.
THEY'RE USING A TEST THAT DETECTS, AMPLIFIES AND THEN REPLICATES DNA TO LOOK FOR A NOVEL VIRUS.
Reverse transcription converts RNA into DNA, so that must be utilized as the "detection" of the coronavirus, but many coronaviruses look very similar. HOW are they separating the one that causes common cold from the one that causes SARS-Cov2?
Drosten et al. remarked that for 2003 SARS, "from a diagnostic point of view, it is important to note that nasal and throat swabs seem less suitable for diagnosis, since these materials contain considerably less viral RNA than sputum, and the virus may escape detection if only these materials are tested."
Sensitivity of clinical samples by RT-PCR is 63% for nasal swab, 32% for pharyngeal swab, 48% for feces, 72–75% for sputum, and 93–95% for bronchoalveolar lavage.
Some studies have found that saliva yielded greater sensitivity and consistency when compared with swab samples.[40][41][42]
Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection.
“Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.” –Kary Mullis, Inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction
The reason Mullis would be livid to see his DNA replicator tool used to "prove" someone has a specific virus is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect specific (RNA) viruses.
How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.
“You’re in a little bit of no man’s land,” with the new molecular tests, said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. “All bets are off on exact performance.”
“Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.” –Kary Mullis, Inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction
The reason Mullis would be livid to see his DNA replicator tool used to "prove" someone has a specific virus is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect specific (RNA) viruses.
How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.
“You’re in a little bit of no man’s land,” with the new molecular tests, said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. “All bets are off on exact performance.”
Of course, that leads to the question of why rely on them at all. “At face value, obviously they shouldn’t be doing it,” Dr. Perl said. But, she said, often when answers are needed and an organism like the pertussis bacterium is finicky and hard to grow in a laboratory, “you don’t have great options.”
Waiting to see if the bacteria grow can take weeks, but the quick molecular test can be wrong. “It’s almost like you’re trying to pick the least of two evils,” Dr. Perl said.
At Dartmouth the decision was to use a test, P.C.R., for polymerase chain reaction. It is a molecular test that, until recently, was confined to molecular biology laboratories.
“That’s kind of what’s happening,” said Dr. Kathryn Edwards, an infectious disease specialist and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University. “That’s the reality out there. We are trying to figure out how to use methods that have been the purview of bench scientists.”
The Dartmouth whooping cough story (a FALSE positive PCR test on several individuals led to an epidemic scare) shows what can ensue.
"To say the episode was disruptive was an understatement," said Dr. Elizabeth Talbot, deputy state epidemiologist for the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services.
“You cannot imagine,” Dr. Talbot said. “I had a feeling at the time that this gave us a shadow of a hint of what it might be like during a pandemic flu epidemic.”
What is the relationship between the spread of testing and the “spread” of a new virus? How do we know what we are experiencing, in comparison to what we are assuming we are experiencing?
One study in Austria found that increased testing correlated with, no surprise, increased “cases.”
In an email discussion between a group of international scientists, academics and MD’s, the question was posed whether the daily number of new cases would track with the daily number of tests.
“Yes, they do,” wrote Austrian MD Christian Fiala. “Here are the data from Austria. In other words if they want to further increase the number of ‘infected‘ people, they have to also increase the number of tests. However, that is physically impossible.
Another aspect: during the first weeks, most tests were done on sick people. Therefore, the percentage of positive tests was relatively high. But there are not so many sick people and with the general roll out of tests, the vast majority of those tested will be healthy. Consequently, the percentage of positive tests will be low, and most will be false positive.
In other words, it is impossible to continue the increase of positive test results.”
In an email discussion between a group of international scientists, academics and MD’s, the question was posed whether the daily number of new cases would track with the daily number of tests.
“Yes, they do,” wrote Austrian MD Christian Fiala. “Here are the data from Austria. In other words if they want to further increase the number of ‘infected‘ people, they have to also increase the number of tests. However, that is physically impossible.
Another aspect: during the first weeks, most tests were done on sick people. Therefore, the percentage of positive tests was relatively high. But there are not so many sick people and with the general roll out of tests, the vast majority of those tested will be healthy. Consequently, the percentage of positive tests will be low, and most will be false positive.
In other words, it is impossible to continue the increase of positive test results.”
The above article was written by a journalist who interviewed Mullis before he died and at that time, Mullis was very angry that his PCR find was being used to "diagnose" AIDS.
Mullis himself came to the front line arguing against PCR as a diagnostic tool after it was used to do that.
Imagine his ire today!
From an email from Kary Mullis, to the widow of boxer Tommy Morrison, whose career and life were destroyed by an “HIV test,” and who litigated ferociously for years, against test manufacturers, Dr. Mullis wrote, on May 7, 2013:
“PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment. “
If things were done right, “infection” and "cases" would be a far cry from having a positive PCR test.
“You have to have a whopping amount of any organism to cause symptoms. Huge amounts of it,” Dr. David Rasnick, bio-chemist, protease developer, and former founder of an EM lab called Viral Forensics told me.
“You don’t start with testing; you start with listening to the lungs. I’m skeptical that a PRC test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine. 30% of your infected cells have been killed before you show symptoms. By the time you show symptoms…the dead cells are generating the symptoms.”
I asked Dr. Rasnick what advice he has for people who want to be tested for COVID-19.
“Don’t do it, I say, when people ask me,” he replies. “No healthy person should be tested. It means nothing but it can destroy your life, make you absolutely miserable.”
“Every time somebody takes a swab, a tissue sample of their DNA, it goes into a government database. It’s to track us,” says David Rasnick. “They’re not just looking for the virus. Please put that in your article.”
“PCR is really a manufacturing technique,” Crowe explained. “You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it. You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength.
So, they measure the amount of light that comes back and that’s their surrogate for how much DNA there is. I’m using the word DNA. There’s a step in RT- PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So, the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It’s using DNA, but it’s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it’s the same thing, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there’s a certain number of cycles.”
This is where it gets wild.
“In one paper,” Crowe says, “I found 37 cycles. If you didn’t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered “indeterminate.” And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I’ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it’s quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test. So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.”
I asked him to pause so I could exclaim my astonishment. And yet, it was déjà vu all over again.
Just like in the HIV battle—people were never told that the “HIV test” had different standards in different countries, and within countries, from lab to lab. The highest bar (the greatest number of HIV proteins) was in Australia: 5. The Lowest was Africa: 2. In the US it is generally 3-4.
David, in his quiet Canadian way, dropped a bombshell in his next statement:
“I think if a country said, “You know, we need to end this epidemic,” They could quietly send around a memo saying: “We shouldn’t be having the cutoff at 37. If we put it at 32, the number of positive tests drops dramatically. If it’s still not enough, well, you know, 30 or 28 or something like that. So, you can control the sensitivity.”
Yes, you read that right. Labs can manipulate how many “cases’ of Covid-19 their country has. Is this how the Chinese made their case load vanish all of a sudden?
“Another reason we know this is bogus,” Crowe continued, “is from a remarkable series of graphs published by some people from Singapore in JAMA. These graphs were published in the supplementary information, which is an indication that nobody’s supposed to read them. And I think the authors probably just threw them in because they were interesting graphs, but they didn’t realize what was in them. So, they were 18 graphs of 18 different people. And at this hospital in Singapore, they did daily coronavirus tests and they grasped the number of PCR cycles necessary to detect fluorescence. Or if they couldn’t detect florescence by…37 cycles, they put a dot on the bottom of the graph, signifying a negative.”
“So, in this group of 18 people, the majority of people went from positive, which is normally read as “infected,” to negative, which is normally read as “uninfected” back to positive—infected again.
Because if it was, like if you’re infected, and then you’re uninfected, and you’re in a hospital with the best anti-infective precautions in the world, how did you get re-infected? And if you cured the infection, why didn’t you have antibodies to stop you getting re-infected? So, there’s no explanation within the mainstream that can explain these results. That’s why I think they’re so important.”
I couldn’t believe my ears. And yet I could.
Have you ever tried to read the package insert for a “Corona” PCR test? You begin to feel after a while that the techno-babble is some kind of spell, or bad dream. An alien language from another dimension, that could not possibly—whatever else it may do—help a single human being have a better life. It’s not “English.” I don’t know what it is.
One of the ways to distinguish truth from deception in contemporary “science” is to track what gets removed.
This is where it gets wild.
“In one paper,” Crowe says, “I found 37 cycles. If you didn’t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered “indeterminate.” And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I’ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it’s quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test. So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.”
I asked him to pause so I could exclaim my astonishment. And yet, it was déjà vu all over again.
Just like in the HIV battle—people were never told that the “HIV test” had different standards in different countries, and within countries, from lab to lab. The highest bar (the greatest number of HIV proteins) was in Australia: 5. The Lowest was Africa: 2. In the US it is generally 3-4.
David, in his quiet Canadian way, dropped a bombshell in his next statement:
“I think if a country said, “You know, we need to end this epidemic,” They could quietly send around a memo saying: “We shouldn’t be having the cutoff at 37. If we put it at 32, the number of positive tests drops dramatically. If it’s still not enough, well, you know, 30 or 28 or something like that. So, you can control the sensitivity.”
Yes, you read that right. Labs can manipulate how many “cases’ of Covid-19 their country has. Is this how the Chinese made their case load vanish all of a sudden?
“Another reason we know this is bogus,” Crowe continued, “is from a remarkable series of graphs published by some people from Singapore in JAMA. These graphs were published in the supplementary information, which is an indication that nobody’s supposed to read them. And I think the authors probably just threw them in because they were interesting graphs, but they didn’t realize what was in them. So, they were 18 graphs of 18 different people. And at this hospital in Singapore, they did daily coronavirus tests and they grasped the number of PCR cycles necessary to detect fluorescence. Or if they couldn’t detect florescence by…37 cycles, they put a dot on the bottom of the graph, signifying a negative.”
“So, in this group of 18 people, the majority of people went from positive, which is normally read as “infected,” to negative, which is normally read as “uninfected” back to positive—infected again.
Because if it was, like if you’re infected, and then you’re uninfected, and you’re in a hospital with the best anti-infective precautions in the world, how did you get re-infected? And if you cured the infection, why didn’t you have antibodies to stop you getting re-infected? So, there’s no explanation within the mainstream that can explain these results. That’s why I think they’re so important.”
I couldn’t believe my ears. And yet I could.
Have you ever tried to read the package insert for a “Corona” PCR test? You begin to feel after a while that the techno-babble is some kind of spell, or bad dream. An alien language from another dimension, that could not possibly—whatever else it may do—help a single human being have a better life. It’s not “English.” I don’t know what it is.
One of the ways to distinguish truth from deception in contemporary “science” is to track what gets removed.
For example, David tells me, there was apparently an English abstract online at PubMed out of China that rendered the entire COVID testing industrial complex baseless and absurd.
“There was a famous Chinese paper that estimated that if you’re testing asymptomatic people, up to 80% of positives could be false positive. That was kind of shocking, so shocking that PubMed had to withdraw the abstract even though the Chinese paper appears to still be published and available. I actually have a translation with a friend. I translated it into English and it’s a really, standard calculation of what they call positive predictive value. The abstract basically said that in asymptomatic populations, the chance of a positive coronavirus test being a true positive is only about 20%. 80% will be false positive.”
“Doesn’t that mean the test means nothing?” I asked.
“The Chinese analysis was a mathematical analysis, a standard, the standard analysis that’s been done a million times before. There’s no reason to withdraw the paper for any reason. There’s nothing dramatic about the paper. It’s a really boring analysis. It’s just that they did the standard analysis and said, in some populations, like they estimated 1% of people are actually infected in the population. You could have 80% false positive.
They couldn’t do a real analysis of false positives in terms of determining whether a test is correct or not because that requires a gold standard and the only gold standard is purification of the virus.
So, we get back to the fact that the virus is not being purified. If you could purify the virus, then you could take a hundred people who tested positive and you could search for the virus in them. And if you found the virus in 50 out of a hundred and not in the other 50, you could say that the test is only accurate 50% of the time. But we have no way to do that because we haven’t yet purified the virus. And I don’t think we ever will.”
I asked Crowe what he thought Kary Mullis would say about this explosion of PCR insanity.
“I’m sad that he isn’t here to defend his manufacturing technique,” he said. “Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that.”
The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity Using a “Test” To Lock Down Society
By Dr. Pascal Sacré
Global Research, November 24, 2020
Official postulate of our managers: positive RT-PCR cases = COVID-19 patients.
This is the starting postulate, the premise of all official propaganda, which justifies all restrictive government measures: isolation, confinement, quarantine, mandatory masks, color codes by country and travel bans, tracking, social distances in companies, stores and even, even more importantly, in schools.
This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.
[RT-PCR is an amplification technique, NOT a diagnostic tool.]
As I said at the beginning, in medicine we always start from the person: we examine him/her, we collect his/her symptoms (complaints-anamnesis) and objective clinical signs (examination) and on the basis of a clinical reflection in which scientific knowledge and experience intervene, we make diagnostic hypotheses.
Only then do we prescribe the most appropriate tests, based on this clinical reflection.
We constantly compare the test results with the patient’s clinical condition (symptoms and signs), which takes precedence over everything else when it comes to our decisions and treatments.
Today, our governments, supported by their scientific safety advice, are making us do the opposite and put the test first, followed by a clinical reflection necessarily influenced by this prior test, whose weaknesses we have just seen, particularly its hypersensitivity.
No test measures the amount of virus (quantity) in the sample!
RT-PCR is qualitative: positive (presence of the virus) or negative (absence of the virus).
This notion of quantity, therefore of viral load, can be estimated indirectly by the number of amplification cycles (Ct) used to highlight the virus sought.
The lower the Ct used to detect the virus fragment, the higher the viral load is considered to be (high).
Above Ct 35, it becomes impossible to isolate a complete virus sequence and culture it!
In France and in most countries, Ct levels above 35, even 40, are still used even today!
Positive RT-PCR tests, without any mention of Ct or its relation to the presence or absence of symptoms, are used as is by our governments as the exclusive argument to apply and justify their policy of severity, austerity, isolation and aggression of our freedoms, with the impossibility to travel, to meet, to live normally!
There is no medical justification for these decisions, for these governmental choices!
The binary “yes/no” answer is not enough, according to this epidemiologist from the Harvard University School of Public Health.
“It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the course of action for each patient tested.
The amount of virus (viral load); but also and above all the clinical state, symptomatic or not of the person!
This calls into question the use of the binary result of this RT-PCR test to determine whether a person is contagious and must follow strict isolation measures.
“There was a famous Chinese paper that estimated that if you’re testing asymptomatic people, up to 80% of positives could be false positive. That was kind of shocking, so shocking that PubMed had to withdraw the abstract even though the Chinese paper appears to still be published and available. I actually have a translation with a friend. I translated it into English and it’s a really, standard calculation of what they call positive predictive value. The abstract basically said that in asymptomatic populations, the chance of a positive coronavirus test being a true positive is only about 20%. 80% will be false positive.”
“Doesn’t that mean the test means nothing?” I asked.
“The Chinese analysis was a mathematical analysis, a standard, the standard analysis that’s been done a million times before. There’s no reason to withdraw the paper for any reason. There’s nothing dramatic about the paper. It’s a really boring analysis. It’s just that they did the standard analysis and said, in some populations, like they estimated 1% of people are actually infected in the population. You could have 80% false positive.
They couldn’t do a real analysis of false positives in terms of determining whether a test is correct or not because that requires a gold standard and the only gold standard is purification of the virus.
So, we get back to the fact that the virus is not being purified. If you could purify the virus, then you could take a hundred people who tested positive and you could search for the virus in them. And if you found the virus in 50 out of a hundred and not in the other 50, you could say that the test is only accurate 50% of the time. But we have no way to do that because we haven’t yet purified the virus. And I don’t think we ever will.”
I asked Crowe what he thought Kary Mullis would say about this explosion of PCR insanity.
“I’m sad that he isn’t here to defend his manufacturing technique,” he said. “Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that.”
The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity Using a “Test” To Lock Down Society
By Dr. Pascal Sacré
Global Research, November 24, 2020
Official postulate of our managers: positive RT-PCR cases = COVID-19 patients.
This is the starting postulate, the premise of all official propaganda, which justifies all restrictive government measures: isolation, confinement, quarantine, mandatory masks, color codes by country and travel bans, tracking, social distances in companies, stores and even, even more importantly, in schools.
This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.
[RT-PCR is an amplification technique, NOT a diagnostic tool.]
As I said at the beginning, in medicine we always start from the person: we examine him/her, we collect his/her symptoms (complaints-anamnesis) and objective clinical signs (examination) and on the basis of a clinical reflection in which scientific knowledge and experience intervene, we make diagnostic hypotheses.
Only then do we prescribe the most appropriate tests, based on this clinical reflection.
We constantly compare the test results with the patient’s clinical condition (symptoms and signs), which takes precedence over everything else when it comes to our decisions and treatments.
Today, our governments, supported by their scientific safety advice, are making us do the opposite and put the test first, followed by a clinical reflection necessarily influenced by this prior test, whose weaknesses we have just seen, particularly its hypersensitivity.
No test measures the amount of virus (quantity) in the sample!
RT-PCR is qualitative: positive (presence of the virus) or negative (absence of the virus).
This notion of quantity, therefore of viral load, can be estimated indirectly by the number of amplification cycles (Ct) used to highlight the virus sought.
The lower the Ct used to detect the virus fragment, the higher the viral load is considered to be (high).
Above Ct 35, it becomes impossible to isolate a complete virus sequence and culture it!
In France and in most countries, Ct levels above 35, even 40, are still used even today!
Positive RT-PCR tests, without any mention of Ct or its relation to the presence or absence of symptoms, are used as is by our governments as the exclusive argument to apply and justify their policy of severity, austerity, isolation and aggression of our freedoms, with the impossibility to travel, to meet, to live normally!
There is no medical justification for these decisions, for these governmental choices!
The binary “yes/no” answer is not enough, according to this epidemiologist from the Harvard University School of Public Health.
“It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the course of action for each patient tested.
The amount of virus (viral load); but also and above all the clinical state, symptomatic or not of the person!
This calls into question the use of the binary result of this RT-PCR test to determine whether a person is contagious and must follow strict isolation measures.
These questions are being raised by many physicians around the world, not only in the United States but also in France, Belgium (Belgium Health Experts Demand Investigation Of WHO For Faking Coronavirus Pandemic), France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, the United States and the United Kingdom. in Germany, Spain…
In the New York Times (NYT), Saturday, August 29, experts compiled three datasets with officials from the states of Massachusetts, New York and Nevada that mention them.
Conclusion?
“Up to 90% of the people who tested positive did not carry a virus. »
The Wadworth Center, a New York State laboratory, analyzed the results of its July tests at the request of the NYT: 794 positive tests with a Ct of 40.
“With a Ct threshold of 35, approximately half of these PCR tests would no longer be considered positive,” said the NYT.
“And about 70% would no longer be considered positive with a Ct of 30! “
In Massachusetts, between 85 and 90% of people who tested positive in July with a Ct of 40 would have been considered negative with a Ct of 30, adds the NYT.
And yet, all these people had to isolate themselves, with all the dramatic psychological and economic consequences, while they were not sick and probably not contagious at all.
I remind you that from Ct 32 onwards, it becomes very difficult to culture the virus or to extract a complete sequence, which shows the completely artificial nature of this positivity of the test, with such high Ct levels, above 30.
Similar results were reported by researchers from the UK Public Health Agency in an article published on August 13 in Eurosurveillance: “The probability of culturing the virus drops to 8% in samples with Ct levels above 35.”
If they have nothing to hide and if what I say is false, this guarantee will be provided to you and will prove their good faith.
1. We must demand that the RT-PCR results be returned mentioning the Ct used because beyond Ct 30, a positive RT-PCR test means nothing.
2. We must listen to the scientists and doctors, specialists, virologists who recommend the use of adapted Ct, lower, at 30. An alternative is to obtain the number of copies of viral RNA/μl or /ml sample.
3. We need to go back to the patient, to the person, to his or her clinical condition (presence or absence of symptoms) and from there to judge the appropriateness of testing and the best way to interpret the result.
Until there is a better rationale for PCR screening, with a known and appropriate Ct threshold, an asymptomatic person should not be tested in any way."
I remind you that from Ct 32 onwards, it becomes very difficult to culture the virus or to extract a complete sequence, which shows the completely artificial nature of this positivity of the test, with such high Ct levels, above 30.
Similar results were reported by researchers from the UK Public Health Agency in an article published on August 13 in Eurosurveillance: “The probability of culturing the virus drops to 8% in samples with Ct levels above 35.”
If they have nothing to hide and if what I say is false, this guarantee will be provided to you and will prove their good faith.
1. We must demand that the RT-PCR results be returned mentioning the Ct used because beyond Ct 30, a positive RT-PCR test means nothing.
2. We must listen to the scientists and doctors, specialists, virologists who recommend the use of adapted Ct, lower, at 30. An alternative is to obtain the number of copies of viral RNA/μl or /ml sample.
3. We need to go back to the patient, to the person, to his or her clinical condition (presence or absence of symptoms) and from there to judge the appropriateness of testing and the best way to interpret the result.
Until there is a better rationale for PCR screening, with a known and appropriate Ct threshold, an asymptomatic person should not be tested in any way."
[Translated from French by Global Research. Original source: Mondialisation.ca]
I GOTTA SAY IT...IF ALL THIS DOESN'T HELP YOU SEE THAT WE'VE BEEN SCAMMED AGAIN, JUST LIKE WE WERE ON SWINE FLU (H1N1), ZIKA, SARS, MERS, & A HOST OF OTHERS, WELL, THERE IS NOTHING THAT WILL CONVINCE YOU OF WHAT THOUSANDS OF EXPERTS HAVE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING...
COVID-19 HAS NOT SPREAD AND KILLED "HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS" OR EVEN "TENS OF MILLIONS", BUT HAS PROVEN TO BE A MILD INFECTION IN OVER 90% OF ALL INFECTED.
HOWEVER, RULING EVERY DEATH A COVID DEATH JUST MIGHT BRING IT CLOSE TO MILLIONS IN ANOTHER YEAR OR SO.
THE PROOF THAT PEOPLE HAVE COVID-19 AND NOT ANOTHER CORONAVIRUS ELUDES THEM; THE PROOF-POSITIVE (BY AUTOPSY, CT SCANS, BLOOD TESTS) THAT PEOPLE ARE DYING FROM, FROM, NOT WITH, THIS VIRUS IS NEVER GOING TO MATERIALIZE.
OUR NATION OF FEARFUL SHEEP IS TOAST AND WE ARE AT THE MERCY OF THOSE WHO PREVIOUSLY BROUGHT US "ZIKA, ZIKA, BE AFRAID!", "SARS IS THE APOCALYPSE!" AND "H1N1 WILL WIPE OUT MILLIONS!"
WE COULD TAKE CDC, WHO, HHS, FDA TO COURT HERE LIKE WAS DONE IN PORTUGAL AND MAKE THE LYING BASTARDS PROVE THEIR TEST IS FAIL-PROOF, OR AT LEAST EVEN 51% ACCURATE, BUT NO, NO, WE JUST BLEAT OUR AGREEMENT TO BE DUPED, TO BE QUARANTINED, TO BE TRACKED FOREVER WHILE AMERICA GOES BUST.
FUNNY WHAT SOME WILL ACCEPT AND GIVE UP FOR A LOUSY $1200.
SO, GO AHEAD, PLAY ALONG WITH THIS POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED BOOGIE MONSTER SHOW IF YOU WANT.
WE'RE STILL FREE TO MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES...IF WE HAVE THE DESIRE TO.
I WONDER WHY WE AREN'T HEARING/SEEING ANY FLU STATS BY NOW.
MAYBE BECAUSE NO ONE IS TESTING FOR FLU?
MAYBE BECAUSE FLU CASES ARE NOW CALLED COVID-19 CASES?
//WW
Fauci has known since at least July that most Covid “cases” are false. The US routinely uses 42-45 cycles, Fauci says any positive test above 35 cycles is a false positive. This is what the whole pandemic is based on -- false-positive, manipulated test results.
ReplyDelete