PCR Tests The Truth Exposed Part One
"I suspect that the “PCR test” was intentionally chosen for its potential non-specificity. It can be a very useful technique for those wishing to control, mislead, impoverish and eliminate us as it is so easy to manipulate its protocol to suit different purposes. It is an ideal tool to perpetrate massive deceptions."
Note the PCR test is the weak link in this Crime Against Humanity it is easily shown scientifically to not detect an active SARS-Cov-2 infection
“More than 16000 scientists and doctors, as well as more than 150,000 people have signed the Great Barrington Declaration, opposing a second COVID-19 lockdown because, according to them, it’s doing much more harm than good.” Great Barrington Declaration
At this point in time, 10 Oct 2020, it is totally clear what we are dealing with in COVID-19 is NOT a Health Emergency. We are dealing with The Largest Crime in Human History.
- The total DAMAGE from Government policy far EXCEEDS, by many times, the damage from the health consequences from COVID-19
- We are basing our government policy, our economic policy and are restricting our basic human rights on completely wrong data and assumptions on the corona virus. If it were not for the “test results” that are daily reported in the corrupt MSM then it would be over because basically nothing really happened.
- Do the so called anti-corona measures such as the lockdowns, face masks, social distancing and quarantining serve to protect the world’s population from corona or do they serve other agendas? Item one on the agenda it to create FEAR.
- The anti-corona measures whose only basis is the incorrect PCR test have harmed innumerable human lives and have destroyed the economic existence of countless companies and individuals world wide.
- The PCR Test is being used used on the basis of false statements by highly placed health authorities, not based on scientific facts with respect to infection.
- A positive PCR Test does not mean any infection in present in the person tested. About 90% of positive tests are FALSE POSITIVES with no SARS-CoV-2 infection present in the tested person.
- The test information coming with the PCR test kits state they are not to be used for diagnostic purposes. The CDC states the same thing, as does the inventor of the PCR method Doctor Mullis.
- The mortality of corona is equivalent to that of the seasonal flu,
- COVID-19 has not caused any excess morality anywhere in the world.
- The German Government was massively lobbied by by the world’s Big Health Care establishment?
- The German Government’s Interior Dept has published a report stating the population was deliberately driven to panic by politicians and the media. The honest person responsible for this important report was FIRED by the German government. This show the corruption and crimes includes the German government. This firing of honest people for speaking truth about CON-19 is occurring in large entities all over the world.
- Our, we the people, only out of this CON-19 is to LOSE our FEAR of CON-19 and call out all the clowns promoting this FEAR. The best way to begin to do this is to learn a little about the fraudulent “PCR test”. All else will follow,
PCR Tests The Truth Exposed Part Two
The PCR Test is the Cornerstone of the Fake COVID Pandemic. It’s a technique that can easily be altered at will to fabricate the number of cases, creating trends in the upwards or downwards direction and at the behest of the controllers of the scam. As someone with more than an adequate knowledge of the […]
The post Significant Pitfalls with PCR for the Alleged SARS-CoV-2 Detection and COVID Diagnosis appeared first on The Freedom Articles.
Vaccines Revealed Episode 2
Dr. Andrew Wakefield Interview 2
Vaccines Revealed Episode 1 DR. Zach Bush Interview 1
Vaccines Revealed Covid-19 Part 1 Dr. Kaufman
Exposing Media Lies
Vaccines Revealed Covid-19 Part 2 Dr. Kaufman
Exposing Media Lies
COVID: The Virus That Isn’t There: The Root Fraud Exposed
This is a follow-up to yesterday’s article, in which I exposed the fact that the CDC does not have the COVID coronavirus in its possession, because it is “unavailable.” Their word, not mine.
The CDC is admitting the virus hasn’t been isolated.
In other words, its existence is unproven.
You need to realize the CDC, during its own published confession (see below), is discussing this explosive situation in the context of instructing the world how to perform the PCR test.
The test to detect a virus that isn’t there.
This would be on the order of NASA issuing a guide for navigating a fleet of ships to a planet whose existence has not been established—and the population of the whole world is going to board those ships for the voyage.
The CDC is saying: here is how you detect the virus in a human, here is the test on which we’re going to rely, here is the test on the basis of which we’re going to identify all case numbers and demand all lockdowns—except we don’t have the virus.
Why don’t they have it?
Because they can’t isolate it. That’s obvious.
If they could isolate it, they would.
Let’s not tap dance around this central fact. Let’s not make excuses for the CDC. They have a problem the size of Jupiter. It’s their problem, not ours. But they’re foisting their problem on us, in the form of a STORY ABOUT A PANDEMIC. AND ALL THE LOCKDOWNS THAT FLOW FROM THE STORY.
To say this is unacceptable is a vast understatement. The CDC is committing a crime that has no bounds.
For months, I’ve been writing about the “missing virus” and the studies that should be done to prove it exists—real-world studies that have never been done and will never be done. Now, here is the smoking gun.
I’m aware that many scientists and doctors, who are otherwise exposing the pandemic as a fraud on legitimate grounds, don’t want to touch what I’m revealing here. I would remind them that, months ago, when some of us were already exposing the PCR test as unreliable and useless and deceptive, THAT ISSUE was too hot to touch. But now it isn’t.
The issue of the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus may seem as if it’s too hot, but it isn’t. It’s time to launch a full-on attack. Immediately.
The truth is only bitter for those who are hiding it.
I’m also aware there are people who have been building scenarios about how the virus is “activated.” Certain frequencies wake it up, and so on. Well, the question is: WHAT VIRUS? THE ONE THAT ISN’T THERE?
Still other people would say, “Then what are all these scientists sequencing in their labs, if it’s not the virus?” Again, not our problem. They might start with a piece of RNA, and then claim, without proof, it’s part of SARS-CoV-2; and they go to work on it. They claim anything they want to. It’s not science.
If a mechanic says he has a piece of a fender from a car that has never been seen before; if he claims he knows the car exists; but he can’t show you the car; are you going to buy his story? Are you going to invest your life-savings and life-savings of your family and friends in this car he admits is “unavailable?” Are you going to invest and go broke and sit in your home and wear a mask and keep your distance from other people and close your business and declare bankruptcy? Are you going to consent to that?
Another question that arises: if the virus is missing and has never been isolated, has never been proved to exist, what are they putting in the COVID vaccine? That’s a question that should be answered by law-enforcement agencies raiding many facilities and seizing materials and finding honest scientists who will discover what is really in the COVID vaccine brews. Waiting for that to happen…the sun could go dark first. In the meantime, do you want to take the shot in the arm?
Some people have claimed there are “animal models” which prove the coronavirus exists and is harmful, because the animals become sick, when they are “injected with the virus.” This is incorrect on two counts.
First, the animal models are supposed to progress through various species, until they arrive at animals that most closely resemble humans; chimps. The animal models being cited are mice or hamsters, which are very, very low on the totem pole.
Second, what are these mice being injected with? It’s supposed to be pure virus. But instead, it’s a soup which contains all sorts of material, including chemicals. The chemicals could be causing the animals to become ill.
Here is my breaking story about the virus that isn’t there, from yesterday:
The Smoking Gun: Where is the coronavirus? The CDC says it isn’t available.
The CDC document is titled, “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.” It is dated July 13, 2020.
Buried deep in the document, on page 39, in a section titled, “Performance Characteristics,” we have this: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…”
The key phrase there is: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available…”
Every object that exists can be quantified, which is to say, measured. The use of the term “quantified” in that phrase means: the CDC has no measurable amount of the virus, because it is unavailable. THE CDC HAS NO VIRUS.
A further tip-off is the use of the word ‘isolates.” This means NO ISOLATED VIRUS IS AVAILABLE.
Another way to put it: NO ONE HAS AN ISOLATED SPECIMEN OF THE COVID-19 VIRUS.
NO ONE HAS ISOLATED THE COVID-19 VIRUS.
THEREFORE, NO ONE HAS PROVED THAT IT EXISTS.
As if this were not enough of a revelation to shock the world, the CDC goes on to say they are presenting a diagnostic PCR test to detect the virus-that-hasn’t-been-isolated…and the test is looking for RNA which is PRESUMED to come from the virus that hasn’t been proved to exist.
And using this test, the CDC and every other public health agency in the world are counting COVID cases and deaths…and governments have instituted lockdowns and economic devastation using those case and death numbers as justification.
If people believe “you have the virus but it is not available,” and you have the virus except it is buried within other material and hasn’t been extracted and purified and isolated, these people believe the moon is made of green cheese.
This is like saying. “We have the 20 trillion dollars, they are contained somewhere in our myriad accounts, we just don’t know where.” If you don’t know where, you don’t know you have the money.
“The car keys are somewhere in the house. We just don’t where.” Really? If you don’t know where, you don’t know the keys are in the house.
“The missing cruise missile is somewhere in the arsenal, we just don’t where.” No. If you don’t know where, you don’t know the missile is in the arsenal.
“The COVID-19 virus is somewhere in the material we have—we just haven’t removed it from that material. But we know what it is and we’ve identified it and we know its structure.” NO YOU DON’T. YOU ASSUME THAT.
Science is not assumptions.
“But…but…there is a study which says a few researchers in a lab isolated the virus…”
They say they did. But in July, the CDC is saying no virus is available. I guess that means trucks were not available to bring the virus from that lab to the CDC. The trucks were out of gas. It was raining. The bridge was washed out. The trucks were in the shop. Joe, the driver, couldn’t find his mask, and he didn’t want to leave home without it…
Science is not assumptions.
‘Public confidence is gone’ –
Labour leader reacts to Health Minister’s appearance on Claire Byrne Live
Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly fuels confusion over return to schools
There is a “serious issue” of a lack of confidence in the Minister for Health, according to Labour leader Alan Kelly.
Mr Kelly described Minister Donnelly’s appearance on the Claire Byrne Live show last night was “scary”.
However, he declined that Labour would table a motion of no confidence in the Minister.
“It’s really an issue for the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Eamon Ryan. If they can’t see what I’m seeing and everybody in front of me and everybody at home last night, it’s not a very good state for the Government," he said.
His comments came after Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly fuelled confusion over which classes will return to school from Monday.
He was forced to issue a clarification last night after appearing on RTÉ’s Claire Byrne Live and saying that talks between Education Minister Norma Foley and teaching unions had not reached a “done deal”. Minister Donnelly added that negotiations are still ongoing.
“Minister Foley is still in negotiations with the unions on this and Cabinet hopes to be in a position to announce something on this tomorrow,” he said on air.
He then added that this happened “very, very recently, potentially after Josepha Madigan was talking.”
This comment came after Minister of State for Special Education Josepha Madigan had indicated on yesterday’s RTÉ Drivetime radio programme that junior and senior infants, as well as first and second class and Leaving Cert students, would return to school from Monday.
He said that Minister Madigan made those comments on the radio in “good faith” and acknowledged that the lack of clarity is “frustrating” for parents.
However, in a tweet last night, less than two hours after appearing on the programme, Minister Donnelly said that talks with teaching unions actually finished early on Monday afternoon
“Clarification re return of schools - meetings with the teaching unions concluded early this afternoon. Government intends making an announcement after Cabinet[meeting] in line with plans as already outlined,” he wrote.
Following the conclusion of last night’s Cabinet meeting, it is expected that Leaving Cert students, as well as pupils in first and second classes and junior and senior infants will return to school on Monday.
Today, Mr Kelly called on the Government to “alleviate” the Minister’s workload, which now includes mandatory quarantine.
He said that the Government "effectively dumped" the complex piece of legislation surrounding mandatory quarantine on the Health Minister.
“Have we got a Minister who can communicate and show confidence in relation to the large volume of workload that he has?
"What is this government going to do to change that to alleviate his workload or in some way help him?"
"He's under serious pressure, he's not dealing with it well."
He said that this is "not a question of politics".
“Last night was scary. It wasn’t just embarrassing for him, it was scary for all of us.”
“Public confidence is gone in the Government,” Mr Kelly added.
Sinn Féin spokesperson David Cullinane said that Minister's performance did not "inspire confidence" last night, but also said that a motion of no confidence would not be helpful at this stage of the pandemic.Read More
The pandemic is a fraud, down to the root of the
Significant Pitfalls with PCR for the Alleged SARS-CoV-2 Detection and COVID Diagnosis
The PCR Test is the Cornerstone of the Fake COVID Pandemic. It’s a technique that can easily be altered at will to fabricate the number of cases, creating trends in the upwards or downwards direction and at the behest of the controllers of the scam. As someone with more than an adequate knowledge of the […] The post Significant Pitfalls with PCR for the Alleged SARS-CoV-2 Detection and COVID Diagnosis appeared first on The Freedom Articles.
AT A GLANCE...THE STORY:
This article is anonymously written someone with a sound background in medical sciences and experience in laboratory-based molecular biology research.
There are so many ways that the PCR laboratory research technique as well as other techniques could be abused to manipulate the incidence and prevalence of a multitude of fake pandemics to suit the political and financial objectives of the orchestrators of chaos, harm, damage and world destruction.Cornerstone of the Fake COVID Pandemic.
It’s a technique that can easily be altered at will to fabricate the number of cases, creating trends in the upwards or downwards direction and at the behest of the controllers of the scam. As someone with more than an adequate knowledge of the medical and clinical sciences along with some postgraduate research experience in the mapping of genomes using molecular genetics techniques, I would like to contribute to our understanding of this nucleic acid amplification method and how information derived from it could be very misleading when it is being used to diagnose purported “infections” in almost anything and everything nowadays.
Is it not amusing to find human swabs, samples of Coca Cola and some fruits all testing positive for “SARS-CoV-2” using the RT-PCR protocol whilst the kit instructions, the enclosed information leaflet, as well as the print on the box, clearly inform the users that the test kit detects SARS-CoV-1 only?
I suspect that the “PCR test” was intentionally chosen for its potential non-specificity. It can be a very useful technique for those wishing to control, mislead, impoverish and eliminate us as it is so easy to manipulate its protocol to suit different purposes.It is an ideal tool to perpetrate massive deceptions.
Specific results could be generated based on specific requirements to meet certain political objectives in order to create the illusion of high and low rates of an imaginary, specific infection in different populations and appearing at different times. Rolling trends of supposed COVID infections, rolling trends of the stampeding of our rights and freedoms all in perfect harmony with the rolling trends of different vaccines presented as the only partial way out of our troubles whilst also being told that our lives might never get back to normal.
And to ensure that systematic analysis of results did not raise much suspicion with regards to bias; some degree of “natural data variability” could be fabricated through the incorporation of a certain percentage of negative test results.
The PCR Can Not Diagnose Anything Useful At All
In my opinion, being positive for the test is like testing humans for epithelial cells (which we all possess) and then confirming that indeed all humans have such cells but pretend that those cells are from a non-human or pathogenic microbial entity. Allow me to make another analogy. How could the finding of some very small, common, ordinary, random screws (that you might find on a trail whilst hiking) necessarily and categorically prove that the screws belonged to a particular car model, manufactured on a specific date and by a specific manufacturer or that those screws belonged to something entirely different, perhaps part of a gadget?
Our bodies are awash with DNA and various RNA molecules which are constantly floating within and outside of our cells.
The laboratory amplification of an alleged, specific and very short segment of DNA/RNA could not prove the existence of microbes nor could it ever predict illness or contribute to death.The Specifics of PCR: A Technique that Can Lend Itself to Manipulation, Fabrication of a Delusion and the Creation of Fear and Anxiety
I would like to refer you to the past statements and interviews of the late and very praiseworthy Dr. Kary Mullis, the Noble Laureate and the inventor of PCR, regarding the limitations of this technique.
1. Size of amplicon (amplified product):
The smaller its size, the higher the probability that the product could be found on a variety of DNA sequences from a variety of organisms, including humans. That is why PCR should not be used for clinical diagnosis.
The size of the amplified DNA segments, supposedly only coding for various proteins of the SARS-CoV-2, is very small: about 112 bp long or slightly longer.
2. Length of individual DNA primers (forward and reverse primers, always a pair), their sequences, their respective concentrations and volumes could be altered thus influencing the specificity of the annealing and the amplification rate of the target DNA/RNA molecules.
3. Types of enzymes (Reverse Transcriptases and Polymerases), their concentrations, their volumes and their chemical modifications prior to use could affect the production rate, the specificity of the amplification and the fidelity (accuracy) of amplification.
4. The denaturation temperature and the duration of denaturation could easily be altered on the PCR thermal cycling machine. Extent of DNA denaturation then determines if primers bind specifically to the “target DNA” or non-specifically to themselves in the next phase. These factors also affect the activity of polymerase enzyme, its half life and the yield.
5. The annealing temperature and the duration of annealing could easily be altered on the PCR thermal cycling machine thus affecting whether the primer pair binds to its “DNA target” specifically or non-specifically to other pieces of DNA or even binds to themselves.
These factors also affect the activity of polymerase enzymes as well as the yield of specific and nonspecific DNA targets.
6. The amplification temperature and the duration of amplification could easily be altered on the PCR thermal cycling machine thus affecting whether the primers remain bonded to the DNA target and the activity, half life and the fidelity of polymerase enzyme as well as the specific and nonspecific yield of DNA from various sources.
7. The number of cycles of PCR / RT-PCR amplification (Cycle Threshold or ct) programmed into the thermal cycling machine might be altered to directly affect how much amplified product is made and whether the sample would be easily detectable (by measuring the emitted fluorescence light) or not.
This could increase or decrease the number of false positives according to prescribed narratives in case of unethical behaviour or genuine laboratory errors. The higher the number of cycles, the larger the degree of amplification of specific and non-specific nucleic acid targets.
8. The concentration and final volume of the pool of RNA/DNA solution affects the degree of amplification. Has RNA been extracted and purified from the pool of DNA, RNA, proteins, cells, carbohydrates, cholesterol and lipids? Or is the RNA in a crude state that could negatively impact its amplification?
9. The concentrations and volumes of solutions of fluorescently labelled deoxyribonucleotide triphosphates (dNTPs) could also affect the amplification magnitude. A huge amount of DNA/RNA in the reaction from the start could ensure a higher yield of false positives. There are four dNTPs: dGTP, dCTP, dATP, dTTP.
10. The ratio of the concentration of fluorescently labelled dNTPs over the concentration of unlabelled dNTPs could also affect the amount of DNA signal perceived and thus the number of false positives that could be detected.
11. Contaminants could result in the generation of false positive results.
12. Various enzyme inhibitors could result in the generation of false negative results.
13. Various enzyme promoters could result in the generation of false positive results.
14. The supposed RNA target belonging to the “alleged virus” is not and has never been isolated and purified prior to its amplification in the PCR machine. A swab sample will contain a mixture of DNA and RNA as well as huge amounts of proteins belonging to human cells, various bacteria, viruses, protozoa and fungal species. Even if RNA molecules are isolated and purified from the mixture it would contain total RNA and not just the RNA of the alleged virus. The mixture might still be contaminated with traces of various DNA molecules from a variety of sources.
15. The ionic concentrations and volumes of individual components of the buffer and the final pH of the buffer solution used in the reaction could be altered.16. The handling and preparation of ingredients prior to placement on the thermal cycling machine could also affect the number of false positive rates.17. The water used in the reaction must be double distilled (deionised) and autoclaved prior to use. Contamination with microbes, DNA, RNA, enzymes and other minerals in the water component or other reaction components could yield erroneous and misleading conclusions.
18. The supposed SARS-CoV-2 primer sequences are complementary to hundreds of bacterial and human DNA molecules.
If one makes a list of all the different pairs of primers that have ever been used in the PCR technique to detect the alleged SARS-CoV 2 throughout the world and compare their sequences with bacterial and human genome data sequences, using the BLAST website as an example, you would find hundreds of almost perfect sequence matches between what is alleged to be portions of various SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 gene sequences, and human and bacterial DNA sequences.
The various primer pairs used in the detection of the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus exhibit at least 90% sequence homology with between 4-93 human DNA segments and 100 bacterial DNA segments (see articles at GreenMedInfo). The forward primer in isolation, the reverse primer in isolation, and both in combination, pick up hundreds of matching human and bacterial DNA sequences.And as far as I know, no one has yet to look at sequence similarities and cross matching between SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 primer sequences (used in PCR and RT-PCR for the detection of the alleged viruses) and fungal and parasitic DNA sequences.
And I would not be surprised at all if these sequences match plant genomic sequences too.If the primer pair sequences match hundreds of human and bacterial DNA targets then, by inference, the targets of amplification are also of human and bacterial origin and not of “viral” origin.
However, since the tested swabs contain much more human DNA/RNA than bacterial, viral, fungal and protozoal genetic material, then it is highly likely that the high rates of false positive PCR test results used for allegedly detecting SARS-CoV-2 are actually just detecting human DNA sequences and nothing else.
Irrespective of whether intentional (cheating) or unintentional errors have been made in the PCR reactions or not, the data suggest that the PCR could be detecting hundreds of bacterial and human DNA sequences seemingly portrayed as SARS-CoV-1 or 2 sequences, thus causing huge surges in false positive rates and therefore an unmeasurably harmful levels of anxiety and fear in the world population.
19. Amplification of target DNA molecules does not require a perfect match between the DNA sequence and the primer sequences: with only a 50% homology (base sequence matching) between the unknown DNA sequence and the primer sequences, it would still be possible to amplify DNA from humans, bacteria, fungi and protozoa and then generate false positive test results depending on the setting of PCR conditions and the sequence and length of the primer pairs. The amplified product of the PCR could easily be human DNA masked as viral RNA! Those who believe in absolute control are forcing us to not only wear face masks but seem to be also masking and covering up the real targets of the PCR amplification reaction which appears to be human DNA, bacterial DNA and DNA/RNA from the natural environment.
20. Recent sequencing of the amplified nucleic acid (from PCR) obtained from more than one thousand patients falsely labelled as having SARS-CoV-2 and misdiagnosed as having COVID has shown the presence of influenza A and influenza B sequences in the samples.
It was found that the buffer solution, as just one of the several ingredients used in the RT-PCR protocol, and had allegedly been tainted with influenza virus sequences in more than a thousand samples analysed.At first glance, the first reaction to this finding is that laboratory protocols must be tightened to prevent contamination of the sterile chemical components of the PCR.
The second obvious conclusion from sequence analysis of samples of patients mislabeled as carrying the SARS-CoV-2 would be that anyone carrying influenza A or B viruses might also test false positives for SARS-CoV-
2. The third conclusion might be that the PCR is not a perfect diagnostic method because it amplifies influenza A, influenza B, SARS-CoV-1 as well as SARS-CoV-2 sequences, but that it might still be a reliable tool because it is still capable of specifically amplifying viral sequences and nothing else using the published primer sequences.
We might thus be sold the illusion that, with some minor adjustments to the PCR protocol, we might be able to eventually differentiate between different viruses.
But that is a total fallacy in my opinion. What we are not being told categorically is that all those people who apparently test positive with the PCR for COVID, whether they appear healthy or unhealthy, are not carrying any kind of microbes whatsoever. The PCR is capable of amplifying, under the right conditions, any non-specific piece of DNA and RNA from humans, from bacteria and maybe even from many other microorganisms.
With inclusion of exogenous RNA/DNA as targets into the PCR mixture, irrespective of its source, the amount of non-specific DNA amplification (signal) would increase, pushing the agenda of labelling more of the tested patients as being positive for an imaginary virus.
What if there might be subtle efforts to try to show that if SARS-CoV-2 could not be detected at least “another virus” could be seen as contributing towards both false positive laboratory results in order to suggest that patients might be infected with a mixture of viruses but due to technical difficulties only the influenza virus sequences could be identified whilst SARS-CoV-2 could not be detected?Since the PCR might be amplifying any piece of RNA and DNA, both from humans and bacteria, how sensible would it be to suggest that some randomly floating and amplified RNA emanated only from a virus, irrespective of the specific species or strains of the alleged microbe?
It is highly unlikely that all false positive cases in the world would have been the result of contamination of the tested sample with RNA from influenza A and B viruses.Even in the absence of contamination, the same PCR protocol has the potential to amplify just about any piece of nucleic acid from a variety of species. Are we seeing a tactic to merely control, mitigate, repair and perhaps salvage the damaged reputation of the PCR as the alleged gold standard for the detection of a multitude of present and future well-orchestrated, well-timed, conveniently handpicked, suddenly flourishing and imaginary nasty microbes as well as the method by which imaginary diseases could be fabricated out of thin air with the sleight of hand?
21. New evidence is shedding more light on virology research and questioning the dogmatic beliefs in this field in general.
None of the “7 coronaviruses” have ever been isolated and purified. What if other published viral sequences are also just computer models?
22. There is some evidence from the CDC website that SARS-CoV-2 sequences seem to have been generated using computer models. It is alleged that SARS-CoV-2 virus has a total of 30,000 organic bases as an RNA molecule even though it has never been extracted and purified from a single COVID case patient.
The CDC seems to suggest that SARS-CoV-2 was a computer-generated digital virus with 37 bases allegedly sourced from cases (0.001%) with 29, 963 bases (99.99 %) having been fabricated using genomic databases.Might this behaviour not constitute fraud?
23. Many of us are rather sceptical about the germ theory of diseases in general and unfortunately, there seems to be a conglomerate of powerful and malevolent forces that are constantly and mercilessly pushing the virus agenda. And irrespective of the designated name of a particular trendy virus, this same force subsequently follows up the proceedings with relentless and persistent propaganda to forcefully peddle new vaccines onto the unsuspecting public under the pretext of protecting public health through the fabrication of an endless supply of new and supposedly ever-evolving list of imaginary and dangerous microbes.Please look up the ignored historical arguments between Dr. Bechamp and Dr. Pasteur that took place about hundred years ago.
24. But where have we repeatedly seen computer modelling before? In the prediction of various endemic and pandemic infectious diseases for the last fifty years at least. All those predictions were hugely exaggerated to drive the narrative of the germ theory of disease. By creating the perception of harmful, illusory infectious agents, the pharmaceutical companies, the medical industrial complex, governments and eugenicists push the need for swift action through virtue signalling by ordering edicts allegedly meant to “protect the public” and coercing populations into giving up their freedoms and submitting to inhumane and very harmful treatments. Those policies are there just to enrich the parasitic minority at the expense of the huge majority.
25. Surely, the notification of a positive PCR result is the harbinger of bad news for the mental and physical health of most of humanity and yet proves itself as a valuable tool in the machinations of those tiny minorities intent on causing undue harm to mankind.What if the PCR technique is being used as a tool and as the Holy Grail by the control freaks to establish and perpetuate their nefarious agendas – Agenda 21 / Agenda 2030?Further Questions to PonderCould PCR that is routinely carried out in a minute cup (a well in a microtiter plate) be a significant treasure for control freaks?Could the abuse of the PCR technique and “other dubious diagnostic techniques” bestow technologists miraculous and magical powers that could amplify DNA (alchemy), determine mankind’s fate and simultaneously act as an enabler of technocracy and tyranny?Could the abuse of PCR create massive deceptions by creating false positive results and mislabel people as sick and dangerous to others and thus promulgate the necessity for mass vaccination programs as the only way to control the imaginary virus?
Could the abuse of PCR create unprecedented opportunities for the medical-industrial-political complex and the banking industries?Could the abuse of this technique make satanic psychopaths happier when they see the enormous suffering, misery, illness and death of the majority caused by their policies – the inevitable consequences of false positive PCR results?
Could the abuse of such techniques not make the egocentric and solipsistic minority more delighted when they see the exponential increase in their own power, wealth and control?
Might the abuse of these techniques by the superbly rich people help with their delusion of trying to achieve immortality and reverse senescence through the inevitable increase in the number of abortions and the extent of human trafficking and organ harvesting procedures?Could the abuse of this technique or “other trendy diagnostic techniques” in the near future provide the psychopaths with spiritual sustenance in infinite abundance (through the use of torture, abuse, abductions, societal destruction and demicide as satanic rituals) and material sustenance in infinite abundance (through the synchronous control, rationing and contamination of the world’s food production and distribution networks) whilst people are constantly being distracted by COVID, new vaccines, loss of their freedom, poverty, fake elections and rallies of controlled opposition groups?Could all these questions be answered by examining the agendas of the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation among many others?
The aim of the psychopathic few would be to foment a significant decrease in the world population with a small minority of sheeple remaining – dumbed down obedient slaves exhibiting minimal cognitive abilities, incapable of rationality and critical analysis – with all the natural resources and wealth of the world in the hands of the tyrannical dominion.
You could easily have a situation where you have the same patient/case, same nurse, same technician, same sample, same time and date, same equipment but different results which is total and utter nonsense.
There seems to be intentional errors in and manipulations of the conditions of the RT-PCR in order to fabricate the fraud of much higher rates of non-specific, misleading and random amplifications of human and bacterial DNA target sequences. The more people get tested, the more people yield positive results for the illusive SARS-CoV-2 thus increasing the number of people alleged to be suffering from an imaginary COVID disease. These nefarious policies of fabrication of false and biased data have been in temporal resonance with certain official political objectives and announcements of the officialdom at designated times.Such policies work hand in glove and in perfect harmony with the spewing of fear propaganda created to drive us into a programmed and preconceived path of the Pied Piper.
The PCR method is used to chemically amplify a very short piece of non-specific DNA in order to generate false positive data; inducing and amplifying frequent and regular psychological traumas, chaos, untold damage to people’s lives and madness. Its esoteric value could be to induce control, obedience, conformity, uncertainty, confusion, compliance and a lack of belief in logic and common sense.
All these repugnant practices, policies and responses are killing and psychologically torturing innocent human beings.If you are determined to socially engineer populations by creating a storm in a teacup, you might want to manipulate the PCR and other diagnostic techniques to fabricate cases.Suddenly and by some magic, a very small, unimportant, harmless, irrelevant piece of floating RNA/DNA that has been amplified billions of times becomes visible, relevant, omnipotent, omnipresent and irreverent. A theatrical tool to foment confusion, fear and chaos by making us frightened of an imaginary virus.If you happen to test positive, they label you as having COVID and, if by happenstance your test results are negative, it has been reported that laboratories and clinicians had been ordered to keep repeating the test 30 times or more in order to get a 1 in 30 hit, forcing the false positive result. When through sheer persistence and cheating, the system finally finds you positive, suddenly the total number of cases would go up by a figure of 30 just based on your own “final result” alone. Because the laboratory might have repeated your test 30 times, your case would be counted as thirty cases!Now imagine this nauseating and repulsive scenario whilst testing billions of people around the world!
There are just so many ways for the policy makers to use deceit to bulk up their statistics that it beggars belief. Such tricks constitute a heinous crime and one that disturbs the human conscience and our souls. What has been going on is pseudoscience, fakery and fraud.Instantly, very healthy people testing “positive” are vilified, harassed, intimidated and stigmatised as spreaders of “disease”. Our pockets are emptied and we are impoverished. We would then be manipulated, corralled and coerced into taking their poisonous toxins as vaccines; guaranteed to cut short your longevity and healthspan as well as lifespan. Alternatively, to cool things down and pretend that the sophistry of the planners of the draconian, ineffective plandemic measures (such as social distancing, masking, lockdowns, the endless vaccinations, the use of personal protective equipment, the use of air filters and hand sanitisers, the shutting down of societies, commerce and trade and the ensuing meltdowns) had been effective in temporarily controlling the pre-ordained spread of the illusory virus; at the behest of the controllers, just like flipping a switch, the various parameters on the PCR thermal cycling machine could be altered to magically create the illusion of a “significant decrease” in the number of “positive” cases/deaths.
The supposedly significant decrease in cases and deaths would then be strongly and unequivocally causatively linked to the beneficial and positive role of their supposedly preventive public health measures; notably and mainly through the use of their toxic vaccines.
A frequent, regular and constant propaganda piece presented and flaunted about by the media and governments in order to drive/coerce specific, preconceived narratives and evil agendas using mind crowding and encirclement.
The amplification of very small amounts of short and very common DNA segments that could easily belong to humans, bacteria and other organisms does not prove the existence of a specific microbe whatsoever.ConclusionPolymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) must not be perceived as the gold standard of diagnosis with which to assess and compare the reliability of other screening methods for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 or any other viruses. Nor could it be assumed to be a screening method.
The virus has never been isolated and purified and there are no gold standards for its detection and quantitative measurement. Without the existence of a gold standard for the isolation, purification, detection and quantitative measurement of the virus itself; the use of terms such as true positive, true negative, false positive and false negative would be misleading.
Therefore, the spouting of misnomers such as specificity, sensitivity, positive and negative predictive values in attempting to gauge the reliability and accuracy of detection of SARS-CoV-2 or any other virus using the PCR method would be leading us down a deep, long, tortuous and stenching rabbit hole.Presence of a common DNA/RNA sequence does not prove the existence of a specific gene or a specific organism.Presence of a specific DNA/RNA sequence does not prove the existence and viability of a specific organism.Natural and harmless RNA/DNA must not be perceived as harmful agents.
Presence of microbes does not prove the existence of disease.A positive PCR result does not indicate disease of any kind.Real science should be about facing the truth without flinching. It must be about honesty, integrity, unbiased enquiry and transparency. It is about thinking and reasoning and arguing. It is about abandoning false beliefs and dogmatic faith.We must not allow agents of chaos to destroy humanity and the natural world based on fabrications.
Yes, the natural world. Those same people who espouse saving humanity and the planet and reducing pollution are the greatest destroyers and polluters of the natural world themselves. A case of doublespeak and hypocrisy.
Tags:agenda 2030 COVID Cycle Threshold Kary MullisPCRRT-PCRSARS-CoV-1SARS-CoV-2
Do Mandatory Masks and Vaccines Break the 10 Points of the Nuremburg Code?CommentsVehuiah UknoWme? • 18 hours ago
THE PCR DECEPTION⎮Short Documentary About the Test Used for Covid-19
Kari Mullis, the inventor of the test spells it out clearly that the PCR test IS NOT MEANT TO IDENTIFY A VIRUS. It must be isolated and in the CDC's own documentation and the Chinese head of their CDC on NBC news stated that they have not isolated the virus. There is no COVID-19 as it is reverse engineering for the degeneration of humanity into a GMO herd which will be radically culled and those remaining will be part of a transhuman society. All of the rest of life is being wiped out as well as this is a global omnicide with populations of wild species plummeting down by 90% of microbes, 80-90% of flying insects and the chain of reduction follows suit. If one cannot observe the loss over time and the inability to even plant a garden with what used to be near 100% germination and now down to a fraction of that for many and production for fresh fruits and heirloom vegetables, then you are not paying attention.
A good channel to see the elimination of the earth as we knew it is at geoengineeringwatch.org. Carnicom has isolated bacteria that destroys the microbes and causes seeds to rot rather than germinate and his video footage is comprehensive.If you think this is too far fetched and Morgellons is a fantasy, your bodies are already being wired. Liquid computing and the article from MIT "Viral assembly of oriented quantum dot nanowires communicated by Susan Lindquist, Whitehead Institute of Biomedical Research on April 18, 2003 - has shown success.
There are several other papers especially from DARPA and in the Armed Services that were published in 7/2001 that point exactly to this and are available from the Internet Archive which is getting scrubbed itself.
The evidence is in. When do the legal proceedings begin?
A mysterious blood-clotting complication is killing coronavirus patients
Once thought a relatively straightforward respiratory virus, covid-19 is proving to be much more frightening
Craig Coopersmith was up early that morning as usual and typed his daily inquiry into his phone. “Good morning, Team Covid,” he wrote, asking for updates from the ICU team leaders working across 10 hospitals in the Emory University health system in Atlanta.
One doctor replied that one of his patients had a strange blood problem. Despite being put on anticoagulants, the patient was still developing clots. A second said she’d seen something similar. And a third. Soon, every person on the text chat had reported the same thing.
“That’s when we knew we had a huge problem,” said Coopersmith, a critical-care surgeon. As he checked with his counterparts at other medical centers, he became increasingly alarmed: “It was in as many as 20, 30 or 40 percent of their patients.”
One month ago when the country went into lockdown to prepare for the first wave of coronavirus cases, many doctors felt confident they knew what they were dealing with. Based on early reports, covid-19 appeared to be a standard variety respiratory virus, albeit a contagious and lethal one with no vaccine and no treatment. They’ve since seen how covid-19 attacks not only the lungs, but also the kidneys, heart, intestines, liver and brain.
Increasingly, doctors also are reporting bizarre, unsettling cases that don’t seem to follow any of the textbooks they’ve trained on. They describe patients with startlingly low oxygen levels — so low that they would normally be unconscious or near death — talking and swiping on their phones. Asymptomatic pregnant women suddenly in cardiac arrest. Patients who by all conventional measures seem to have mild disease deteriorating within minutes and dying at home.
With no clear patterns in terms of age or chronic conditions, some scientists hypothesize that at least some of these abnormalities may be explained by severe changes in patients’ blood.
The concern is so acute some doctor groups have raised the controversial possibility of giving preventive blood thinners to everyone with covid-19 — even those well enough to endure their illness at home.
Blood clots, in which the red liquid turns gel-like, appear to be the opposite of what occurs in Ebola, Dengue, Lassa and other hemorrhagic fevers that lead to uncontrolled bleeding. But they actually are part of the same phenomenon — and can have similarly devastating consequences.
Autopsies have shown some people’s lungs fill with hundreds of microclots. Errant blood clots of a larger size can break off and travel to the brain or heart, causing a stroke or heart attack. On Saturday, Broadway actor Nick Cordero, 41, had his right leg amputated after being infected with the novel coronavirus and suffering from clots that blocked blood from getting to his toes.
Lewis Kaplan, a University of Pennsylvania physician and head of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, said every year doctors treat people with clotting complications, from those with cancer to victims of severe trauma, “and they don’t clot like this.”
“The problem we are having is that while we understand that there is a clot, we don’t yet understand why there is a clot,” Kaplan said. “We don’t know. And therefore, we are scared.”
‘It crept up on us’
The first sign something was going haywire was in legs, which were turning blue and swelling. Even patients on blood thinners in the ICU were developing clots — which is not unusual in one or two patients in one unit but is for so many at the same time. Next came the clogging of the dialysis machines, which filter impurities in blood when kidneys are failing and jammed several times a day.
“There was a universal understanding that this was different,” Coopersmith said.
Then came the autopsies. When they opened up some deceased patients’ lungs, they expected to find evidence of pneumonia and damage to the tiny air sacs that exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide between the lungs and the bloodstream. Instead, they found tiny clots all over.
Zoom meetings were convened in some of the largest medical centers nationwide. Tufts. Yale-New Haven. The University of Pennsylvania. Brigham and Women’s. Columbia-Presbyterian. Theories were shared. Treatments debated.
Although there was no consensus on the biology of why this was happening and what could be done about it, many came to believe the clots might be responsible for a significant share of U.S. deaths from covid-19 — possibly explaining why so many people are dying at home.
In hindsight, there were hints blood problems had been an issue in China and Italy as well, but it was more of a footnote in studies and on information-sharing calls that had focused on the disease’s destruction of the lungs.
“It crept up on us. We weren’t hearing a tremendous amount about this internationally,” said Greg Piazza, a cardiovascular specialist at Brigham and Women’s who has begun a study of bleeding complications of covid-19.
Helen W. Boucher, an infectious-disease specialist at Tufts Medical Center, said there’s no reason to think anything is different about the virus in the United States. More likely, she said, the problem was more obvious to American doctors because of the unique demographics of U.S. patients, including large percentages with heart disease and obesity that make them more vulnerable to the ravages of blood clots. She also noted small but important differences in the monitoring and treatment of patients in ICUs in this country that would make clots easier to detect.
“Part of this is by virtue of the fact that we have such incredible intensive care facilities,” she said.
A leading cause of death
The body’s cardiovascular system often is described as a network of one-way streets that connect the heart to other organs. Blood is the transport system, responsible for moving nutrients to the cells and waste away from them. A common cold or a cut on the finger can lead to changes that help repair the damage, but when the body undergoes a more significant trauma, the blood can overreact, leading to an imbalance that can cause excessive clots or bleeding — and sometimes both.
Scientists call this “hemostatic derangement.” In math, a derangement is a permutation in which no element is in its original position.
Harlan Krumholz, a cardiac specialist at the Yale-New Haven Hospital Center, said no one knows whether blood complications are a result of a direct assault on blood vessels, or a hyperactive inflammatory response to the virus by the patient’s immune system.
“One of the theories is that once the body is so engaged in a fight against an invader, the body starts consuming the clotting factors, which can result in either blood clots or bleeding. In Ebola, the balance was more toward bleeding. In covid-19, it’s more blood clots,” he said.
A study published in JAMA on Wednesday found that a large number of covid-19 patients admitted to New York State’s largest health system came in with blood test readings that indicated clotting problems.
And a Dutch study published April 10 in the journal Thrombosis Research provided more evidence the issue is widespread, finding 38 percent of 184 covid-19 patients in an intensive care unit had blood that clotted abnormally. The researchers called it “a conservative estimation” because many of the patients were still hospitalized and at risk of further complications.
Early data from China on a sample of 183 patients showed more than 70 percent of patients who died of covid-19 had small clots develop throughout their bloodstream.Although acute respiratory distress syndrome still appears to be the leading cause of death in covid-19 patients, blood complications are not far behind, said Behnood Bikdeli, a fourth-year fellow at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, who helped anchor a paper about the blood clots in the Journal of The American College of Cardiology.
“My guess is it’s one of the top three causes of demise and deterioration in covid-19 patients,” he said.
That recognition is prompting many hospitals to change the way they think about the disease and manage it. When the novel coronavirus first hit, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others put people with asthma at the top of their lists of those who might be the most vulnerable. But European researchers writing in the journal Lancet noted it was “striking” how underrepresented asthma patients had been. Earlier this month, when New York state released data about the top chronic health problems of those who died of covid-19, asthma was not among them. Instead, they were almost all cardiovascular conditions.
Some medical centers have begun giving all hospitalized covid-19 patients small doses of blood thinners as preventive measures, and many are adjusting doses upward for the most seriously ill. The challenge is the more you give, the greater the danger of upsetting the balance in the other direction and having the patient bleed to death.
Another big mystery the doctors hope the blood issue will shed light on is why some maternity patients are collapsing during or after giving birth.
A paper published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM in late March detailed how two women with no prior symptoms of covid-19 ended up in intensive care. The first was a 38-year-old patient of New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in Manhattan who spiked a fever of 101.3 while undergoing a C-section delivery and began bleeding profusely. The second woman, 33, also underwent a C-section but the next day developed a cough that progressed to respiratory distress. Her heart beat irregularly and her blood pressure jumped to as high as 200/90.
Several physician-researchers said the relationship between covid-19, clotting and pregnant women is “an area of interest.” Women in childbirth can experience clotting and bleeding complications because of the involvement of the blood-rich placenta, but it’s possible covid-19 may be triggering additional cases by making some women’s bodies “lose balance.”
“There’s lots of speculation,” Krumholz said. “That’s one of the frustrating things about this virus. We’re in a lot of darkness still.”
Coronavirus: What you need to read
Got a pandemic question? We answer one every day in our coronavirus newsletter
Why the next flu season may be worse than ever: There have been barely any cases this winter thanks to Covid restrictions. But now experts fear this will leave us dangerously exposed
- While Covid has infected four million UK people flu has been virtually eradicated
- Figures from Public Health England show not a single case of flu reported by labs
- Yet experts say that the fall in cases could make a spike in infections next winter
PUBLISHED: 22:08, 1 March 2021
There have been few silver linings during the pandemic, but the latest data on flu infections is one of them.
While Covid has been running amok over the past year — infecting four million people in the UK and taking the lives of more than 120,000 — flu has been virtually eradicated.
Latest figures from Public Health England show that since the start of the year — typically the height of the flu season — not a single case of influenza has been reported by laboratories (which test patient samples sent by GPs or hospitals to determine the cause of ill health), and only five people admitted to hospitals in England had flu, compared with 90 a week last year.
Meanwhile, data from the Royal College of GPs Research and Surveillance Centre shows that the amount of flu virus circulating this year, based on the number of patients who consult GPs with symptoms, is about 95 per cent lower than normal in England.
In fact, infections have dropped from about ten cases per 100,000 people in the first two months of 2020 to less than one per 100,000 for the same point this year. Meanwhile, cold and flu remedy sales have dropped by almost half.
'We are seeing the smallest number of influenza cases and deaths for over 100 years,' says Dr John McCauley, director of the Worldwide Influenza Centre at the Francis Crick Institute in London.
The figures are astonishing given that, in most years in the UK, seasonal flu kills between 10,000 and 30,000 people.
Yet experts say it's not all good news — and that the fall in cases could make a spike in infections more likely next winter. What's more, the lack of circulating flu virus could make it harder for scientists to develop an effective vaccine for next winter.
Flu, an infection caused by the influenza virus, is spread in much the same way as Covid — through tiny droplets released into the air by coughing and sneezing, or coming into contact with someone who has the virus. Symptoms include a high temperature, body aches, a cough, sore throat and exhaustion.
Most people will recover on their own. But for some, particularly the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions, flu can be deadly.
For this reason, every year the NHS offers a flu vaccination to young children — the main spreaders of flu — and at‑risk groups (about 15 to 20 million people in England).
The lack of circulating flu virus could make it harder for scientists to develop an effective vaccine for next winter. Stock image
Experts say the measures introduced to reduce the spread of coronavirus have also brought a drop in flu cases.
'All the measures taken to prevent Covid transmission — social distancing, reduced physical interaction, wearing masks, hand-washing — also work against other respiratory infections such as influenza,' says Dr Andrew Preston, a reader in microbial pathogenesis at the University of Bath.
'Given these measures have been in place during the typical flu season, cases have plummeted this year.'
Another factor is the overwhelming uptake this year of the seasonal flu jab which offers, on average, 50 per cent protection against the virus.
Amid concerns that if Covid and flu struck at the same time it would be disastrous both for patients and the NHS, the vaccine programme was extended to the over-50s last year.
According to Dr Vanessa Saliba, head of flu at Public Health England, this year's flu immunisation programme is 'on track to be the most successful ever'.
'We have had the highest levels of vaccine uptake recorded for those aged 65 and over, and two and three-year-olds and healthcare workers,' she says.
This year more than 80 per cent of over-65s, 55 per cent of two and three-year-olds and 75 per cent of healthcare workers have had the flu jab. This compares with about 72 per cent uptake for the over-65s and 44 per cent uptake among toddlers in the 2019/2020 winter.
Despite the small number of cases, those who are eligible but have not yet had the flu vaccine, are still encouraged to do so
There may be added benefits to this. Two key studies, from the universities of Milan in Italy and Sao Paolo in Brazil, last year found that routine flu jabs could also cut the risk of developing severe Covid.
The Brazil study, involving 90,000 people, found mortality rates among Covid patients were 35 per cent lower among those who had had a flu shot.
Despite the small number of cases, those who are eligible but have not yet had the flu vaccine, are still encouraged to do so because the flu season does not normally finish until the spring.
'Flu can be a nasty illness and the flu jab is the best protection against it,' says Professor Martin Marshall, chair of the Royal College of GPs.
'The flu vaccination programme is still ongoing, and we'd encourage eligible patients to come forward. The last thing we want is to see an increase in flu cases while we continue to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic.'
However, the dramatic drop in flu cases this year doesn't mean flu has gone for good. When social distancing measures are eased, experts expect the flu virus to return, perhaps with a vengeance next autumn.
'As we lift the restrictions, just as coronavirus cases will increase, we will see a rebound in respiratory conditions such as flu,' says Dr Preston.
'This bounce-back could be even greater than pre-Covid levels because people have not had the usual boost to their immunity from natural exposure to the flu virus, either from having had the vaccine or from coming into contact with the virus [which helps us] in developing antibodies against it.'
Dr McCauley agrees: 'Waning immunity could give us more flu cases. That doesn't mean they will be more severe, but we should plan to protect people with the vaccine next year.'
Experts say the measures introduced to reduce the spread of coronavirus have also brought a drop in flu cases
Meanwhile, fewer flu cases has its drawbacks for the next flu vaccine. Every year scientists look at the circulating strains of influenza globally, and then predict which strains are likely to be prevalent the following year and thus which to include in the flu jab. But with so few cases this year, there is less data on which to base their decision.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) announced last week that it was changing one of the four strains to be included in this autumn's vaccine.
But according to Dr McCauley, who works at one of five WHO centres that track flu viruses and helps to update vaccines, this year has been a challenge.
'Flu hasn't gone away, but in large parts of the world there are very small numbers of cases,' he says. 'With smaller numbers of viruses being analysed, it has been more difficult to get a general picture of which viruses are out there.'
What the pandemic has shown us is how we can drive down levels of all sorts of infections through social distancing and wearing face masks.
'The question is whether we will want to do that in future years to prevent the spread of flu,' says Dr McCauley.
COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically MeaninglessThough the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose
Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter
* “Germs are a necessary part of a healthy immune system, helping our body’s defenses beef up and fight future illnesses. When a person’s exposure to germs is decreased, problems may arise.
Researchers studied two kinds of mice: One group had been exposed to a normal bacteria environment, and another group that was germ-free. When scientists compared the immune systems of the two groups of mice, they found what they cited as evidence to support the hygiene hypothesis – the mice that had been exposed to microbes had stronger immune systems than the germ-free mice.
Additionally, the germ-free mice had exaggerated inflammation in their lungs and colon, similar to what is seen in humans who have asthma and ulcerative colitis. The researchers found that a particular kind of immune cell, called an invariant natural killer T cell, was particularly hyperactive in these mice.
But looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2.Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “positive” patients, whereby “positive” is usually equated with “infected.”
UNFOUNDED “TEST, TEST, TEST,…” MANTRA
the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:
We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.”
Still on the 3 of May, the moderator of the heute journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television— was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words:
Test, test, test—that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.”
This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.
But it is well known that religions are about faith and not about scientific facts. And as Walter Lippmann, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th century said: “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”
So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.
Unfortunately, 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.
The reason 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 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.
LACK OF A VALID GOLD STANDARD
Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.
This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity” and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available.
As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:
If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”
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.”
But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, “pragmatically” COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, “may be the best available ‘gold standard’.” But this is not scientifically sound.
Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us.
And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis — contrary to Watson’s statement — cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.
In addition, “experts” such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.
That is why I 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 our 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.”
NO PROOF FOR THE RNA BEING OF VIRAL ORIGIN
Now the question is: What is required first for virus isolation/proof? We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.
As textbooks (e.g., White/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state, particle purification — i.e. the separation of an object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende — is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.
The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from. That has to be determined beforehand.
And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.
Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.
But not a single team could answer that question with “yes” — and NB., nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like “No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification” (see below).
We asked several study authors “Do your electron micrographs show the purified virus?”, they gave the following responses:
Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health” Nature Medicine, March 2020
Replying Author: Malik Peiris
Date: May 12, 2020
Answer: “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.”
Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020
Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han
Date: May 6, 2020
Answer: “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.”
Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020
Replying Author: Wan Beom Park
Date: March 19, 2020
Answer: “We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”
Study 4: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020
Replying Author: Wenjie Tan
Date: March 18, 2020
Answer: “[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”
Regarding the mentioned papers it is clear that what is shown in the electron micrographs (EMs) is the end result of the experiment, meaning there is no other result that they could have made EMs from.
That is to say, if the authors of these studies concede that their published EMs do not show purified particles, then they definitely do not possess purified particles claimed to be viral. (In this context, it has to be remarked that some researchers use the term “isolation” in their papers, but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation (purification) process. Consequently, in this context the term “isolation” is misused).
Thus, the authors of four of the principal, early 2020 papers claiming discovery of a new coronavirus concede they had no proof that the origin of the virus genome was viral-like particles or cellular debris, pure or impure, or particles of any kind. In other words, the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.
We have also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea…to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:
[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction […] tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”
And that’s why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified. His answer:
I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”
This actually means that one cannot conclude that the RNA gene sequences, which the scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for which the PCR tests are finally being “calibrated,” belong to a specific virus — in this case SARS-CoV-2.
In addition, there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.
In order to establish a causal connection, one way or the other, i.e. beyond virus isolation and purification, it would have been absolutely necessary to carry out an experiment that satisfies the four Koch’s postulates. But there is no such experiment, as Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei recently revealed for OffGuardian.
The necessity to fulfill these postulates regarding SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated not least by the fact that attempts have been made to fulfill them. But even researchers claiming they have done it, in reality, did not succeed.
One example is a study published in Nature on May 7. This trial, besides other procedures which render the study invalid, did not meet any of the postulates.
For instance, the alleged “infected” laboratory mice did not show any relevant clinical symptoms clearly attributable to pneumonia, which according to the third postulate should actually occur if a dangerous and potentially deadly virus was really at work there. And the slight bristles and weight loss, which were observed temporarily in the animals are negligible, not only because they could have been caused by the procedure itself, but also because the weight went back to normal again.
Also, no animal died except those they killed to perform the autopsies. And let’s not forget: These experiments should have been done before developing a test, which is not the case.
Revealingly, none of the leading German representatives of the official theory about SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 — the Robert Koch-Institute (RKI), Alexander S. Kekulé (University of Halle), Hartmut Hengel and Ralf Bartenschlager (German Society for Virology), the aforementioned Thomas Löscher, Ulrich Dirnagl (Charité Berlin) or Georg Bornkamm (virologist and professor emeritus at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Munich) — could answer the following question I have sent them:
If the particles that are claimed to be to be SARS-CoV-2 have not been purified, how do you want to be sure that the RNA gene sequences of these particles belong to a specific new virus?
Particularly, if there are studies showing that substances such as antibiotics that are added to the test tubes in the in vitro experiments carried out for virus detection can “stress” the cell culture in a way that new gene sequences are being formed that were not previously detectable — an aspect that Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock already drew attention to in her Nobel Lecture back in 1983.
It should not go unmentioned that we finally got the Charité – the employer of Christian Drosten, Germany’s most influential virologist in respect of COVID-19, advisor to the German government and co-developer of the PCR test which was the first to be “accepted” (not validated!) by the WHO worldwide – to answer questions on the topic.
But we didn’t get answers until June 18, 2020, after months of non-response. In the end, we achieved it only with the help of Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer.
Regarding our question “Has the Charité convinced itself that appropriate particle purification was carried out?,” the Charité concedes that they didn’t use purified particles.
And although they claim “virologists at the Charité are sure that they are testing for the virus,” in their paper (Corman et al.) they state:
RNA was extracted from clinical samples with the MagNA Pure 96 system (Roche, Penzberg, Germany) and from cell culture supernatants with the viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany),”
Which means they just assumed the RNA was viral.
Incidentally, the Corman et al. paper, published on January 23, 2020 didn’t even go through a proper peer review process, nor were the procedures outlined therein accompanied by controls — although it is only through these two things that scientific work becomes really solid.
IRRATIONAL TEST RESULTS
It is also certain that we cannot know the false positive rate of the PCR tests without widespread testing of people who certainly do not have the virus, proven by a method which is independent of the test (having a solid gold standard).
Therefore, it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test results.
For example, already in February the health authority in China’s Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test “negative,” and then tested “positive” again.
A month later, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between “negative”, “positive” and “dubious”.
A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients and the majority went from “positive” to “negative” back to “positive” at least once, and up to five times in one patient.
Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February that the PCR tests are “only 30 to 50 per cent accurate”; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the WHO’s coronavirus response team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that:
It has been widely reported in the social media that the RT-qPCR [Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases.”
In other words, even if we theoretically assume that these PCR tests can really detect a viral infection, the tests would be practically worthless, and would only cause an unfounded scare among the “positive” people tested.
This becomes also evident considering the positive predictive value (PPV).
The PPV indicates the probability that a person with a positive test result is truly “positive” (ie. has the supposed virus), and it depends on two factors: the prevalence of the virus in the general population and the specificity of the test, that is the percentage of people without disease in whom the test is correctly “negative” (a test with a specificity of 95% incorrectly gives a positive result in 5 out of 100 non-infected people).
With the same specificity, the higher the prevalence, the higher the PPV.
In this context, on June 12 2020, the journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt published an article in which the PPV has been calculated with three different prevalence scenarios.
The results must, of course, be viewed very critically, first because it is not possible to calculate the specificity without a solid gold standard, as outlined, and second because the calculations in the article are based on the specificity determined in the study by Jessica Watson, which is potentially worthless, as also mentioned.
But if you abstract from it, assuming that the underlying specificity of 95% is correct and that we know the prevalence, even the mainstream medical journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt reports that the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests may have “a shockingly low” PPV.
In one of the three scenarios, figuring with an assumed prevalence of 3%, the PPV was only 30 percent, which means that 70 percent of the people tested “positive” are not “positive” at all. Yet “they are prescribed quarantine,” as even the Ärzteblatt notes critically.
In a second scenario of the journal’s article, a prevalence of rate of 20 percent is assumed. In this case they generate a PPV of 78 percent, meaning that 22 percent of the “positive” tests are false “positives.”
That would mean: If we take the around 9 million people who are currently considered “positive” worldwide — supposing that the true “positives” really have a viral infection — we would get almost 2 million false “positives.”
All this fits with the fact that the CDC and the FDA, for instance, concede in their files that the so-called “SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests” are not suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.
In the “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel“ file from March 30, 2020, for example, it says:
Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms”
This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”
And the FDA admits that:
positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”
To quote another one, in the product announcement of the LightMix Modular Assays produced by TIB Molbiol — which were developed using the Corman et al. protocol — and distributed by Roche we can read:
These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection”
For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.”
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT THE TESTS CAN MEASURE THE “VIRAL LOAD”?
There is also reason to conclude that the PCR test from Roche and others cannot even detect the targeted genes.
Moreover, in the product descriptions of the RT-qPCR tests for SARS-COV-2 it says they are “qualitative” tests, contrary to the fact that the “q” in “qPCR” stands for “quantitative.” And if these tests are not “quantitative” tests, they don’t show how many viral particles are in the body.
That is crucial because, in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world not only in a laboratory, the patient would need to have millions and millions of viral particles actively replicating in their body.
That is to say, the CDC, the WHO, the FDA or the RKI may assert that the tests can measure the so-called “viral load,” i.e. how many viral particles are in the body. “But this has never been proven. That is an enormous scandal,” as the journalist Jon Rappoport points out.
This is not only because the term “viral load” is deception. If you put the question “what is viral load?” at a dinner party, people take it to mean viruses circulating in the bloodstream. They’re surprised to learn it’s actually RNA molecules.
Also, to prove beyond any doubt that the PCR can measure how much a person is “burdened” with a disease-causing virus, the following experiment would have had to be carried out (which has not yet happened):
You take, let’s say, a few hundred or even thousand people and remove tissue samples from them. Make sure the people who take the samples do not perform the test.The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they’re in. The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and how much of it they found. Then, for example, in patients 29, 86, 199, 272, and 293 they found a great deal of what they claim is a virus. Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. But are they really sick — or are they fit as a fiddle?
With the help of the aforementioned lawyer Viviane Fischer, I finally got the Charité to also answer the question of whether the test developed by Corman et al. — the so-called “Drosten PCR test” — is a quantitative test.
But the Charité was not willing to answer this question “yes”. Instead, the Charité wrote:
If real-time RT-PCR is involved, to the knowledge of the Charité in most cases these are […] limited to qualitative detection.”
According to Corman et al., the E-gene assay is likely to detect all Asian viruses, while the other assays in both tests are supposed to be more specific for sequences labelled “SARS-CoV-2”.
Besides the questionable purpose of having either a preliminary or a confirmatory test that is likely to detect all Asian viruses, at the beginning of April the WHO changed the algorithm, recommending that from then on a test can be regarded as “positive” even if just the E-gene assay (which is likely to detect all Asian viruses!) gives a “positive” result.
This means that a confirmed unspecific test result is officially sold as specific.
HIGH CQ VALUES MAKE THE TEST RESULTS EVEN MORE MEANINGLESS
Another essential problem is that many PCR tests have a “cycle quantification” (Cq) value of over 35, and some, including the “Drosten PCR test”, even have a Cq of 45.
The Cq value specifies how many cycles of DNA replication are required to detect a real signal from biological samples.
“Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,” as it says in the MIQE guidelines.
MIQE stands for “Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments”, a set of guidelines that describe the minimum information necessary for evaluating publications on Real-Time PCR, also called quantitative PCR, or qPCR.
The inventor himself, Kary Mullis, agreed, when he stated:
If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”
The MIQE guidelines have been developed under the aegis of Stephen A. Bustin, Professor of Molecular Medicine, a world-renowned expert on quantitative PCR and author of the book A-Z of Quantitative PCR which has been called “the bible of qPCR.”
In a recent podcast interview Bustin points out that “the use of such arbitrary Cq cut-offs is not ideal, because they may be either too low (eliminating valid results) or too high (increasing false “positive” results).”
And, according to him, a Cq in the 20s to 30s should be aimed at and there is concern regarding the reliability of the results for any Cq over 35.
If the Cq value gets too high, it becomes difficult to distinguish real signal from background, for example due to reactions of primers and fluorescent probes, and hence there is a higher probability of false positives.
Moreover, among other factors that can alter the result, before starting with the actual PCR, in case you are looking for presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the RNA must be converted to complementary DNA (cDNA) with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase—hence the “RT” at the beginning of “PCR” or “qPCR.”
But this transformation process is “widely recognized as inefficient and variable,” as Jessica Schwaber from the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine in Toronto and two research colleagues pointed out in a 2019 paper.
Stephen A. Bustin acknowledges problems with PCR in a comparable way.
For example, he pointed to the problem that in the course of the conversion process (RNA to cDNA) the amount of DNA obtained with the same RNA base material can vary widely, even by a factor of 10 (see above interview).
Considering that the DNA sequences get doubled at every cycle, even a slight variation becomes magnified and can thus alter the result, annihilating the test’s reliable informative value.
So how can it be that those who claim the PCR tests are highly meaningful for so-called COVID-19 diagnosis blind out the fundamental inadequacies of these tests—even if they are confronted with questions regarding their validity?
Certainly, the apologists of the novel coronavirus hypothesis should have dealt with these questions before throwing the tests on the market and putting basically the whole world under lockdown, not least because these are questions that come to mind immediately for anyone with even a spark of scientific understanding.
Thus, the thought inevitably emerges that financial and political interests play a decisive role for this ignorance about scientific obligations. NB, the WHO, for example has financial ties with drug companies, as the British Medical Journal showed in 2010.
Finally, the reasons and possible motives remain speculative, and many involved surely act in good faith; but the science is clear: The numbers generated by these RT-PCR tests do not in the least justify frightening people who have been tested “positive” and imposing lockdown measures that plunge countless people into poverty and despair or even drive them to suicide.
And a “positive” result may have serious consequences for the patients as well, because then all non-viral factors are excluded from the diagnosis and the patients are treated with highly toxic drugs and invasive intubations. Especially for elderly people and patients with pre-existing conditions such a treatment can be fatal, as we have outlined in the article “Fatal Therapie.”
Without doubt eventual excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the lockdown measures, while the “COVID-19” death statistics comprise also patients who died of a variety of diseases, redefined as COVID-19 only because of a “positive” test result whose value could not be more doubtful.
 Sensitivity is defined as the proportion of patients with disease in whom the test is positive; and specificity is defined as the proportion of patients without disease in whom the test is negative.
 E-mail from Prof. Thomas Löscher from March 6, 2020
 Martin Enserink. Virology. Old guard urges virologists to go back to basics, Science, July 6, 2001, p. 24
 E-mail from Charles Calisher from May 10, 2020
 Creative Diagnostics, SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit