Important Updates!!! FDA Issues Class 1 Recall For Nasal Test Swabs June 10th. Scroll down for story. Also see Prof Michel Chossudovsky’s video presentation following his article.
The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of “Positive Cases” are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis
First published on March 21, 2021
The Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) test was adopted by the WHO on January 23, 2020 as a means to detecting the SARS-COV-2 virus, following the recommendations of a Virology research group (based at Charité University Hospital, Berlin), supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (For Further details see the Drosten Study)
Exactly one year later on January 20th, 2021, the WHO retracts. They don’t say “We Made a Mistake”. The retraction is carefully formulated.
While the WHO does not deny the validity of their misleading January 2020 guidelines, they nonetheless recommend “Re-testing” (which everybody knows is an impossibility).
The contentious issue pertains to the number of amplification threshold cycles (Ct). According to Pieter Borger, et al
The number of amplification cycles [should be] less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles. In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture…(Critique of Drosten Study)
The World Health Organization (WHO) tacitly admits one year later that ALL PCR tests conducted at a 35 cycle amplification threshold (Ct) or higher are INVALID. But that is what they recommended in January 2020, in consultation with the virology team at Charité Hospital in Berlin.
If the test is conducted at a 35 Ct threshold or above (which was recommended by the WHO), segments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus cannot be detected, which means that ALL the so-called confirmed “positive cases” tabulated in the course of the last 14 months are invalid.
According to Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, et al, the Ct > 35 has been the norm “in most laboratories in Europe & the US”.
The WHO’s Mea Culpa
Below is the WHO’s carefully formulated “Retraction”. The full text with link to the original document is in annex:
WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology. (emphasis added)
WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.
“Invalid Positives” is the Underlying Concept
This is not an issue of “Weak Positives” and “Risk of False Positive Increases”. What is at stake is a “Flawed Methodology” which leads to invalid estimates.
What this admission of the WHO confirms is that the estimate of covid positive from a PCR test (with an amplification threshold of 35 cycles or higher) is invalid. In which case, the WHO recommends retesting: “a new specimen should be taken and retested…”.
The WHO calls for “Retesting”, which is tantamount to “We Screwed Up”.
That recommendation is pro-forma. It won’t happen. Millions of people Worldwide have already been tested, starting in early February 2020. Nonetheless, we must conclude that unless retested, those estimates (according to the WHO) are invalid.
I should mention that there are several other related flaws regarding the PCR test which are not addressed in this article. (See Michel Chossudovsky’s E-book: The 2020 Worldwide Corona Crisis: Destroying Civil Society, Engineered Economic Depression, Global Coup d’État and the “Great Reset” (Chapter III)
From the outset, the PCR test has routinely been applied at a Ct amplification threshold of 35 or higher, following the January 2020 recommendations of the WHO. What this means is that the PCR methodology as applied Worldwide has in the course of the last 12-14 months led to the compilation of faulty and misleading Covid statistics.
And these are the statistics which are used to measure the progression of the so-called “pandemic”. Above an amplification cycle of 35 or higher, the test will not detect fragments of the virus. Therefore, the official “covid numbers” are meaningless.
It follows that there is no scientific basis for confirming the existence of a pandemic.
Which in turn means that the lockdown / economic measures which have resulted in social panic, mass poverty and unemployment (allegedly to curtail the spread of the virus) have no justification whatsoever.
According to scientific opinion:
“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% (Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, Clare Craig, Kevin McKernan, et al, Critique of Drosten Study)
As outlined above, “the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%”: It follows that using the >35 cycles detection will indelibly contribute to “hiking up” the number of “fake positives”.
At the time of writing (mid-March 2021), despite the WHO retraction, the PCT test is being used extensively to hike up the numbers with a view to sustaining the fear campaign, justifying the ongoing lockdown policies as well as the implementation of the Covid vaccine.
Ironically, the flawed numbers based on “invalid positives” are in turn being manipulated to ensure an upward trend in Covid positives.
Moreover, those PCR tests are not routinely accompanied by a medical diagnosis of the patients who are being tested.
And now, national health authorities have issued (fake) warnings of a “Third Wave” as part of their propaganda campaign in support of the Covid-19 Vaccine.
The WHO confirms that the Covid PCR test procedure as applied is invalid. There is absolutely no scientific basis for implementing the Covid Vaccine.
Both the WHO and the scientific assessment of Pieter Borger, et al (quoted above) confirm unequivocally that the tests adopted by governments to justify the lockdown and the destabilization of national economies are INVALID.
Invalid Data and the Numbers’ Game
It should be understood that these “invalid estimates” are the “numbers” quoted relentlessly 24/7 by the media in the course of the “First Wave” and “Second Wave”, which have been used to feed the fear campaign and “justify” ALL the policies put forth by the governments:
- lockdown,
- closure of economic activity,
- poverty and mass unemployment,
- bankruptcies
- social distancing,
- face mask,
- curfew,
- the vaccine.
- the health passport
Invalid Data. Think Twice Before Getting Vaccinated
And Now we have entered a so-called “Third Wave”. (But where’s the data??)
It’s a complex “Pack of Lies”.
It’s a crime against humanity.
Postscript
Since its release on March 21, 2021, quite unexpectedly tens of thousands of people have read this article.
My intent was essentially to Refute and Reveal the Big Lie (focussing on scientific and statistical concepts) without directly addressing the broader implications of the lockdown and closure of economic activity.
This diabolical project which emanates from the upper echelons of the financial establishment (including the World Economic Forum) is destroying people’s lives Worldwide. It is creating mass unemployment, triggering famines in developing countries.
With some exceptions including Tanzania, most of the 193 member states of the United Nations have endorsed the WEF’s “corona consensus”.
The Truth is a peaceful yet powerful weapon.
Now is the time to confront those governments and demand a repeal of the lockdown policies which are triggering poverty and despair Worldwide.
The WHO’s BIG LIE is refuted by the WHO.
The alleged pandemic is a scam. That is something which cannot be denied or refuted.
And that was the object of this article.
It’s a complex scam based on “a pack of lies” with devastating consequences.
In the course of the last 14 months starting in early January 2020, I have analyzed almost on a daily basis the timeline and evolution of the Covid crisis. From the very outset in January 2020, people were led to believe and accept the existence of a rapidly progressing and dangerous epidemic.
We are at the crossroads of one of the most serious crises in World history. We are living history, yet our understanding of the sequence of events since January 2020 has been blurred.
Worldwide, people have been misled both by their governments and the media as to the causes and devastating consequences of the Covid-19 “pandemic”.
The unspoken truth is that the novel coronavirus provides a pretext and a justification to powerful financial interests and corrupt politicians to precipitate the entire World into a spiral of mass unemployment, bankruptcy, extreme poverty and despair.
More than 7 billion people Worldwide are directly or indirectly affected by the corona crisis.
I invite Global Research readers to view the Video below (which provides an overview) as well as consult my E-Book (consisting of 10 chapters) which addresses in detail the complexities of this crisis.
Also please forward this article. Your support is invaluable.
Video
click the lower right corner to access full-screen .
UK Health Officials Admit COVID Does Not Exist!
Judy Mikovits On How To Genetically Identify A Virus
A world-renowned microbiologist has warned that that the new Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines are contributing to the decimation of the world’s population.
In an exclusive interview with The New American this month, (April 2021) German microbiologist Sucharit Bhakdi explained how coronavirus vaccines affect the body at the cellular level. He warned that these vaccines are set to cause a global catastrophe and decimate the human population.
Vaccines are either useless or dangerous
During the interview, Bhakdi emphasized the dangers associated with the new vaccines. For one, the vaccines cannot actually do what manufacturers say they can. According to Bhakdi, it is practically impossible to prevent infection, even after vaccination.
In fact, it is naïve to think getting vaccinated can prevent infection. That’s because any antibodies the body may produce following vaccination would be too minuscule to do anything significant. (Related: Researchers confirm antibodies from the AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine cause blood clots.)
Bhakdi also stressed the fact that SARS-CoV-2 is not a killer virus, contrary to popular belief. That’s because up to five people only will die of COVID-19 for every 10,000 people infected. For a vaccine to be deemed efficient, it has to guarantee that it will bring that number down further. But that would be incredibly difficult to show.
No clinical trial can be designed to show this, said Bhakdi. To do so, scientists would have to vaccinate millions, if not billions of people. They would then have to count how many died among the vaccinated and the unvaccinated group and compare data from the two. This has never been shown.
Plus, it is near-impossible for people under 70 years and without a preexisting condition to die of COVID-19. If it were a matter of preventing coughs or the cold, then the efficacy of the vaccines wouldn’t be such a controversial topic. But this is a matter of protecting against severe illness and death.
“I don’t want a vaccine that may kill me [but] that may protect me from getting a cold,” said Bhakdi.
He also argued that vaccine manufacturers do not have sufficient data on the efficacy of their vaccines on older people with preexisting conditions. Such testing would likely lead to a string of deaths. Therefore, the claim that the new COVID-19 vaccines are efficacious is a lie, said Bhakdi. “It is so unethical it’s criminal.”
In a nutshell, the new vaccines are useless for younger adults because the antibodies produced are insignificant and useless for older adults due to lack of testing and data.
Furthermore, Bhakdi emphasized that blood clots as a side effect of vaccination should not be taken lightly because they are potentially fatal. If clotting factors are used up because of the vaccine, the patient could suffer internal bleeding. In severe cases, internal bleeding is fatal even with proper treatment.
Plus, vaccinating younger adults may do more harm than good. Younger adults have stronger immune systems. The vaccine “trains” immune cells to attack the virus. This training excites immune cells, causing them to be much more aggressive once the actual virus enters the body. As a result, the person might develop more severe symptoms than if he or she hadn’t been vaccinated.
This is all leading up to the decimation of the entire population, added Bhakdi. In order to protect ourselves and the next generation, we must decline the vaccines, he concluded. More health experts and medical professionals should also call out the inefficacy of the new vaccines and the harm they may bring.
Bhakdi also criticizes PCR testing
Bhakdi, who studied medicine at several German universities, also stated that the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test used to detect a COVID-19 infection is “highly fallible.” But despite this, health authorities continue to use it as their main diagnostic criteria for COVID-19. This, Bhakdi said, is where the problem lies.
Speaking to the magazine’s senior editor, Alex Newman, Bhakdi explained that PCR tests can detect active viral particles and dead fragments of the virus. But the test has not been designed to be able to tell active particles from dead fragments.
In other words, a person with COVID-19 and a person who has dead fragments of SARS-CoV-2 will have positive PCR test results. Both will be tagged as COVID-19 patients and subjected to health protocols.
In a nutshell, the PCR test allows health authorities to take every positive result as a confirmed COVID-19 case. To highlight how troubling this is, Bhakdi uses a breathalyzer test as an example.
A person who has been drinking a bottle of vodka would no doubt fail the test and have their license revoked. A person who drank only a glass of vodka hours prior might still pass under normal circumstances. Imagine if police officers revoked a person’s license because they detected insignificant amounts of alcohol in the person’s system, said Bhakdi. That’s how health authorities are using the PCR test.
Bhakdi also explained that the PCR test cannot distinguish between active viral particles and dead fragments of the virus because it was never calibrated to do so. This is because the laboratory that developed the PCR test never had samples of SARS-CoV-2, to begin with.
Therefore, it’s highly likely that a COVID-19 diagnosis based on the results of a PCR test is false. Bhakdi, who is of German and Thai descent but was born in the United States, expressed his disbelief at how American physicians are not calling out this faulty system, adding that they were “losing their medicine.”
Go to Vaccines.news to learn more about the health risks associated with the COVID-19 vaccines.
Update Dec 20th, 2020… Please scroll down to the last post on this page. In a new story from the Guardian, even The WHO itself now admits PCR Tests Are Useless!
Update on Dec 6th, 2020
A European lawsuit has solidified the fact that the widely used PCR test for detecting the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) is up to 97 percent unreliable – so basically useless.
Portuguese judges reportedly upheld a lower court ruling that forcibly quarantining four German tourists after one tested “positive” for Covid-19 was unlawful because the PCR test is inherently fraudulent.
Delivered on Nov. 11, the verdict followed an appeal against a writ of habeas corpus filed by four Germans against the Azores Regional Health Authority, which demanded that they quarantine.
“This body had been appealing a ruling from a lower court which had found in favour of the tourists, who claimed that they were illegally confined to a hotel without their consent,” writes Peter Andrews for RT.
“The tourists were ordered to stay in the hotel over the summer after one of them tested positive for coronavirus in a PR test – the other three were labeled close contacts and therefore made to quarantine as well.”
The Lisbon Appeal Court found that the Azores Regional Health Authority had violated both Portuguese and international law by forcing the four German tourists to remain confined in a hotel, as only a doctor can “diagnose” someone with a disease. The tourists were also not assessed individually.
In its 34-page ruling, the Lisbon Appeal Court concluded that:
“In view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
In other words, in the eyes of the court, a “positive” Covid-19 test means absolutely nothing, and does not correspond to an actual “case” of Covid-19, whatever a “case” is even supposed to mean.
Continuing to talk about Covid-19 is like beating a dead horse
The court ruling offered two specific reasons why a “positive” PCR test is meaningless, the first being that the test’s reliability depends on the “number of cycles used.” The second is that the test’s reliability depends on the “viral load present.”
These two factors make the test questionable, at best. At worst – and this is the reality – the PCR test is completely meaningless and worthless, revealing nothing about anything in the context of legitimate science.
Nobody seems to know just how many “cycles” are appropriate for determining whether a “positive” test result is real or fake. Some countries use as many as 40 cycles while others use around 25. All produce varying results.
For a novel virus that is supposedly the worst thing to happen to the world since the Spanish Flu, the fact that it takes this much work to try to figure out whether or not a person is actually “infected” just goes to show that this is hardly the threat that the media is making it out to be.
We now know for a fact that there is no “second wave,” unless of course you count all the media hype and hysteria pretending there is. In real life, people are not dropping dead in the streets, many hospital units are at regular capacity or are even empty, and people are wondering: Why am I still locked inside my house wearing a mask?
It is a valid question, especially as increasingly more science gets published to show that the world is being hoodwinked over a virus that nearly every person who “catches” it overcomes. In the vast majority of “cases,” people do not even show symptoms, which means they were never sick.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media is ignoring the Portugal court case because it destroys the prevailing Covid-19 narrative, which maintains that we must all continue to live in fear, avoid seeing our loved ones, and watch as the economy crumbles into oblivion. When will the world, and America specifically, finally wake up and put a stop to this nonsense?
More related news about the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) can be found at Pandemic.news.
BOMBSHELL: Former Pfizer executive says covid-19 “pandemic is over,” so-called “second wave” based on fraudulent testing
09/30/2020 / By Ethan Huff
Despite claims by Anthony Fauci and others that Americans should brace for a “second wave” of the Wuhan coronavirus (covid-19), former Pfizer Chief Science Officer Dr. Mike Yeadon says this is nothing but fear-mongering based on junk science and fraud.
A former vice president at the pharmaceutical giant, Dr. Yeadon claims that “almost all” of the tests being conducted for the Wuhan coronavirus (covid-19) are “false positives,” a phenomenon that has already been observed in Florida. Dr. Yeadon also says that “there is no science to suggest a second wave should happen.”
Any “second wave” that comes along is completely manufactured based on fake “new cases,” Dr. Yeadon is further quoted as saying, responding in the affirmative when asked if “we are basing a government policy, an economic policy, a civil liberties policy, in terms of limiting people to six persons in a meeting … all based on what may well be completely fake data.”
“Were it not for the test data that you get from the TV all the time, you would rightly conclude that the pandemic was over, as nothing much has happened,” Dr. Yeadon further stated, noting that more people will probably be admitted to hospitals for influenza in the coming months, but that these should not be mistaken as Wuhan coronavirus (covid-19) admissions.
Be sure to check out the following video from Brighteon.com in which Dr. Yeadon talks to interviewer Julia Hartley-Brewer about the truth concerning the Wuhan coronavirus (covid-19) plandemic:
Dr. Yeadon published a paper suggesting that the “curve” was “flattened” months ago
Earlier this month, Dr. Yeadon and his colleagues published a paper they co-authored about the so-called “pandemic.” Entitled, “How Likely is a Second Wave?” this paper explains that most of the deaths associated with the Wuhan coronavirus (covid-19) occurred back in March and April, and quickly tapered off in the months that followed.
By April, most countries, including the U.S., had successfully “flattened the curve,” though increased testing, most of which is fraudulent, continues to report new “cases” that those in favor of continued pandemic restrictions are using as “evidence” to push for endless mask-wearing, physical distancing and in some cases, lockdowns.
“It has widely been observed that in all heavily infected countries in Europe and several of the U.S. states likewise, that the shape of the daily deaths vs. time curves is similar to ours in the U.K.,” this paper reveals. “Many of these curves are not just similar, but almost super impossible.”
This is further reflected in the latest survival figures, which since the month of May have risen to 99.8 percent of infections – meaning only 0.2 percent of people who test positive for the Wuhan coronavirus (covid-19) end up dying at some point after being “diagnosed.”
This 99.8 percent survival rate is significantly higher than the one proposed by Fauci back in March and April when he falsely claimed that upwards of 6 percent of Wuhan coronavirus (covid-19) patients would die from the virus – meaning Fauci incorrectly claimed that the novel virus was 20 to 30 times more deadly than it actually is.
“The Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) value accepted by Yeadon et al in the paper is .26%,” writes Ralph Lopez for HubPages. “The survival rate of a disease is 100% minus the IFR.”
Concerning the allegedly “novel” nature of the Wuhan coronavirus (covid-19), Dr. Yeadon claims that it is only novel in the sense that it is a new type of coronavirus. As it turns out, there are many other types of coronaviruses in existence, including four other strains that are freely circulating throughout the population as you read this.
“They all have striking sequence similarity to the new coronavirus,” Dr. Yeadon points out in his paper, offering a different perspective that is rarely, if ever, mentioned by the mainstream media.
Behind The PCR Curtain
Manufactured Pandemic: Testing People for Any Strain of a Coronavirus, Not Specifically for COVID-19
First published by Global Research on March 27, 2020
The following is from a medical forum. The writer, who is a widely respected professional scientist in the US, prefers to stay anonymous, because presenting any narrative different than the official one can cause you a lot of stress in the toxic environment caused by the scam which surrounds COVID-19 these days. – Julian Rose/ Global Research.ca
***
I work in the healthcare field. Here’s the problem, we are testing people for any strain of a Coronavirus. Not specifically for COVID-19. There are no reliable tests for a specific COVID-19 virus. There are no reliable agencies or media outlets for reporting numbers of actual COVID-19 virus cases. This needs to be addressed first and foremost. Every action and reaction to COVID-19 is based on totally flawed data and we simply can not make accurate assessments.
This is why you’re hearing that most people with COVID-19 are showing nothing more than cold/flu like symptoms. That’s because most Coronavirus strains are nothing more than cold/flu like symptoms. The few actual novel Coronavirus cases do have some worse respiratory responses, but still have a very promising recovery rate, especially for those without prior issues.
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). PCR basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies any 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.
The Mickey Mouse test kits being sent out to hospitals, at best, tell analysts you have some viral DNA in your cells. Which most of us do, most of the time. It may tell you the viral sequence is related to a specific type of virus – say the huge family of coronavirus. But that’s all. The idea these kits can isolate a specific virus like COVID-19 is nonsense.
And that’s not even getting into the other issue – viral load.
If you remember the PCR works by amplifying minute amounts of DNA. It therefore is useless at telling you how much virus you may have. And that’s the only question that really matters when it comes to diagnosing illness. Everyone will have a few virus kicking round in their system at any time, and most will not cause illness because their quantities are too small. For a virus to sicken you you need a lot of it, a massive amount of it. But PCR does not test viral load and therefore can’t determine if it is present in sufficient quantities to sicken you.
If you feel sick and get a PCR test any random virus DNA might be identified even if they aren’t at all involved in your sickness which leads to false diagnosis.
And coronavirus are incredibly common. A large percentage of the world human population will have covi DNA in them in small quantities even if they are perfectly well or sick with some other pathogen.
Do you see where this is going yet? If you want to create a totally false panic about a totally false pandemic – pick a coronavirus.
They are incredibly common and there’s tons of them. A very high percentage of people who have become sick by other means (flu, bacterial pneumonia, anything) will have a positive
PCR test for covi even if you’re doing them properly and ruling out contamination, simply because covis are so common.
There are hundreds of thousands of flu and pneumonia victims in hospitals throughout the world at any one time.
All you need to do is select the sickest of these in a single location – say Wuhan – administer PCR tests to them and claim anyone showing viral sequences similar to a coronavirus (which will inevitably be quite a few) is suffering from a ‘new’ disease.
Since you already selected the sickest flu cases a fairly high proportion of your sample will go on to die.
You can then say this ‘new’ virus has a CFR higher than the flu and use this to infuse more concern and do more tests which will of course produce more ‘cases’, which expands the testing, which produces yet more ‘cases’ and so on and so on.
Before long you have your ‘pandemic’, and all you have done is use a simple test kit trick to convert the worst flu and pneumonia cases into something new that doesn’t actually exist.
Now just run the same scam in other countries. Making sure to keep the fear message running high so that people will feel panicky and less able to think critically.
Your only problem is going to be that – due to the fact there is no actual new deadly pathogen but just regular sick people, you are mislabeling your case numbers, and especially your deaths, are going to be way too low for a real new deadly virus pandemic.
But you can stop people pointing this out in several ways.
1. You can claim this is just the beginning and more deaths are imminent. Use this as an excuse to quarantine everyone and then claim the quarantine prevented the expected millions of dead.
2. You can tell people that ‘minimizing’ the dangers is irresponsible and bully them into not talking about numbers.
3. You can talk crap about made up numbers hoping to blind people with pseudoscience.
4. You can start testing well people (who, of course, will also likely have shreds of coronavirus DNA in them) and thus inflate your ‘case figures’ with ‘asymptomatic carriers’ (you will of course have to spin that to sound deadly even though any virologist knows the more symptom-less cases you have the less deadly is your pathogen.
Take these 4 simple steps and you can have your own entirely manufactured pandemic up and running in weeks.
They can not “confirm” something for which there is no accurate test.
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
An Anonymous Nurse Speaks Out: The RT-PCR Test is Totally Unreliable, It Does not Detect the Virus.
An Anonymous Nurse SPEAKS OUT! Just a shame they can’t put their name to it out of fear of losing their job.
This is from a nurse.
I work in the healthcare field. Here’s the problem, we are testing people for any strain of a Coronavirus. Not specifically for COVID-19. There are no reliable tests for a specific COVID-19 virus. There are no reliable agencies or media outlets for reporting numbers of actual COVID-19 virus cases. This needs to be addressed first and foremost. Every action and reaction to COVID-19 is based on totally flawed data and we simply cannot make accurate assessments.
This is why you’re hearing that most people with COVID-19 are showing nothing more than cold/flu like symptoms. That’s because most Coronavirus strains are nothing more than cold/flu like symptoms.
The few actual novel Coronavirus cases do have some worse respiratory responses, but still have a very promising recovery rate, especially for those without prior issues.
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 PCR that is currently being used or Serology /antibody tests which do not detect virus as such).
PCR basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies any 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.
The Mickey Mouse test kits being sent out to hospitals, at best, tell analysts you have some viral DNA in your cells. Which most of us do, most of the time. It may tell you the viral sequence is related to a specific type of virus – say the huge family of coronavirus. But that’s all.
The idea these kits can isolate a specific virus like COVID-19 is nonsense.And that’s not even getting into the other issue – viral load.
If you remember the PCR works by amplifying minute amounts of DNA. It therefore is useless at telling you how much virus you may have.
And that’s the only question that really matters when it comes to diagnosing illness. Everyone will have a few virus kicking round in their system at any time, and most will not cause illness because their quantities are too small. For a virus to sicken you you need a lot of it, a massive amount of it. But PCR does not test viral load and therefore can’t determine if a osteogenesis is present in sufficient quantities to sicken you.
If you feel sick and get a PCR test any random virus DNA might be identified even if they aren’t at all involved in your sickness which leads to false diagnosis.
And coronavirus are incredibly common. A large percentage of the world human population will have covi DNA in them in small quantities even if they are perfectly well or sick with some other pathogen.
Do you see where this is going yet?
If you want to create a totally false panic about a totally false pandemic – pick a coronavirus.
They are incredibly common and there’s tons of them. A very high percentage of people who have become sick by other means (flu, bacterial pneumonia, anything) will have a positive PCR test for covi even if you’re doing them properly and ruling out contamination, simply because covis are so common.
There are hundreds of thousands of flu and pneumonia victims in hospitals throughout the world at any one time.
All you need to do is select the sickest of these in a single location – say Wuhan – administer PCR tests to them and claim anyone showing viral sequences similar to a coronavirus (which will inevitably be quite a few) is suffering from a ‘new’ disease.
Since you already selected the sickest flu cases a fairly high proportion of your sample will go on to die.
You can then say this ‘new’ virus has a CFR higher than the flu and use this to infuse more concern and do more tests which will of course produce more ‘cases’, which expands the testing, which produces yet more ‘cases’ and so on and so on.
Before long you have your ‘pandemic’, and all you have done is use a simple test kit trick to convert the worst flu and pneumonia cases into something new that doesn’t actually exist.
Now just run the same scam in other countries. Making sure to keep the fear message running high so that people will feel panicky and less able to think critically.
Your only problem is going to be that – due to the fact there is no actual new deadly pathogen but just regular sick people you are mislabelling – your case numbers, and especially your deaths, are going to be way too low for a real new deadly virus pandemic.
But you can stop people pointing this out in several ways.
1. You can claim this is just the beginning and more deaths are imminent. Use this as an excuse to quarantine everyone and then claim the quarantine prevented the expected millions of dead.
2. You can tell people that ‘minimizing’ the dangers is irresponsible and bully them into not talking about numbers.
3. You can talk crap about made up numbers hoping to blind people with pseudoscience.
4. You can start testing well people (who, of course, will also likely have shreds of coronavirus DNA in them) and thus inflate your ‘case figures’ with ‘asymptomatic carriers’ (you will of course have to spin that to sound deadly even though any virologist knows the more symptom-less cases you have the less deadly is your pathogen.
Take these simple steps and you can have your own entirely manufactured pandemic up and running in weeks.
They can not “confirm” something for which there is no accurate test.”
RIGGED: Covid-19 testing kits were distributed years before pandemic was declared!
10/04/2020 / By Lance D Johnson
What motivated the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare a pandemic at the time they did? How much of the pandemonium, governments’ lock downs and corporate control is an overreaction? How much of it was planned? Whose agendas do these lock downs and economic controls ultimately serve? Did you know that covid-19 testing kits were distributed before the pandemic was declared?
From Dr Mercola’s Website
Why COVID-19 Testing Is a Tragic Waste Dec 18th 2020
Story at-a-glance
- PCR tests are not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as they cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones
- Amplification over 35 cycles is considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified, yet many labs use 45 cycles. This amplifies any tiny sequence of viral DNA that might be present to the point that the test reads “positive” even if the viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive
- The PCR test can also pick up the presence of other coronaviruses, so a positive result may simply indicate that you’ve recuperated from a common cold in the past
- Millions of people are simply carrying inactive viral DNA that pose no risk to anyone, yet positive test results are being used by the global technocracy to implement a brand new economic and social system based on draconian surveillance and totalitarian controls
- Research shows the global lockdown strategy harms public health to a greater degree than the virus itself
From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the clarion call has been to test, test and test some more. However, right from the start, serious questions arose about the tests being used to diagnose this infection, and questions have only multiplied since then.
Positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have been used as the justification for keeping large portions of the world locked down for the better part of 2020.
This, despite the fact that PCR tests have proven remarkably unreliable with high false result rates, and aren’t designed to be used as a diagnostic tool in the first place as they cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.
Dr. Mike Yeadon, former vice president and scientific director of Pfizer, has even gone on record stating1 that false positive results from unreliable PCR tests are being used to “manufacture a ‘second wave’ based on ‘new cases,'” when in fact a second wave is highly unlikely.
Understanding PCR Tests
Before his death, the inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, repeatedly yet unsuccessfully stressed that this test should not be used as a diagnostic tool for the simple reason that it’s incapable of diagnosing disease. A positive test does not actually mean that an active infection is present. As noted in a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and prevention publication on coronavirus and PCR testing dated July 13 2020:2
- Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.
- The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection.
- This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.
So, what does the PCR test actually tell us? The PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. However, the genetic snippets are so small they must be amplified in order to become discernible. Each round of amplification is called a cycle.
Amplification over 35 cycles is considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified, yet Drosten tests and tests recommended by the World Health Organization are set to 45 cycles.
What this does is amplify any, even insignificant sequences of viral DNA that might be present to the point that the test reads “positive,” even if the viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive. As a result of these excessive cycle thresholds, you end up with a far higher number of positive tests than you would otherwise.
We’ve also had problems with faulty and contaminated tests. As soon as the genetic sequence for SARS-CoV-2 became available in January 2020, German researchers quickly developed a PCR test for the virus.
In March 2020, The New York Times3 reported the initial test kits developed by the CDC had been found to be flawed. The Verge also reported4 that this flawed CDC test in turn became the basis for the WHO’s test, which the CDC ended up refusing to use.
PCR Tests Cannot Detect Infection
Perhaps most importantly of all, the PCR tests cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones. What that means is that PCR tests cannot detect infection. Period. It cannot tell you whether you’re currently ill, whether you’ll develop symptoms in the near future, or whether you’re contagious.
The tests may pick up dead debris or inactive viral particles that pose no risk whatsoever to the patient and others. What’s more, the test can pick up the presence of other coronaviruses, so a positive result may simply indicate that you’ve recuperated from a common cold in the past.
An “infection” is when a virus penetrates into a cell and replicates. As the virus multiplies, symptoms set in. A person is only infectious if the virus is actually replicating. As long as the virus is inactive and not replicating, it’s completely harmless both to the host and others.
Chances are, if you have no symptoms, a positive test simply means it has detected inactive viral DNA in your body. This would also mean that you are not contagious and pose no risk to anyone.
For all of these reasons, a number of highly respected scientists around the world are now saying that what we have is not a COVID-19 pandemic but a PCR test pandemic. In his September 20, 2020, article5 “Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics — The Deadly Danger of False Positives,” Yeadon explains why basing our pandemic response on positive PCR tests is so problematic.
In short, it appears millions of people are simply being found to carry inactive viral DNA that pose no risk to anyone, yet these test results are being used by the global technocracy to implement a brand new economic and social system based on draconian surveillance and totalitarian controls.
Artificially Created Justifications for Totalitarian Controls
As reported by The Vaccine Reaction, September 29, 2020:6
“The test’s threshold is so high that it detects people with the live virus as well as those with a few genetic fragments left over from a past infection that no longer poses a risk. It’s like finding a hair in a room after a person left it, says Michael Mina, MD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.7
In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90% of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The New York Times found8 …
‘We’ve been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus — that’s all,’ Dr. Mina said. ‘We’re using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making.’
But ‘yes’ or ‘no’ isn’t good enough, he added. It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient’s next steps. ‘It’s really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,’ Dr. Mina said.”
Again, medical experts agree any cycle threshold over 35 cycles makes the test too sensitive, as at that point it starts picking up harmless inactive DNA fragments. Mina believes a more reasonable cutoff would be 30 or less.
According to The New York Times,9 the CDC’s own calculations show it’s extremely unlikely to detect live viruses in samples that have gone through more than 33 cycles, and research10 published in April 2020 concluded patients with positive PCR tests that had a cycle threshold above 33 were not contagious and could safely be discharged from the hospital or home isolation.
Importantly, when officials at the New York state laboratory, the Wadsworth Center, reanalyzed testing data at The Times’ request, they found that changing the threshold from 40 cycles to 35 cycles eliminated about 43% of the positive results. Limiting it to 30 cycles eliminated a whopping 63%.11 The Vaccine Reaction adds:12
“In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90% of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. ‘I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,’ he said.
‘I’m really shocked that it could be that high — the proportion of people with high CT value results,’ said Ashish Jha, MD, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. ‘Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing’13 …
In late August, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first rapid coronavirus test that doesn’t need any special computer equipment. Made by Abbot Laboratories, the 15-minute test [BinaxNOW] will sell for U.S. $5 but still requires a nasal swab to be taken by a health worker.14
The Abbot test is the fourth rapid point-of-care test that looks for the presence of antigens rather than the virus’s genetic code as the PCR molecular tests do.15“
Massive Waste of Resources
As noted by Dr. Tom Jefferson and professor Carl Henegan in an October 31, 2020, article in the Daily Mail,16 mass PCR testing has been a massive waste or resources, as it doesn’t provide us with the information we actually need to know — who’s infectious, how far is the virus spreading and how fast does it spread?
Instead, it has led to economic devastation from business shutdowns and isolating noninfectious people in their homes for weeks and months on end. Jefferson and Henegan claim they shared their pandemic response plan with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson over a month ago, and just presented it to him again. “We urge him to pay attention and embrace it,” they write, adding:
“There are only two things about which we can be certain: first, that lockdowns do not work in the long term … The idea that a month of economic hardship will permit some sort of ‘reset’, allowing us a brighter future, is a myth. What, when it ends, do we think will happen? Meanwhile, ever-increasing restrictions will destroy lives and livelihoods.
The second certainty is this: that we need to find a way out of the mess that does no more damage than the virus itself … Our strategy would be to tackle the four key failings.”
These four areas are:
- Addressing the problems in the government’s mass testing program
- Addressing “the blight of confused and contradictory statistics”
- Protect and isolate the vulnerable — primarily the elderly, but also hospitalized patients in general and staff — while allowing the rest to maintain “some semblance of normal life”
- Inform the public about the true and quantifiable costs of lockdown that “kill people just as surely as COVID-19”
“If we do these things, there is real hope that we can learn to live with the virus. That, after all, was supposed to be the plan,” Jefferson and Henegan note. With regard to testing, the pair call “for a national program of testing quality control to ensure that results are accurate, precise and consistent.”
Importantly, we must not rely on positive/negative readings alone. The results must be assessed in relation to other factors, such as the age of the subject and whether they are symptomatic, to determine who actually poses an infectious risk. You can review the full details of their proposed plan at the end of their Daily Mail article.17
Lockdown Dangers Have Been Kept Out of Public Discussion
Jefferson and Henegan aren’t the only ones highlighting the fact that the global lockdown strategy is causing more harm and destruction than the virus itself. In a June 16, 2020 article in The Federalist, James Lucas, a New York City attorney, wrote:18
“If we’re going to allow models and modelers to dictate the entire nature of our society, one would hope that the models are as complete as possible. Yet the epidemiological models that have so transformed our world are seriously incomplete, and therefore fundamentally inadequate.
Any medical therapy is supposed to be tested for both efficacy and safety. There have been several studies19 examining the effectiveness of the lockdowns in combating the spread of the COVID-19 virus, with mixed conclusions.
So far, however, none of these studies or models have analyzed the safety side of the lockdown therapy. In response to questions from physician Sens. Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy, Dr. Anthony Fauci admits20 this side of the equation has not been accounted for in the models now driving our world.
As noted in an open letter21 recently signed by more than 600 health-care professionals, the public health costs from the lockdowns — described as a ‘mass casualty incident’ are real and growing.
These models are estimations based on existing research. The constantly changing projections of coronavirus deaths are extrapolations from research on previous epidemics. Yet modelers have no excuse for leaving evaluations of the lockdowns’ massive costs to public health out of their models.”
The Hidden Costs of Lockdowns
How does the “lockdown therapy” affect public safety? In his article, Lucas highlights the following:22
• Increased chronic disease rates due to unemployment, poverty and putting non-COVID medical care on hold — Research23 by the Veterans Administration has shown delaying cancer treatment for just one month led to a 20% increase in mortality. Another study24 found each one-month delay in breast cancer diagnosis increased mortality by 10%
• Increased rates of mental health problems due to unemployment and isolation
• Increased mortality rates from suicide — In one study,25 being unemployed was associated with a twofold to threefold higher relative risk of suicide. A more recent study26 estimates “deaths of despair” linked to lockdowns may be around 75,000 in the U.S.
• Reduced collective life span — Extended unemployment is also associated with shorter, unhealthier lives. Hannes Schwandt, a health economics researcher at Northwestern University, estimates an extended economic shutdown could shorten the lifespan of 6.4 million Americans entering the job market by an average of about two years.27 Lucas notes:
“If epidemiologists don’t care to take account of this toll, another profession must. A study28 just released by a group of South African actuaries estimates that the net reduction in lifespan from increased unemployment and poverty due to a national lockdown will exceed the increased lifespan due to lives saved from COVID-19 by the lockdown by a factor of 30 to 1.
In other words, each year of additional life attributable to isolating potential coronavirus victims in the lockdown comes at a cost of 30 years lost due to the negative public health effects of a lockdown …”
Lack of education is also associated with significantly shorter life spans and poorer health. High school drop-outs die on average nine years sooner than college graduates,29 and school closings disproportionally affect poorer students.
Who Pays the Most?
As noted by Lucas, in addition to calculating the overall costs on society, modelers must also determine “on whom those costs fall,” because the costs are not borne equally by all. The consequences of the lockdowns disproportionally affect those who are already the most vulnerable — financially and health wise — such as those living near the poverty line, the chronically ill, people with mental illness and minorities in general.
“Contrary to the PR slogan, we are NOT all in this together,” Lucas writes.30 “We need less insipid pro-lockdown propaganda extolling the virtues of the ‘essential’ workers, and more serious analysis of the enormous public health toll the lockdowns are imposing on them. Otherwise, we may come to see the era of coronavirus as simply the time where pro-lockdown elites sacrificed the working class31 to protect themselves.”
A Pandemic of Fearmongering
An October 28, 2020, article featured by the Ron Paul Institute points out that:32
“Ever since the alleged pandemic erupted this past March the mainstream media has spewed a non-stop stream of misinformation that appears to be laser focused on generating maximum fear among the citizenry.
But the facts and the science simply don’t support the grave picture painted of a deadly virus sweeping the land. Yes, we do have a pandemic, but it’ a pandemic of ginned up pseudo-science masquerading as unbiased fact.”
Nine facts that can be backed up with data “paints a very different picture from the fear and dread being relentlessly drummed into the brains of unsuspecting citizens,” the article states. In addition to the fact that PCR testing is practically useless, for all the reasons already mentioned, these data-backed facts include:
1. A positive test is NOT a “case” — As explained by Dr. Lee Merritt in her August 2020 Doctors for Disaster Preparedness33 lecture, featured in “How Medical Technocracy Made the Plandemic Possible,” media and public health officials appear to have purposefully conflated “cases” or positive tests with the actual illness.
Medically speaking, a “case” refers to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness. Now all of a sudden, this well-established medical term, “case,” has been completely and arbitrarily redefined to mean someone who tested positive for the presence of viral RNA. As noted by Merritt, “That is not epidemiology. That’s fraud.”
2. According to the CDC34 and other research data,35 the COVID-19 survival rate is over 99%, and the vast majority of deaths occur in those over 70, which is close to normal life expectancy.
3. CDC analysis reveals 85% of patients testing positive for COVID-19 wore face masks “often” or “always” in the two weeks preceding their positive test. As noted in the Ron Paul article,36 “The only rational conclusion from this study is that cloth face masks offer little if any protection from Covid-19 infection.”
4. There are inexpensive, proven successful therapies for COVID-19 — Examples include various regimens involving hydroxychloroquine with zinc and antibiotics, quercetin-based protocols, the MATH+ protocol and nebulized hydrogen peroxide.
5. The death rate has not risen despite pandemic deaths — Data37,38 show the overall all-cause mortality has remained steady during 2020 and doesn’t veer from the norm. In other words, COVID-19 has not killed off more of the population than would have died in any given year anyway.
As noted in the Ron Paul article,39 “According to the CDC as of early May 2020 the total number of deaths in the US was 944,251 from January 1 — April 30th. This is actually slightly lower than the number of deaths during the same period in 2017 when 946,067 total deaths were reported.”
15,000 Doctors and Scientists Call for End to Lockdowns
All in all, there are many reasons to suspect that continued lockdowns, social distancing and mask mandates are completely unnecessary and will not significantly alter the course of this pandemic illness, or the final death count.
And, with regard to universal PCR testing where individuals are tested every two weeks or even more frequently, whether they have symptoms or not, this is clearly a pointless effort that yields useless data. It’s just a tool to spread fear, which in turn allows for the rapid implementation of the totalitarian control mechanisms required to pull off The Great Reset. Fortunately, more and more people are now starting to see through this plot.
About 45,000 scientists and doctors worldwide have already signed the Great Barrington Declaration,40 which calls for the end to all lockdowns and implementation of a herd immunity approach to the pandemic, meaning governments should allow people who are not at significant risk of serious COVID-19 illness to go back to normal life, as the lockdown approach is having a devastating effect on public health — far worse than the virus itself.41,42 The declaration states:43
“Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health …
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to coronavirus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this focused protection.”
The declaration points out that current lockdown policies will result in excess mortality in the future, primarily among younger people and the working class. As of November 5, 2020, The Great Barrington Declaration44 had been signed by 11,791 medical and public health scientists, 33,903 medical practitioners and 617,685 “concerned citizens.”45
A group of 600 medical doctors gathered in Spain and called the covid-19 outbreak “a false pandemic” created for political purposes. Locking people down and convincing them they can spread infections they do not have is a tyrannical curse of oppression. These doctors urge other healthcare professionals, “the media and political authorities to stop this criminal operation, by spreading the truth.”
Why are human rights being challenged during a time of human need?
In September 2019, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board released a report titled, ‘A World at Risk’ which detailed how the UN and WHO conduct system-wide training and simulation exercises, including one for covering the deliberate release of a “lethal respiratory pathogen.” Why did Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates go on record about an impending pandemic, long before one was declared? Why are both these men so adamant about vaccinating the world population?
Why are medical edicts being enacted with such punitive force and why is the public health response so focused on restricting personal liberty and controlling economic activity, in mere anticipation of infectious disease? Why is the state taking away personal rights, medical privacy and forcing PPE onto populations through fear and coercion? In October 2019, Bill Gates organized a coronavirus pandemic exercise in New York called Event201. The event focused on how everyone on the planet should be vaccinated. In order to achieve this goal, the population would have need to be conditioned to surrender their rights for the “good of all.”
Covid-19 testing kits distributed in 2017 and 2018
Are covid-19 testing kits strategically designed to produce false positives, to overstate the number of cases to justify government intervention and isolation of healthy people? The CDC owns not only the patent on the coronavirus but also a patent and exclusive rights to the testing methodology. Why are the covid-19 testing kits producing false positives in those who are not sick, producing false evidence to force quarantines on healthy people and to declare outbreaks that aren’t even real? Why is the medical fraud allowed to persist?
If covid-19 appeared in China late 2019, why were covid-19 test kits distributed worldwide, two years before the “pandemic?” The World Integrated Trade Solution database reveals that covid-19 test kits were sent to countries in 2017 and 2018.
After this trade information went viral, the World Integrated Trade Solution tried to relabel “covid-19” with an inconspicuous term, “Medical Test Kits.” In the world of trade, this level of vagueness is not permitted. Even though WITS tried to cover up the label, they cannot change the product code. “Medical Test Kits” has the same product code, HS 300215 and it stands for “Covid-19 test kits.”
Why has so much focus been put on faulty detection protocols while effective treatments for covid-19 respiratory illness is suppressed? Why are hospital systems so ill-equipped to help patient immune systems? Why are these questions not even allowed on social media, as Facebook unites with the scientific dictatorship known as the WHO and the CDC to control information?
From The Guardian Dec 18th 2020
The World Health Organization released a guidance memo on December 14th, warning that high cycle thresholds on PCR tests will result in false positives.
While this information is accurate, it has also been available for months, so we must ask: why are they reporting it now? Is it to make it appear the vaccine works?
The “gold standard” Sars-Cov-2 tests are based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR). PCR works by taking nucleotides – tiny fragments of DNA or RNA – and replicating them until they become something large enough to identify. The replication is done in cycles, with each cycle doubling the amount of genetic material. The number of cycles it takes to produce something identifiable is known as the “cycle threshold” or “CT value”. The higher the CT value, the less likely you are to be detecting anything significant.
This new WHO memo states that using a high CT value to test for the presence of Sars-Cov-2 will result in false-positive results.
To quote their own words [our emphasis]:
Users of RT-PCR reagents should read the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is necessary to account for any background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a positive result.
They go on to explain [again, our emphasis]:
The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus and so the Ct value will be low. Conversely, when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.
Of course, none of this is news to anyone who has been paying attention. That PCR tests were easily manipulated and potentially highly inaccurate has been one of the oft-repeated battle cries of those of us opposing the “pandemic” narrative, and the policies it’s being used to sell.
Many articles have been written about it, by many experts in the field, medical journalists and other researchers. It’s been commonly available knowledge, for months now, that any test using a CT value over 35 is potentially meaningless.
Dr Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for inventing the PCR process, was clear that it wasn’t meant as a diagnostic tool, saying:
with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.”
And, commenting on cycle thresholds, once said:
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 for PCR use state:
Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,”
This has all been public knowledge since the beginning of the lockdown. The Australian government’s own website admitted the tests were flawed, and a court in Portugal ruled they were not fit for purpose.
Even Dr Anthony Fauci has publicly admitted that a cycle threshold over 35 is going to be detecting “dead nucleotides”, not a living virus.
Despite all this, it is known that many labs around the world have been using PCR tests with CT values over 35, even into the low 40s.
So why has the WHO finally decided to say this is wrong? What reason could they have for finally choosing to recognise this simple reality?
The answer to that is potentially shockingly cynical: We have a vaccine now. We don’t need false positives anymore.
Notionally, the system has produced its miracle cure. So, after everyone has been vaccinated, all the PCR tests being done will be done “under the new WHO guidelines”, and running only 25-30 cycles instead of 35+.
Lo and behold, the number of “positive cases” will plummet, and we’ll have confirmation that our miracle vaccine works.
After months of flooding the data pool with false positives, miscounting deaths “by accident”, adding “Covid19 related death” to every other death certificate…they can stop. The create-a-pandemic machine can be turned down to zero again.
…as long as we all do as we’re told. Any signs of dissent – masses of people refusing the vaccine, for example – and the CT value can start to climb again, and they bring back their magical disease.
FDA Issues “Class 1” Product Recall of COVID Nasal Tests – INACCURATE! “False Positives . . .”
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has RECALLED COVID-19 Nasal Test Swabs because they are INNACCURATE and, among other things, give FALSE POSITIVE results. How many communities went through longer lockdowns because these tests exaggerated the numbers?
Date Issued: June 10, 2021
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning the public to stop using the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test for diagnostic use. The FDA has significant concerns that the performance of the test has not been adequately established, presenting a risk to health. In addition, labeling distributed with certain configurations of the test includes performance claims that did not accurately reflect the performance estimates observed during the clinical studies of the tests. Finally, the test has not been authorized, cleared, or approved by the FDA for commercial distribution or use in the United States, as required by law.
The Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test is also distributed under the names Innova COVID-19 Self-Test Kit (3T Configuration), Innova SARS-CoV-2-Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test (7T Configuration), and Innova SARS-CoV-2-Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test (25T Configuration).
On April 23, 2021, Innova Medical Group recalled their Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test. The FDA has identified this recall as a Class I recall, the most serious type of recall.
Recommendations for Test Users, Health Care Providers, and Testing Program Organizers
- Stop using the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test.
- Destroy the tests by placing them in the trash or
- Return the tests to Innova using the FedEx return label that was included with the recall letter that Innova sent to customers.
- Test users and caregivers: Talk to your health care provider if you think you were tested with the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test and you have concerns about your test results.
- Health care providers: If the test was given less than two weeks ago, consider retesting your patients using a different SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test if you suspect an inaccurate result. If testing was performed more than two weeks ago and there is no reason to suspect current SARS-CoV-2 infection, it is not necessary to retest.
- Testing program organizers: Notify participants in your testing program to discontinue diagnostic use of the Innova test and to use an FDA-authorized test to continue testing. For listings of FDA-authorized tests, see:
- Report any problems you experience with the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test to the FDA, including suspected false results.
Device Description
The Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test claimed to determine if a person had an active COVID-19 infection. The test uses a nasal swab sample and test strip to detect specific proteins, called antigens, from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. If the nasal sample had SARS-CoV-2 antigens, a colored test line should have appeared on the test strip indicating a person may have COVID-19. If the nasal sample did not have SARS-CoV-2 antigens, a colored line should not have appeared on the test strip. The test has not been authorized, cleared, or approved by the FDA for distribution or use in the United States, and it has been recalled by Innova Medical Group, Inc.
Potential Risk of False Results
The Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test claimed to determine if a person had an active COVID-19 infection using a nasal swab sample and test strip. The Innova Medical Group SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test, however, does not have authorization, clearance, or approval from the FDA. In addition, the FDA has significant concerns that the performance of the Innova Medical Group SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test device has not been adequately established, presenting a risk of false results.
- False-negative results may lead to delayed diagnosis or inappropriate treatment of SARS-CoV-2, which may cause patient harm including serious illness and death. False-negative results can also lead to further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including when presumed negative patients are grouped into cohorts in healthcare, long-term care, and other facilities based on false test results.
- False-positive results could lead to a delay in both the correct diagnosis and the initiation of an appropriate treatment for the actual cause of patient illness, which could be another life-threatening disease that is not SARS-CoV-2. False-positive results could also lead to further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus when presumed positive patients are grouped into cohorts based on false test results.