COVID-19 Pt. 4: The “Test” That Changed The World is Deeply Flawed
It’s hard to imagine that a single test could change the world so drastically, especially when the test itself is riddled with problems. Scientists are calling for the retraction of the original protocol used in the Covid-19 tests . The New York Times even raised red flags about it, and Dr. Anthony Fauci himself has said that if the cycle threshold is set too high, it will pick up dead nucleotides, which causes false positives. Once people understand that one of the biggest reasons why 90% of those who test positive have no symptoms, is because the tests themselves were not developed with accurate science, the world will be infuriated. These numbers are being used as the pulse of our society, and when deaths from other causes, who test positive for Covid, are being counted in the death toll and lockdowns are being based on this, it is criminal.
Part
one of this
5-part report explained the reality of Covid hospitalizations, the falsehoods,
and the hyperbole, when in fact there were far more hospitalizations from the
flu season of 2017-2018. Part
two exposed how
the CDC is hiding and manipulating the death toll, in large part, through
grouping deaths under “PIC” which represents pneumonia, influenza, and covid. Part
three not only broke down the true nursing home and long term
care facilities data points, but showed how they are documenting anyone who
tests positive at time of death as a Covid death, even if they died from
another cause such as a gunshot wound. Dr. Deborah Birx from the White House
Covid Task Force stated this herself.’
• The task force for emergency diagnostic
tests and EUA’s was formed 10 months prior to Covid hitting the states
• There has never been a sample
specimen of the alleged virus purified and isolated
• The inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis,
along with numerous other scientists have always said that PCR should not be
used for medical diagnostics
• 90% of Covid-positive people are
asymptomatic, indicating high-level false positive
• 54 studies with 77,758 participants finds household secondary
attack rate (chance an infected person will infect one or more people at home)
is 18% if the index case is symptomatic and 0.007% if asymptomatic, meaning it’s
not the “super spreader” they alleged it to be
• Scientists found 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level with consequences for false positive results and are calling for retraction of original protocol for the RT-PCR tests
• Doctors worldwide have spoken out
against the alleged pandemic, the RT-PCR tests, and warn of the dangers of
vaccines that have not met safety standards
• 36-40% of medical staff in two
different surveys say they will not get the vaccines
• Vaccines began rolling out last week and the CDC has already documented 3,150 adverse events and launched probe, and the FDA is investigating anaphylaxis shock and allergic reactions from the Pfizer vaccine
The Task Force for Tests Was Formed Back in February 2019
Is it a mere coincidence that the FDA, CDC, and CMS launched a task force to facilitate rapid availability of diagnostic tests during public health emergencies 10 months prior to Covid hitting the states, or at least that’s how the story goes. Never before has a task force such as this been formed that is specific to expediting the development and distribution of tests. In fact, the clinical laboratory community said that they were uncertain as to how to implement diagnostic tests once they received an EUA (emergency use authorization), and meeting CLIA regulations under an EUA to allow labs to start testing specimens.
“Time and time again, we’re reminded that disease knows no
borders. While our globalized world and modern transportation help promote
economic prosperity, these features also facilitate the spread of emerging
infectious diseases,” said Chesley Richards,
CDC’s Deputy Director for Public Health Science and Surveillance.
There Has Never Been A Sample Specimen of SARS-CoV-2
In April 2020, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the CCP “censored those who tried to warn the world, it ordered a halt to testing of new samples, and it destroyed existing samples. The CCP still has not shared the virus sample from inside of China with the outside world, making it impossible to track the disease’s evolution.”
In May, Pompeo said, “China still has not provided samples of the virus to other countries, instead having its scientists share the virus’s genome online in January.”
In July, Pompeo said, “They have destroyed samples; they’ve taken journalists and doctors who were prepared to talk about this and not permitted them to do what nations that want to play on a truly global scale and global stage ought to do: be transparent and open and communicate and cooperate.”
The bottom line is that no one has ever performed a SARS-coV-2 isolation. There is no proof that this alleged virus has ever been purified and isolated, in multiple countries. These tests were not built on a “gold standard.”
Many doctors,
medical professionals, and scientists question whether the virus even exists.
That’s to say, that the actual small numbers of those who have gotten sick, may
have a different virus that is no more threatening than the flu.
RT-PCR Test for Covid-19 and The Scientists Demanding Retraction
“Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in
the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am
ashamed of it.” – Kary Mullis, Inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and
awarded Nobel Prize for it in 1993
Investigative journalist Celia Farber has interviewed biochemist Kary Mullis in the past, and has extensively covered PCR, the method being used in Covid-19 tests. “PCR, simply put, is a thermal cycling method used to make up to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample, making it large enough to study.” This report is critical reading to understand how the PCR method is being used in Covid tests and why Mullins and other scientists have said PCR should not be used for medical diagnostics.
Rather than a
doctor listening to the lungs and physically assessing a patient, which is the
standard method for clinical medicine, they have created the illusion that this
is a highly contagious virus while directing people through drive-thru lines as
though you are picking up a burger from McDonald’s, only instead they swab you
at arms-length. The visuals they have impressed upon people’s minds is forever
stamped with permanent gaslighting. This in turn, has made it very easy to escalate
positive “cases” even though 90% of people aren’t even displaying symptoms. Had
any of those people visited a physician, they would have been told they were
fine and never been tested. Now, testing has become mandatory in nursing homes,
hospitals, concerts, some places of business, and airports, which will
ultimately continue the rise in positive cases due to false positives from a
flawed test.
This is an older clip of Mullis, in
his own words, about Dr. Fauci and the scientific world:
The Corman-Drosten PCR protocol for RT-PCR Covid-19 tests was published on January 23, 2020 and is used in an estimated 70% of all PCR test kits worldwide.
This was all based on theoretical sequences of the viral genome without a virus isolate, which till this day, doesn’t appear to exist. On November 27, 2020 an International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences published an external peer review titled ‘Review Report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020,’ documenting 10 major flaws and requesting a retraction.
10 Major Scientific Flaws at The Molecular
and Methodological Level: Consequences for False Positive Results
- Extremely
high concentration of primes making the test non-specific - Six
unspecified wobbly positions introduce an enormous variability in the real
world laboratory implementations - The
test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments - Incompatible
annealing temperatures - A
severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered
positive and negative - The
PRC products have not been validated at the molecular level - The
PCR test contains neither a unique positive control to evaluate its specificity
for SARS-CoV-2 nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other
coronaviruses - The
test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go
in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no standard
operating procedure - The
Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed making the test unsuitable as a
specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus - Many severe conflicts of interest
The Threshold: The CDC, WHO, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and The New York Times Want You To Understand How The Tests Work for Covid
In an August 2020 report by the New York Times titled “Your Coronavirus Test is Positive. Maybe it Shouldn’t Be,” they described how the cycle threshold used in tests that determine if a patient is infected, needs to be adjusted, stating “most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus. Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk – akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left.”
In three
sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in
Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive
carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.
This was confirmed by White House Covid Task Force Dr. Anthony Fauci just one month prior, in an interview (4-min marker). When asked “Can we use a cutoff of viral loads determined by PCR to say this patient is no longer infectious, can go home, go to a nursing facility, because physicians are really having a hard time with that?”
Dr. Anthony Fauci’s
response:
“What is now evolving into a bit of a standard that if you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more that the chances of it being replication competent are miniscule. You almost never can culture a virus from a 37 threshold cycle, so if somebody comes in with 37, 38, even 36, you gotta say its dead nucleotides, period.”
In a landmark legal ruling in Portugal in November 2020, a judge found 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,” and added, “the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used and the viral load present.”
The Portuguese judges cited a study conducted by “some of the leading European and
world specialists,” which was published by Oxford Academic at
the end of September. It showed that if someone tested positive for
Covid at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher, the chances of that person actually
being infected is less than three percent, and that “the probability of… receiving a false
positive is 97% or higher.”
In a December 7, 2020
press release by the World Health Organization (WHO), they admitted to issues
with the tests after having received user feedback on elevated risk for false SARS-CoV-2
results.
In this notice, the WHO statedthat “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. 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.
IMPORTANT NOTE: If it wasn’t clear in all of the
above references, different laboratories, states, and countries may have
different sensitivity cutoffs. In other words, if they chose to set the cycle
cutoff at 33, the rate of Covid-positive would be significantly smaller, and if
they adjusted it down even further, it wouldn’t even exist. All of this begins
with the swab. Just imagine peeing on a stick to determine if you are pregnant,
only they had the ability to make adjustments to where it could show up
positive even if you weren’t pregnant. How devastating.
In addition to all of the above, the CDC has already stated that the antibody tests can pick up other strains of coronavirus, meaning someone could have the common cold, and it is being recorded as COVID-19. The antibody tests have created a major conflict in actual test results overall.
After this information went viral in the public eye, the CDC
completely reworded their original findings, and changed it to say “Note: Other
coronaviruses cannot produce a positive result on a viral test,” while forgetting to alter the sentence
preceding it that clearly states “there is a chance that a positive result
means you have antibodies from an infection with a different virus from the same
family of viruses (called coronavirus). Oops.
Thanks to the WaybackMachine, the original CDC statement shown in the first image is archived here.
Many people have come forward upset that their family members’ deaths were being reported incorrectly on their death certificates. Here is just one example of an individual who died of other causes, tested negative for Covid-19 three times, and yet it was put on their death certificate.
This is not surprising, as hospitals are making a lot of money on this. Becker’s Hospital Review broke down the finances by state back in April.
The High Threshold Creates False Positives
After
understanding the section above on the threshold of the tests and how they are
creating false positive, which likely explains why 90% of all positive cases
are asymptomatic, below are a handful of examples of false/positives that have
been reported on.
Dr. Mike Yeadon, a Former Vice President and Chief Science Officer of the Allergy and Respiratory Research Unit for Pfizer for 16 years, in addition to consulting with more than 20 biotechnology companies, has said that half or “almost all” of tests for Covid-19 are false positive. Legacy news media immediately jumped on disqualifying Yeadon by pointing to numbers of cases and deaths on Johns Hopkins site, which is hardly a disqualifier. Pfizer declined to comment altogether.
CRITICAL LISTENING
Doctors and Medical Professionals from all over the world have spoken out about Covid-19, the tests, and the vaccines. These professionals put a lot on the line to speak out, providing important information from the USA, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, and the UK. LISTEN. They strongly worn against the dangers of the vaccines that are an experimental product, putting genetic material into humans, which are not proven safe or effective, and could in fact be dangerous.
Governor Ron DeSantis spoke with Dr. Bhattacharya from Stanford Medical School, in a round table discussion about the implications of PCR tests identifying non-infectious, dead virus, and posed the question… “Are we quarantining hundreds of thousands of Americans who are not contagious?”
In Austria, Michael Schneditlz, a member of the Austrian Freedom Party, showed how coca-cola tested positive for Covid during an Austrian National Assembly.
The “Asymptomatic Super Spreader” Farce with 90% Asymptomatic Rate
It should now be clear as to why 90% of people do not
exhibit any symptoms because the threshold is too high on an already flawed
test, and these people likely do not have the virus.
Back in April, the Washington Post reported that in upper Manhattan and the Bronx 88% of pregnant patients who tested positive, had no symptoms.
As mentioned previously, the New York Times reported that nearly 90% of confirmed Covid-19 cases in the U.S. could be clinically insignificant and non-contagious.
A study from the University College London (UCL) also concluded that nearly 90% of people who test positive have no symptoms.
The big
concern, and propaganda that was pushed all year, is that asymptomatic people
could be “super spreaders.” The fact is, the data points to quite the opposite,
while the media continues to gaslight. Did they miss the memo on 54 studies, or
nah?
New JAMA meta-analysis of 54 studies with 77,758 participants finds household secondary attack rate (chance an infected person will infect one or more people at home) is 18% if the index case is symptomatic and 0.007% if asymptomatic. That’s less than 1%, but the media refers to them as “super spreaders.”
Despite this, legacy news media such
as MSNBC for example, continue to gaslight people with “asymptomatic people are
super spreaders” while their guest, Dr. Vin Gupta warns people that “just
because you get vaccinated with that second dose doesn’t mean you should be
traveling during a pandemic or that you are liberated from wearing a mask until
all of us get vaccinated.” He then states that the vaccine may not prevent you
from being contagious. So if the vaccine may not keep you from getting infected
and you may be contagious either way, then why get the vaccine, especially when
the overall survival rate is 99.98%?
The Vaccine Has Officially Been Rolled Out and The Side Effects Are Alarming
Pfizer and
Moderna have both been approved by the FDA through the Emergency Use
Authorization (EUA) and not the standard approval process, which are now
rapidly rolling out. There have already been reported adverse reactions, and
many people are extremely concerned about getting vaccinated, despite the
showboat entertainment of high profile people allegedly getting vaccinated on
television. The fact that they need to do that to assure people these vaccines
are safe, is very telling.
The American Nurses Foundation survey on 13,000 nurses showed that when nurses were asked if they would voluntarily be vaccinated, 34% said yes, 36% said no, and 31% said they were unsure.
A survey at Loretto Hospital in Chicago, where the city’s first Covid-19 vaccine was administered, 40% of the staff said they do not plan to get the vaccine. Many are concerned about how quickly it was developed and the potential side effects.
Meanwhile, in Libertyville, not far from Chicago, they temporarily suspended vaccinations after four team members experienced adverse events.
In Alaska, five healthcare workers suffered anaphylaxis shock after getting the vaccine, despite not being aware of any existing allergies. This came after a report of a medic receiving the vaccine in New York suffering from the same thing and was moved into intensive care.
The CDC has already reported that 3,150 vaccine recipients have reported adverse reactions after being vaccinated. They were “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or health care professional.” They have already administered 272,001 vaccines as of December 19. The CDC has launched a probe into this and announced that people who have experienced allergic reactions to any ingredients in the Covid-19 vaccines should not get the vaccine, and those who did experience a reaction to the first shot, should not get the second shot. Read full announcement here.
The FDA is now investigating allergic reactions to the Pfizer vaccine.
In Australia, they had to scrap their $750 million vaccine project because it was causing those receiving it to wrongly test positive with HIV. They are now increasing their orders from Pfizer, Novavax, and AstraZeneca.
It’s also important to note that
pregnant women, children, those that are low-risk, and those with allergies
should be cautious and due your due diligence in research first.
Potential Side Effects from CDC Site:
Not to be taken lightly, it should be noted that Pfizer has been fined over $4.7 billion since 2000 for false claims acts, off-label or unapproved promotion, Foreign corrupt practices, with over $103 million for “drug or medical equipment safety violations” and over $34 million for “kickbacks & bribery.”
Author’s note: Generally, this is where I would
insert a sentence telling people that they should review all of the facts and
decide what is best for themselves and their families, but quite honestly, I
feel more compelled to warn people of the dangers. I’ve been studying the data
all year, and when the same folks that are flat out lying about death counts
are also pushing the vaccine, I cannot remain unbiased in my reporting.
In Conclusion
There is a
lot of gaslighting, misinformation, intentional disinformation, and data to
sift through in order to clearly see the big picture and make proper decisions
based on facts. Unfortunately, when information reported goes against the
narrative being pushed by big pharma, big media, and big stakeholders,
journalists and medical professionals tend to get disqualified in meek attempts
by simply pointing to “other sources” that “say otherwise,” without providing
solid evidence. It’s nothing more than word salad. When the data is pulled
directly from the sources and the facts are laid out, it is undeniable. It’s up
to everyone to decide whether they choose to see the facts or the illusion.
Those that choose to see the illusion will inevitably cast away their freedoms,
which will have a direct impact on the rest of the country. The question is, will
they be able to live with themselves when reality sets in and it’s too late to
turn back?
Part 5, and the conclusion to this 5-part report, coming soon!
The post COVID-19 Pt. 4: The “Test” That Changed The World is Deeply Flawed appeared first on coreysdigs.com.
