More on COVID-19 ‘Virus’ and the PCR Test
5G
While a good case can be made for 5G as THE cause for the COVID-19 outbreak, it’s more likely that 5G is one of several factors. A question that needs to be answered with the 5G theory is that there is almost ZERO children being affected by the COVID-19 when they would be vulnerable to the effects of 5G as proven in many studies. However, a study linking 5G to the coronavirus definitely connects the two.
This video explains why exosomes expelled from a damaged human cell from 5G damage might be the reason most people will eventually test positive for COVID-19 and be mandated for the vaccine (discussed later in this article).The Virus
Dr. Thomas Cowan, in his popular video, described Jon Rappaport’s proposal for a true procedure that would determine whether a new virus actually exists. Rappaport expounds below:
All right, let’s jump in— The claim of having discovered a new virus (COVID-19) is wrong (unproven). And the claim that the main diagnostic test (the PCR) can determine whether a person is sick or is going to get sick is also wrong (unproven). What seems to be true in the lab is not sufficient in the real world. The first experiment would confirm or deny the accuracy of the PCR diagnostic test. The experiment would reveal whether this widespread test for COVID-19 can actually predict illness in the real world, in humans, not in the lab.
This experiment has never been done. It should have been done before the PCR was ever permitted to make claims about THE QUANTIY OF VIRUS that is replicating in a patient’s body. Quantity is vital, because, in order to even begin talking about whether a virus can cause disease, millions and millions of virus must be actively replicating in a patient’s body.
The President of Tanzania, John Magufuli, a chemist, did not trust the World Health Organization or their coronavirus testing. So President Magufuli submitted several samples to the WHO for testing.
President Magufuli:
We took samples from goats. We sent samples from sheeps. We took samples from pawpaws. We sent samples from car oil. And we took samples from other different things. And we took the samples to the laboratory without them knowing. And we even named all the samples. Like the sample of car oil. We named it Jabil Hamza, 30 years old, male. The results came back negative. When we took a sample from a Jackfruit (Durian) we named it Sarah Samuel, 45 years old, female. The results came back inconclusive. When we took samples from a Pawpaw we named it Elizabeth Ane, 26 years old, female. The result from the Pawpaw came back positive that it has corona. That means the liquid from a pawpaw is positive. We took samples from (a bird) called Kware. The results came back positive. We took samples from a rabbit. The results came back undeterminent. We took samples from a goat and the results came back positive. We took samples from a sheep and it came back negative and so on and so on. And so now you see this you have taken samples and the results come back positive and they have the corona. That means all the pawpaws should be in isolation also… The goat should be in isolation also.
He realized early on that this was all a fraud, and proved that the testing was completely phony, and then suspiciously ‘died’ only to be replaced by an insider for Klaus Schwab’s heinous World Economic Forum, the home of the “Great Reset.” Two other Presidents of African nations and two more presidents of Island nations (Burundi, Swaziland/Eswatini, Ivory Coast and Haiti) also opposed Covid vaccination and all died and were replaced by pro-vaxxers. Coincidence?
Austrian FPO lawmaker Michael Schnedlitz administered a COVID19 PCR test to a glass of Coca-Cola during a session of parliament in December 2020 and it tested positive. He said he was performing the test live before parliament: “so you can see how worthless and misguided these mass tests are.”
In the “COVID-19 crisis,” all case numbers derived from the PCR should be thrown out. The second vital experiment concerns the discovery of a new virus—in this case, COVID-19. First of all, there is no lab procedure that can climb inside the human body in real time and record the active replication of millions of virus. The closest you can come involves the use of electron microscopy.
Suspecting the existence of a new disease-causing virus, researchers should line up, at the very least, several hundred people who seem to have the new disease. Tissue samples should be taken from them. Using correct steps of isolating-purifying-centrifuging these samples, specimens of the results should be examined and photographed under the electron microscope.
In every one of the several hundred photos, do the researchers see many identical particles of a virus they’ve never seen before; and do the researchers see that these many particles are the same from photo to photo? If so, and if more than one group of researchers independently carrying out this procedure on the patients’ tissue samples achieves the same result…then, this is as close as you can come to saying you’ve discovered a new disease-causing virus. Other researchers with other large groups of patients should attempt to replicate the above findings. This vital experiment has never been done in the case of COVID-19. Not even close. Therefore, researchers can’t make a true claim to have discovered a new disease-causing virus.
In the absence of the two vital experiments described in this article, all you’re left with, concerning a single “COVID-19” pandemic and a single new cause, are: anecdote, rumor, gossip, conjecture, speculation, bad science, and lies. Plus the horrendous damage from all the consequences of lockdowns based on those lies. It’s essential to realize where the burden of proof rests. The scientists who claim to have discovered a new epidemic virus, and the scientists who claim their PCR can determine whether a person is sick or is going to get sick—THEY are making the assertions. THEY have to supply the proof.
“Oh, but it could be a virus, and the virus could be killing lots of people…” People saying this are caught in the trap, the COULD-BE trap. Yes, it could be a purple cow giving birth to a calf on Mars, who is then flown to China, where it infects seven bats in a dark alley in Wuhan, after which several people eat the bats… If COULD-BE were science, the planet would remain locked down until there were no humans left.
From “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel” [1]:
“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”
Translation: A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID virus might not be in the patient’s body at all, either.
From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans” [2]:
“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”
Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.
The WHO document adds this little piece:
“Protocol use limitations: Optional clinical specimens for testing has [have] not yet been validated.”
Translation: We’re not sure which tissue samples to take from the patient, in order for the test to have any validity.
From the FDA:
“LabCorp COVID-19RT-PCR test EUA Summary: ACCELERATED EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) SUMMARYCOVID-19 RT-PCR TEST (LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA)” [3]:
“…The SARS-CoV-2RNA [COVID virus] is generally detectable in respiratory specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status…THE AGENT DETECTED MAY NOT BE THE DEFINITE CAUSE OF DISEASE (CAPS are mine). Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.”
Translation: On the one hand, we claim the test can “generally” detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient. But we admit that “the agent detected” on the test, by which we mean COVID, “may not be the definite cause of disease.” We also admit that, unless the patient has an acute infection, we can’t find COVID. Therefore, the idea of “asymptomatic patients” confirmed by the test is nonsense. And even though a positive test for COVID may not indicate the actual cause of disease, all positive tests must be reported—and they will be counted as “COVID cases.” Regardless.
From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit” [4]:
“Regulatory status: For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures.”
Translation: Don’t use the test result alone to diagnose infection or disease. Oops.“non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”
Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.“Application Qualitative”
Translation: This clearly means the test is not suited to detect how much virus is in the patient’s body. I’ll cover how important this admission is in a minute.“The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in combination with their symptoms/signs, history, other laboratory tests and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis, and are only for the reference of clinicians.”
Translation: Don’t use the test as the exclusive basis for diagnosing a person with COVID. And yet, this is exactly what health authorities are doing all over the world. All positive tests must be reported to government agencies, and they are counted as COVID cases.”
Those quotes, from official government and testing sources, torpedo the whole “scientific” basis of the test.
Another, lethal blow: the test has never been validated properly as an instrument to detect disease. Even assuming it can detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient, it doesn’t show HOW MUCH virus is in the body. And that is key, because in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world, not in a lab, the patient would need to have millions and millions of the virus actively replicating in his body.
Proponents of the test assert that it CAN measure how much virus is in the body. To which I reply: prove it. Prove it in a way it should have been proven decades ago—but never was. Take five hundred people and remove tissue samples from them. The people who take the samples do NOT do 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.
This OBVIOUS vetting of the test has never been done. That is an enormous scandal. Where are the controlled test results in 500 patients, a thousand patients? Nowhere. The test is an unproven fraud. 5
Chicago Tribune, April 3:
“A new, different type of coronavirus test is coming that will help significantly in the fight to quell the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors and scientists say… The first so-called serology test, which detects antibodies to the virus rather than the virus itself, was given emergency approval Thursday by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. …The serology test involves taking a blood sample and determining if it contains the antibodies that fight the virus. A positive result indicates the person had the virus in the past and is currently immune.”“Dr. Elizabeth McNally, director of the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Center for Genetic Medicine…’You’ll see many of these roll out in the next couple of weeks, and it’s great, and it will really help a lot,’ said McNally, noting doctors and scientists will be able to use it to determine just how widespread the disease is, who can safely return to work and possibly how to develop new treatments for those who are ill.”
Got that? A positive test means the patient is now immune to the virus and can walk outside and go back to work.
NBC News, April 4, has a somewhat different take:
David Kroll, a professor of pharmacology at the University of Colorado who has worked on antibody testing, explained that the antibodies [a positive test] mean ‘your immune system [has] remembered the virus to the point that it makes these antibodies that could inactivate any future viral infections’.”
“What the test can’t do is tell you whether you’re currently sick with coronavirus, whether you’re contagious, whether you’re fully immune – and whether you’re safe to go back out in public.”
“Because the test can’t be used as a diagnostic test, it would need to be combined with other information to determine if a person is sick with COVID-19.”
Oops. No, this really isn’t a diagnostic test, it doesn’t tell whether the patient is immune and can go back to work. Excuse me, what??
Business Insider, April 3:
“The world’s leading industrial nations have so far failed to identify any coronavirus antibody tests that will be accurate enough for home use, according to the UK’s Health Secretary Matt Hancock.”
“The UK and other nations are currently examining plans to use antibody tests to allow individuals with immunity to COVID-19 to exit their national lockdowns early through the use of a so-called ‘immunity passport’.”
“Spain was recently forced to return tens of thousands of rapid coronavirus tests from a Chinese company after they were found to be accurate just 30% of the time.”
“Some tests have demonstrated false positives, detecting antibodies to much more common coronaviruses.”
“Scientists also remain unsure about the extent to which a past infection could prevent reinfection and how long an immunity would remain.”
Hmm. So the new antibody test has very serious problems, and it hasn’t been cleared for public use.
Medicine Net (undated):
“Researchers at the Mount Sinai Health System say they’ve developed a test that can find out if you already have had or were infected with the new coronavirus.”
“The test is called “serological enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay,” or ELISA for short. It checks whether or not you have antibodies in your blood to SARS-CoV-2, the scientific name of the new coronavirus that causes COVID-19.”
“Researchers say ELISA works like antibody tests for other viruses, such as hepatitis B. It will show whether your immune system — the body’s defense against germs — made contact with SARS-CoV-2, even months before.”
“The test could help scientists fight the pandemic in several ways. It can give researchers a more accurate measure of how many people had the new coronavirus. It would also let health care workers who were ill with COVID-19 symptoms, but were never tested for the disease, return to work — confident that they are now immune.”
So wait, it’s a great test. Right? A positive test result indicates immunity, and people can return to work. What??
Science News, March 27:
“The United Kingdom has ordered 3.5 million antibody tests, which would show whether someone has been exposed to COVID-19. Such tests, which just take a drop of blood, could help reveal people who have been exposed to the virus and are now likely immune, meaning they could go back to work and resume their normal lives.”
“Science News spoke with David Weiner, director of the Vaccine and Immunotherapy Center at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, and Charles Cairns, dean of the Drexel University College of Medicine, about how antibody tests work and what are some of the challenges of developing the tests.”
“Cairns: ‘The big question is: Does a positive response for the antibodies mean that person is actively infected, or that they have been infected in the past? The tests need to be accurate, and avoid both false positives and false negatives. That’s the challenge’.”
Oops again. Cairns is saying the new test, if it reads positive, might mean the person is infected now. Or it might mean they were infected—and are now presumably immune. Figuring out which is the challenge. No kidding. It’s the difference between sick and healthy. So a positive test result means the patient is sick OR healthy.
As a reference, let’s look at how this same antibody test has been used in the past. For example, in the case of hepatitis A:
URMC Rochester (undated): This test looks for antibodies in your blood called IgM. The test can find out whether you are infected with the hepatitis A virus (HAV)…If your test is positive or reactive, it may mean: You have an active HAV infection…You have had an HAV infection within the last 6 months.”
In other words, a positive antibody test could mean you’re sick now, or were once sick but are presumably immune now. Wonderful.
Medscape comments on the meaning of a positive antibody test for the Zika virus:
“…immunoglobulin (Ig) M and neutralizing antibody testing can identify additional recent Zika virus infections…However, Zika virus antibody test results can be difficult to interpret because of cross-reactivity with other flaviviruses…”
Two things here: no word about a positive test result revealing IMMUNITY from Zika; and a warning that a positive test might not have anything to do with Zika at all—that’s what “cross-reactivity” means. Medlineplus, referring to a Zika “blood test,” which would include antibody testing, states, “A positive Zika test result probably means you have a Zika infection.” Not immunity.
And there you have it. The official word on the COVID antibody test from official sources. It’s yes, no, and maybe. Public health officials can SAY whatever they want to about antibody tests: a positive result means you’re immune, it means you have an infection, it means you’re walking on the moon eating a hot dog. You are now returned to the real world, where: the discovery of a new virus (COVID) is unproven; the notoriously useless PCR diagnostic test for the virus renders case numbers meaningless; and the proposition that COVID is a real disease with one cause is a con job.6
Foreknowledge of Outbreak
The CDC knew
The CDC appears to have had advanced knowledge of the coronavirus pandemic outbreak, as the agency which deliberately delayed testing kits in the USA for nearly a month was hiring quarantine program advisors in November of 2019, to cover many cities across the US. Patient Zero wasn’t identified (still unknown) until December. This job listing page at jobs.CDC.gov describes job announcement number HHS-CDC-D3-20-10640010, paying up to $93,077 per year, with an open application period from Nov. 15th, 2019 to May 15th, 2020. The cities and states described in the job listing are: Dallas, Texas, El Paso, Texas, Houston, Texas, Seattle, Washington, Anchorage, Alaska, Los Angeles, California, San Diego, California, San Francisco, California, Miami, Florida, Atlanta, Georgia, Honolulu, Hawaii, Chicago, Illinois, Boston, Massachusetts, Detroit, Michigan, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Newark, New Jersey, New York, New York, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, San Juan.
WHO knew. Bill & Melinda Gates knew. Many at the Johns Hopkins Center knew as did the globalist planners. By 2019 Bill Gates and his foundation were going full-tilt boogie with their pandemic scenarios. He starred as an ‘expert’, as did Peter Daszak’ whose organization sent tens of millions to fund the bat / coronavirus bioweaponization in Wuhan, in a Netflix video which made an eerie imaginary scenario. ‘The Next Pandemic‘, part of the “Explained” series, imagined a wet market in China where live and dead animals are stacked and a highly deadly virus erupts that spreads globally (sound familiar?). Gates appears as an expert in the video to warn, “If you think of anything that could come along that would kill millions of people, a vaccines. That was weeks before the world heard about bats and a live wet market in Wuhan China.
In October, 2019 the Gates Foundation teamed up with the World Economic Forum and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security to enact what they called a “fictional” scenario simulation involving some of the world’s leading figures in public health. It was titled Event 201.
As their website describes it, Event 201 simulated an “outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.”
In the Event 201 scenario the disease originates at a pig farm in Brazil, spreading through low-income regions and ultimately explodes into an epidemic. The disease is carried by air travel to Portugal, the USA and China and beyond to the point no country can control it. The scenario posits no possible vaccine being available in the first year. “Since the whole human population is susceptible, during the initial months of the pandemic, the cumulative number of cases increases exponentially, doubling every week.”
The scenario then ends after 18 months when the fictional coronavirus has caused 65 million deaths. “The pandemic is beginning to slow due to the decreasing number of susceptible people. The pandemic will continue at some rate until there is an effective vaccine or until 80-90 % of the global population has been exposed.”
As interesting as the prescient Gates-Johns Hopkins Event 201 fictional scenario of October, 2019 may be, the list of panelists who were invited to participate in the imaginary global response is equally interesting.
Many features of the “simulation exercise” do, in fact, correspond to what actually happened when the WHO Director General launched a global public health emergency on January 30, 2020. What must be understood is that the sponsors of the John Hopkins “simulation exercise” are powerful and knowledgeable actors respectively in the areas of “Global Health” (B. and M. Gates Foundation) and “Global Economy” (WEF). It is also worth noting that the WHO initially adopted a similar acronym (to designate the coronavirus) to that of the John Hopkins Pandemic Exercise (nCoV-2019) before it was changed to COVID-19.
Among the selected “players” as they were called, was George Fu Gao. Notably, Prof. Gao is director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention since 2017. His specialization includes research on “influenza virus interspecies transmission (host jump)… He is also interested in virus ecology, especially the relationship between influenza virus and migratory birds or live poultry markets and the bat-derived virus ecology and molecular biology.” Bat-derived virus ecology…
Prof. Gao was joined among others at the panel by the former Deputy Director of the CIA during the Obama term, Avril Haines. She also served as Obama’s Assistant to the President and Principal Deputy National Security Advisor. Another of the players at the Gates event was Rear Admiral Stephen C. Redd, Director of the Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The same CDC is at the center of a huge scandal for not having adequate functioning tests available for testing cases of COVID-19 in the USA. Their preparedness was anything but laudable.
Rounding out the group was Adrian Thomas, the Vice President of scandal-ridden Johnson & Johnson, the giant medical and pharmaceutical company. Thomas is responsible for pandemic preparedness at J&J including developing vaccines for Ebola, Dengue Fever, HIV. And there was Martin Knuchel, Head of Crisis, Emergency & Business Continuity Management, for Lufthansa Group Airlines. Lufthansa has been one of the major airlines dramatically cutting flights during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis.
Continued on next page…
