And now, another lethal blow: the test has never been validated properly as an instrument to detect disease. Even if we blindly assumed 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 proved 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. “All right, in patients 24, 46, 65, 76, 87, and 93 we found a great deal of virus.” Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. Are they sick? Are they running marathons? Let’s find out.
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 PCR is an unproven fraud. “But…but…what about all the sick and dying people…why are they sick?”
I’ve written thousands of words answering that question, in past articles. A NUMBER of conditions—none involving COVID, and most involving old traditional diseases—are making people sick.
There are other large-scale studies of the PCR test that have never been done. I’ve covered them in detail, in prior articles. To summarize: a study using a thousand patients, in which their tissue samples are sent to 30 different labs for analysis and verdicts, to see whether the results are uniform from lab to lab; and a study of 1000 patients, in which the results are compared with the results of analysis by electron microcopy. These large studies—never done.
In other words, the PCR test has never been adequately tested; it has never been properly validated as a diagnostic tool.
Here, from Canadian researcher David Crowe’s bombshell paper, FLAWS IN CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC THEORY, is a key quote about the PCR test [5]:
“A review of 33 RT-PCR tests for COVID-19 approved under US FDA Emergency Use Authorizations showed a wide range of differences in what the tests were looking for and how they decided whether they had found it. The tests look for a variety of different segments (‘genes’) of the presumed COVID-19 genome, that only amounts to about 1% or less of the total genome, which is about 30,000 bases. Perhaps the worst feature of the tests is how they decide whether the sample is positive if more than one [‘gene’] segment is being looked for. Some tests look for only one, so it must be present for a positive. But tests that look for two segments are split between those that require both to be present and those that require either one for a positive. Some tests look for three segments but only require any two to be present, while one test insisted on all three. Tests that allow a segment to be undetected raise the question of how it can be said that a virus was detected when an important part of it was missing.”
If the PCR is a uniform standardized test, a rabbit is a spaceship.
Speaking of lack of uniformity in test results, here is a quote from Stephen Bustin, who is considered one of the foremost experts on PCR in the world. The excerpt is from his 2017 article, “Talking the talk, but not walking the walk: RT-qPCR as a paradigm for the lack of reproducibility in molecular research” [6]:
“Awareness of variability problems associated with PCR has been long-standing, with the first report describing inconsistencies with replicate and serial specimens evaluated within and between laboratories as early as 1992. The lack of a theoretical understanding of the dynamic processes involved in PCR, especially with respect to the amplification of nonreproducible and/or unexpected amplification products, was also highlighted decades ago. These observations and the resulting implications are largely disregarded.”
Here is the story of an epic failure of the PCR, right out in the open, for all to see. The reference is the NY Times, January 22, 2007, “Faith in Quick Tests Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.” [7]
“Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing…By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing…”
“For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.”
“Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.”
“Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test [PCR] that led them astray.”
“There are no national data on pseudo-epidemics caused by an overreliance on such molecular tests, said Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all the time. The Dartmouth case may have been one of the largest, but it was by no means an exception, she said.”
“Many of the new molecular [PCR] tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called ‘home brews,’ are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates. But their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic.”
“’You’re in a little bit of no man’s land,’ with the new molecular [PCR] tests, said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ‘All bets are off on exact performance’.”
“With pertussis, she [Dr. Kretsinger, CDC] said, ‘there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,’ and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. ‘We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,’ Dr. Kretsinger added.”
“Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.”
“’The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,’ Dr. Petti said. ‘No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R’.”
No one proved the existence of the COVID virus, by proper scientific procedures, in the first place. So the PCR test would be looking for…what? A virus that isn’t there? And on the back of this test, governments are wrecking economies all over the world, and untold numbers of human lives.
Townhall.com, August 29:
“According to The New York Times, potentially 90 percent of those who have tested positive for COVID-19 have such insignificant amounts of the virus present in their bodies that such individuals do not need to isolate nor are they candidates for contact tracing. Leading public health experts are now concerned that overtesting is responsible for misdiagnosing a huge number of people with harmless amounts of the virus in their systems.”
“’Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…’ warns The Times.”
Yes, that’s what the NY Times is confessing (8/29):
“Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus. Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…”
“In three sets of testing data…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.”
Let me break this down for you, because it’s a lot worse than the Times admits. The rabbit hole goes much deeper—and I’ve been reporting on the deeper facts for months. The issue appears to be the ballooning sensitivity of the PCR test. It’s so sensitive that it picks up inconsequential tiny, tiny amounts of virus that couldn’t harm a flea—and it calls these amounts “positive.” Therefore, millions of people are labeled “positive/infected” who carry so little virus that no harm would come to them or anyone they come in contact with.
That would be bad enough. But the truth is, the PCR test is not able to produce ANY reliable number that reflects how much virus a person is carrying. A lot, a little, it doesn’t matter. The test has never been validated, in a large-scale study, for the ability to quantify the amount of virus a person is carrying. The PCR isn’t even testing for a particular virus in the first place. It’s using a piece of RNA assumed to be part of a virus. The assumption is unproven.
There is no evidence that researchers used proper procedure to discover “a new coronavirus that is causing a pandemic.” Therefore, the PCR test, as worthless as it already is, aims to show the presence of a germ that has never been shown to exist.1
Celia Farber conducted a two-hour interview with David Crowe– Canadian researcher, with a degree in biology and mathematics, host of The Infectious Myth podcast, and President of the think-tank Rethinking AIDS. He broke down the problems with the PCR based Corona test in great detail, revealing a world of unimaginable complexity, as well as trickery.
“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary,” he said. “In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative.”
The next part of his explanation is lengthy and detailed, but let’s push through:
“What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.”
“Wow,” I said. “That’s so important. I think people envision it as one of two things: Positive or negative, like a pregnancy test. You “have it” or you don’t.”
“PCR is really a manufacturing technique,” Crowe explained. “You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it. You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength. So, they measure the amount of light that comes back and that’s their surrogate for how much DNA there is. I’m using the word DNA. There’s a step in RT- PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So, the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It’s using DNA, but it’s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it’s the same thing, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there’s a certain number of cycles.”
This is where it gets wild. “In one paper,” Crowe says, “I found 37 cycles. If you didn’t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered “indeterminate.” And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I’ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it’s quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test. So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.”
I asked him to pause so I could exclaim my astonishment. And yet, it was Déjà vu all over again. Just like in the HIV battle—people were never told that the “HIV test” had different standards in different countries, and within countries, from lab to lab. The highest bar (the greatest number of HIV proteins) was in Australia: five. The Lowest was Africa: 2. In the US it is generally 3-4.
We used to joke that you could rid yourself of an “HIV diagnosis” by flying from either the US or Australia, to Africa. But for many years, “AIDS” in Africa was diagnosed without any tests whatsoever. Just a short list of symptoms that tracked precisely with symptoms of most tropical diseases, such as fever, cough, and shortness of breath.
David, in his quiet Canadian way, dropped a bombshell in his next statement:
“I think if a country said, “You know, we need to end this epidemic,” They could quietly send around a memo saying: “We shouldn’t be having the cutoff at 37. If we put it at 32, the number of positive tests drops dramatically. If it’s still not enough, well, you know, 30 or 28 or something like that. So, you can control the sensitivity.”
NOTE: The CDC is currently recommending 40 cycles.
Yes, you read that right. Labs can manipulate how many “cases’ of Covid-19 their country has. Is this how the Chinese made their case load vanish all of a sudden?
“Another reason we know this is bogus,” Crowe continued, “is from a remarkable series of graphs published by some people from Singapore in JAMA. These graphs were published in the supplementary information, which is an indication that nobody’s supposed to read them. And I think the authors probably just threw them in because they were interesting graphs, but they didn’t realize what was in them. So, they were 18 graphs of 18 different people. And at this hospital in Singapore, they did daily coronavirus tests and they grasped the number of PCR cycles necessary to detect fluorescence. Or if they couldn’t detect florescence by…37 cycles, they put a dot on the bottom of the graph, signifying a negative.”
“So, in this group of 18 people, the majority of people went from positive, which is normally read as “infected,” to negative, which is normally read as “uninfected” back to positive—infected again. So how do you interpret this? How do you have a test if a test act is actually, you know, 100% positive for detecting infection, then the negative results must’ve been wrong? And so, one way to solve that is to move the point from 37 to say 36 or 38. You can move this, this cycle of numbers. It’s an arbitrary division up or down. But there’s no guarantee that if you did that, you wouldn’t still have the same thing. It would just, instead of going from, from 36 to undetectable and back to 36 or back to 45, it might go from 33 to undetectable to 30 or something like that. Right? So, you can’t solve the problem by changing this arbitrary binary division. And so basically this says that the test is not detecting infection. Because if it was, like if you’re infected, and then you’re uninfected, and you’re in a hospital with the best anti-infective precautions in the world, how did you get re-infected? And if you cured the infection, why didn’t you have antibodies to stop you getting re-infected? So, there’s no explanation within the mainstream that can explain these results. That’s why I think they’re so important.”
I couldn’t believe my ears. And yet I could. Have you ever tried to read the package insert for a “Corona” PCR test? You begin to feel after a while that the technobabble is some kind of spell, or bad dream. An alien language from another dimension, that could not possibly—whatever else it may do—help a single human being have a better life. It’s not “English.” I don’t know what it is.
“I’ve been quoting, Alice in Wonderland a lot recently,” David says, “because it’s the only way I can wrap my head around it. Alice said: “Sometimes I can believe six impossible things before breakfast!”
One of the ways to distinguish truth from deception in contemporary “science” is to track what gets removed. For example, David tells me, there was apparently an English abstract online at PubMed out of China that rendered the entire COVID testing industrial complex baseless and absurd.
“There was a famous Chinese paper that estimated that if you’re testing asymptomatic people, up to 80% of positives could be false positive. That was kind of shocking, so shocking that PubMed had to withdraw the abstract even though the Chinese paper appears to still be published and available. I actually have a translation with a friend. I translated it into English and it’s a really, standard calculation of what they call positive predictive value. The abstract basically said that in asymptomatic populations, the chance of a positive coronavirus test being a true positive is only about 20%. 80% will be false positive.”
“Doesn’t that mean the test means nothing?” I asked.
“The Chinese analysis was a mathematical analysis, a standard, the standard analysis that’s been done a million times before. There’s no reason to withdraw the paper for any reason. There’s nothing dramatic about the paper. It’s a really boring analysis. It’s just that they did the standard analysis and said, in some populations, like they estimated 1% of people are actually infected in the population. You could have 80% false positive. Uh, they couldn’t do a real analysis of false positives in terms of determining whether a test is correct or not because that requires a gold standard and the only gold standard is purification of the virus. So, we get back to the fact that the virus is not being purified. If you could purify the virus, then you could take a hundred people who tested positive and you could search for the virus in them. And if you found the virus in 50 out of a hundred and not in the other 50, you could say that the test is only accurate 50% of the time. But we have no way to do that because we haven’t yet purified the virus. And I don’t think we ever will.”
Dave Rasnick has had exchanges with David Crowe about this, and concurs, “To my knowledge, they have not yet purified this virus.”
In a previous interview I did with him he said this, about PCR tests and the fallacies of thinking less is more, or smaller is better, or more “sensitive” means more accurate:
“It’s like fingerprints. With PCR you’re only looking at a small number of nucleotide. You’re looking at a tiny segment of gene, like a fingerprint. When you have regular human fingerprints, they have to have points of confirmation. There are parts that are common to almost all fingerprints, and it’s those generic parts in a Corona virus that the PCR test picks up. They can have partial loops but if you only took a few little samples of fingerprints you are going to come up with a lot of segments of RNA that we are not sure have anything to do with corona virus. They will still show up in PCR. You can get down to the levels where its biologically irrelevant and then amplify it a trillion-fold.”
“The primers are what you know. We already know the strings of RNA for the Corona family, the regions that are stable. That’s at one end. Then you look at the other end of the region, for all Corona viruses. The Chinese decided that there was a region in those stable areas that was unique to their Corona virus. You do PCR to see if that is true. If it is truly unique it would work. But they’re using the SARS test because they don’t really have one for the new virus.”
“SARS isn’t the virus that stopped the world,” I offer.
“That’s right.”
“PCR for diagnosis is a big problem,” he continues. “When you have to amplify it these huge numbers of time, it’s going to generate massive amounts of false positives. Again, I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true.”
Crowe described a case in the literature of a woman who had been in contact with a suspect case of Corona (in Wuhan) they believed was the index case. “She was important to the supposed chain of infection because of this. They tested her 18 times, different parts of the body, like nose, throat—different PCR tests. 18 different tests. And she tested negative every time. And then they—because of her epidemiological connection with the other cases, they said: “We consider her infected. So, they had 18 negative tests and they said she was infected.”
“Now why was she important? Well there was only one other person who could have theoretically transmitted the virus if the original patient, outside the family was who they thought it was. But secondly, she had the same exact symptoms as everybody else. Right? So, four people in his family came down with fever and cough and headaches, fatigue and all these kinds of big symptoms. So, if she could get those symptoms without the virus, then you, you’ve got to say, well, why couldn’t everybody else’s symptoms be explained by whatever she had? I mean, maybe they, they ate some bad seafood or something and so they all got sick, but it had nothing to do with the coronavirus. But because three out of the four, tested positive, then they were, they were all considered infected and out of the same paper.
Another interesting thing is that they did a lot of tests. The first person in the list of people tested, he was positive on three out of 11 tests. So again, they took nose and throat samples and you know, different methods and all this kind of stuff. And they got 11 separate tests and only three were positive. And of course, all you need to be considered infected is one positive test. They could test you 20 times and if you test positive once, then you’re infected. So, a positive test is meaningful. A negative test. It’s like, eh. Not so much.”
I asked Crowe what he thought Kary Mullis would say about this explosion of PCR insanity.
“I’m sad that he isn’t here to defend his manufacturing technique,” he said. “Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that.”
Our conversation went in many different directions and I plan to publish the entire audio interview. I asked David what he thought was happening here, at the most core level.
“I don’t think they understand what they’re doing,” he said. “I think it’s out of control. They don’t know how to end this. This is what I think what happened: They have built a pandemic machine over many years and, and as you know, there was a pandemic exercise not long before this whole thing started.”
“I just want to identify who sponsored that simulation conference, 6 weeks before the first news broke out of Wuhan,” I interjected. “It was the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, Johns Hopkins Center For Health Security, and the World Economic Forum. Incidentally, all the stats, projections and modeling you see in the media are coming out of Johns Hopkins.”
“So, we’ve essentially been taken over by the medical Taliban, if you like.” Speaking of the PCR test, he said, “It’s as good as that Scientology test that detects your personality and then tells you need to give all your money to Scientology.“
The globalists write code. They encode “viruses” and give them a weaponized, video-game identity. In this video game, you lose all your freedoms, and must display gratitude and servitude. Viral code trumps all other forms of politics. Nothing can counter it. Especially not “science.” The virus is also a sweeping metaphor for the spread of “misinformation,” which means anything outside their religious doctrines, not recognizable by classical virology.
The code, the potential scenarios, the mysticism and superstition about how the virus spreads, must not be questioned, If you wish to remain a person, as opposed to an un-person. It’s a form of post-globalist environmental socialism gone malignant: Demand that all people submit to an equal chance to be killed by a virus. Act out the theatrics of worshiping the virus with fear as the measure of inverted faith. This is why celebrities love this kind of thing. It gives them a chance to debase themselves, to self-flagellate as fellow sufferers. As I write this, from my window in New York City, at 7 pm every evening, people are heard hollering, clapping, and blowing horns from their windows, to show solidarity to the health care workers on the front lines. Was any such thing ever devised for the mass deaths from opioids? No, they weren’t significant deaths for the global elites. It’s not “death,” this play is about. It’s socialist contagion theology. You can’t go to the grocery store without encountering new displays of Corona Heroica. Only viruses interest these people, these haters of liberty. Yet they refuse to learn the first thing about the natural life of viruses and humans. If they did peer into this world, they would find beauty, truth, and wonder. They would find that viruses are rarely deadly, always misunderstood, and actually trying to protect us. The reason the globalists are obsessed with “spread” and “viruses” is because they want to shut down all forms of communication and information exchange that threatens their New World Order.
“Every time somebody takes a swab, a tissue sample of their DNA, it goes into a government database. It’s to track us,” says David Rasnick. “They’re not just looking for the virus. Please put that in your article.”
In HIV, the death spell (code) came to people in the form of two antibody tests called ELISA and Western Blot, initially. Not PCR tests—they came later, to measure “viral load,” and were specifically not to be used for diagnosing HIV. Rather, to stress people out about their “surrogate markers,” said to represent where they stood in their battle against HIV. (Did people really need to be in a “battle” against HIV? This was the trillion-dollar question.)
In any case, those tests were not built on a “gold standard” which means purification of an actual virus. Purification means the pathogen has been separated from all else. HIV co-discoverer and Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier famously told journalist Djamel Tahi in an interview: “I repeat, we did not purify.”
HIV was never “separated from everything else.” It was and is a laboratory artifact, a set of lab-tortured antigens around which a “test” was built—a test which shattered countless millions of lives, because people watched TV and believed what they were told. They didn’t get a chance to hear what Kary Mullis or dozens of other real scientists had to say about the supposedly deadly retrovirus, HIV.
Nothing was proven before it was asserted. This became the norm, paving the way for the situation we are in now. Global viral communism. We all dreaded this would happen, but we never dreamed they would choose a cold virus. A Corona virus.
In the early 1990’s, PCR, (Polymerase Chain Reaction) came into popular use, and Kary Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize for it in 1993. 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. As it correctly says on PCR’s Wikipedia page, PCR is an “…indispensable technique” with a “broad variety” of applications, “…including biomedical research and criminal forensics.” [Italics mine.] The page goes on to say, to my dismay, that one of the applications of PCR is “…for the diagnosis of infectious diseases.”
PCR is a needle in a haystack technology that can be extremely misleading in “the diagnosis of infectious diseases.” The first conflict between this revolutionary technology and human life happened on the battlefield of AIDS, and Mullis himself came to the front line arguing against PCR as diagnostic tool. In 1987, esteemed Berkeley cancer virologist Peter Duesberg had doomed his funding and “career” by issuing a broadside in a paper published in Cancer Research to the growing and promiscuous assertions made for cancer viruses, including at least one he stood to gain a Nobel Prize for had he not diffused its significance himself.
His main argument was that the Gallo/Montagnier fusion “virus” that came to be called ‘HIV’ was (like all viruses in its class) barely capable of infecting cells. It infected so few cells that Duesberg likened the pathogenic model to thinking you can conquer China by killing 3 soldiers a day. There was simply not enough “there-there” in the form of cell death. “It’s a pussycat,” he said. He even said he wouldn’t mind being injected with it. (though not if it came from Gallo’s lab.)
With PCR’s rise, the HIV Industrial Complex weaponized it to assert that now they could see HIV more abundantly, hence their maligned foe Peter Duesberg was toast. And it was Kary Mullis, himself an HIV dissenter, who rose to Duesberg’s defense and said, “No he isn’t.”
Former FEMA operative Celeste Solum talks with David Icke: ‘The Covid tests are magnetically tagging you and the vaccine is designed for mass depopulation and the synthetic transformation of the human body.’
In a landmark ruling from Portugal, a court ruled against a governmental health authority that had illegally confined four people to a hotel in the summer of 2020. They had done so because one of the people had tested positive for Covid in a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test – but the court found the test fundamentally flawed and basically inadmissible because it is up to 97% unreliable with a strong chance of false positives. 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.”
The PCR testing supremacy under which the scientific community relied has received another crushing blow. A peer review from a group of 22 international experts has found 10 “major flaws” in the main protocol for such tests. The report systematically dismantles the original study, called the Corman-Drosten paper, which described a protocol for applying the PCR technique to detecting Covid.
The Corman-Drosten paper was published on January, 23, 2020, just a day after being submitted, which would make any peer review process that took place possibly the shortest in history. What is important about it is that the protocol it describes is used in around 70 percent of Covid kits worldwide. It’s cheap, fast – and absolutely useless.
The 10 deadly sins
Among the fatal flaws that totally invalidate the PCR testing protocol are that the test:
- is non-specific, due to erroneous primer design
- is enormously variable
- cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments
- has no positive or negative controls
- has no standard operating procedure
- does not seem to have been properly peer reviewed
Oh dear. One wonders whether anything at all was correct in the paper. But wait – it gets worse. As has been noted previously, no threshold for positivity was ever identified. This is why labs have been running 40 cycles, almost guaranteeing a large number of false positives – up to 97 percent, according to some studies.
The cherry on top, though, is that among the authors of the original paper themselves, at least four have severe conflicts of interest. Two of them are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance, the sinisterly named journal that published the paper. And at least three of them are on the payroll of the first companies to perform PCR testing!
The 22 members of the consortium that has challenged this shoddy science deserve huge credit. The scientists, from Europe, the USA, and Japan, comprise senior molecular geneticists, biochemists, immunologists, and microbiologists, with many decades of experience between them.
They have issued a demand to Eurosurveillance to retract the Corman-Drosten paper, writing: “Considering the scientific and methodological blemishes presented here, we are confident that the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication.’’ Talk about putting the pressure on.
It is difficult to overstate the implications of this revelation. Every single thing about the Covid orthodoxy relies on ‘case numbers’, which are largely the results of the now widespread PCR tests. If their results are essentially meaningless, then everything we are being told – and ordered to do by increasingly dictatorial governments – is likely to be incorrect. For instance, one of the authors of the review is Dr Mike Yeadon, who asserts that, in the UK, there is no ‘second wave’ and that the pandemic has been over since June. Having seen the PCR tests so unambiguously debunked, it is hard to see any evidence to the contrary.
See Also: Test to Detect CCP Virus Flawed, Scientists Say
CONCLUSIVE FRAUD
Fraud is a criminal act. The legal definition of fraud is:
“Some deceitful practice or willful device, resorted to with intent to deprive another of his right, or in some manner to do him an injury.”
The Legal definition of a conspiracy is:
“A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act”
It seems, those who claim we face a pandemic have not provided any evidence to show that a virus called SARS-CoV-2 causes a disease called COVID 19. All of the information strongly suggesting this possibility is readily available in the public domain. Anyone can read it.
For there to be a fraud the deceit must be wilful. The intention must be to deliberately deprive others of their rights or injure them in some other way. If there is evidence of collusion between individuals ad/or organisations to commit fraud, then this is a conspiracy (in Common Law jurisdictions) or a Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) under International Law.
It seems COVID 19 has been deliberately used as a casus belli to wage war on humanity. We have been imprisoned in our own homes, our freedom to roam restricted, freedom of speech and expression eroded, freedom to worship , rights to protest curtailed, separated from loved ones, our businesses destroyed, psychologically bombarded, muzzled and terrorised.
Worse still, while there is no evidence of unprecedented all cause mortality, there were unseasonable spikes in deaths. These correlate precisely with Lockdown measures which saw the withdrawal of the health services we pay for and a reorientation of public health services to treat one alleged disease at the exclusion of all others.
The World Health Organization cautioned experts not to rely solely on the results of a PCR test to detect the CCP virus in January 2021 after President Trump had been removed from the White House in the fraudulent 2020 Election. In updated guidance published on Jan. 20, the WHO said that lab experts and health care practitioners should also consider the patient’s history and epidemiological risk factors alongside the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test in diagnosing the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus.
Dr Saeed Qureshi came to the only logical conclusion: if an invalid test is used, there can be no valid results. He was referring to a test – the drug dissolution test – used worldwide in the pharmaceutical industry. He not only recognized the flaw in the testing protocol, but created the solution. More recently, he noted a fatal flaw in the testing for the world-famous virus: it has never been isolated, so one cannot test for it. The recent logical conclusion is all the more important, as it makes invalid all Covid-19 testing.
He further notes that there has been the use of confusing terminology, perhaps intended. While the virus has not been isolated, a similar-sounding term, “virus isolate,” is widely used. Though a virus isolate has nothing to do with an isolated virus, the term, “virus isolate” is likely to make lay people believe the virus has been isolated.1
PCR Tests Caused The Fake Whooping Cough Pandemic Of 2006
The epidemic that wasn’t: In 2006, doctors used PCR testing to cause mass hysteria over a “whooping cough” outbreak that didn’t even exist. It flew under most people’s radar at the time, but 15 years before Covid there was an alleged whooping cough epidemic that the medical industry warned was a major threat. The only problem is that it did not actually exist, having been the product of false PCR testing.
The same fraudulent tests being used today to identify the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) were also used in 2006 to pinpoint a fake whooping cough epidemic that scared a whole lot of health care workers into panicking, taking pharmaceutical drugs and getting injected with vaccines (sound familiar?).
The New York Times reported that nearly 1,000 health care workers at a hospital in Lebanon, N.H., tested “positive” using the PCR tests, resulting in them being furloughed from work. They were administered antibiotics and injected with chemicals, only to have the whole thing be blown open as a hoax eight months later.
“… health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm,” the Times reported in 2007 about the embarrassing incident.
“Not a single case of whooping cough was confirmed with the definitive test, growing the bacterium, Bordetella pertussis, in the laboratory. Instead, it appears the health care workers probably were afflicted with ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold.”
SOURCES:
- https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/09/10/covid-diagnostic-test-worst-test-ever-devised/
- https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/
- https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/17/covid19-evidence-of-global-fraud/
Additional Resources:
- John Rappaport has covered the PCR test issues extensively HERE
- Dr. Samantha Baily: The Truth About the PCR Tests
- The Great PCR Scam – David Icke Talks To Lou Collins
- ATTENTION ABOUT PCR TESTING [2021-05-07] – DR. RASHID BUTTAR AND DR. LORRAINE DAY
