Is it true that these tests have been used erroneously to drive what is no longer a "PANDEMIC", but a CASEDEMIC?
Peruse the articles and videos below for the most current research, and DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.
David Knight gives an excellent 20-minute overview of Jon Rappaport's article dissecting the CDC's July 21st announcement that they will be ceasing to seek authorization of the existing PCR test(s) on December 31, 2021.
Did you know the PCR tests are also EUA - Emergency Use Authorization? Which means they cannot be mandated...
Read an excerpt from Jon Rappaport's article below:
"CDC/FDA are confessing there has been a PROBLEM with the PCR test which has been used to detect the virus, starting in February of 2020—right up to this minute.
"In other words, the millions and millions of “COVID cases” based on the PCR test in use are all suspect. Actually, that statement is too generous. Every test result of every PCR test should be thrown out.
"To confirm this, the CDC document links to an FDA release titled, “SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel Comparative Data.” Here is a killer quote:
“'During the early months of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical specimens [of the virus] were not readily available to developers of IVDs [in vitro diagnostics] to detect SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the FDA authorized IVDs based on available data from contrived samples generated from a range of SARS-CoV-2 material sources (for example, gene specific RNA, synthetic RNA, or whole genome viral RNA) for analytical and clinical performance evaluation. While validation using these contrived specimens provided a measure of confidence in test performance at the beginning of the pandemic, it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.'”
"Translation: We, at the CDC, did not have a specimen of the SARS-CoV-2 virus when we concocted the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. Yes, it’s unbelievable, right? And that’s the test we’ve been using all along. So we CONTRIVED samples of the virus. We fabricated. We lied. We made up [invented] synthetic gene sequences and we SAID these sequences HAD TO BE close to the sequence of SARS-CoV-2, without having the faintest idea of what we were doing, because, again, we didn’t have an actual specimen of the virus. We had no proof THERE WAS something called SARS-CoV-2.
"This amazing FDA document goes to say the Agency has granted emergency approval to 59 different PCR tests since the beginning of the (fake) pandemic. 59. And, “…it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.”
"Translation: Each of the 59 different PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 told different lies and concocted different fabrications about the genetic makeup of the virus—the virus we didn’t have. Obviously, then, these tests would give unreliable results. THE PCR TESTS USED CONTRIVED SPECIMENS OF THE VIRUS WE DIDN’T HAVE.
"BUT, don’t worry, be happy, because NOW, the CDC and the FDA say, they really do have actual virus samples of SARS-CoV-2 from patients; they have better targets for the PCR test, and labs should start gearing up for the new and improved tests.
"In other words, they were lying THEN, but they’re not lying NOW. They were “contriving,” but now they’re telling the truth." Read more of Jon Rappaport's article
Pooling? What is pooling? Read this excerpt from this page at the FDA:
"On April 20, 2021, the FDA issued an amendment allowing certain authorized molecular diagnostic SARS-CoV-2 tests to be distributed and used to pool anterior nasal respiratory specimens from asymptomatic individuals as part of a serial testing program...
"...This means that tests with EUAs that are amended by this authorization may be used with pooled anterior nasal specimens from individuals without known or suspected COVID-19 when such individuals are tested as part of a testing program that includes testing at regular intervals, at least once per week." WHICH MEANS THAT YOUR TEST CAN BE LUMPED TOGETHER WITH LOTS OF OTHER TESTS. WHAT COULD GO WRONG?
YES. And this is the reason a papaya could test positive for COVID!
By Michael Truex
Is the PCR a useful test? Can it find the sick people for us?
Dr. John Hoyt, Medical director at northwest pathology, was on KFSK recently, talking about the PCR test. I really appreciated Mr. Hoyt’s straightforward explanation of the test.
Have a listen for yourself, here (scroll down and select the KFSK program with Mr. Hoyt, he starts at 3:50):
Dr. Hoyt begins by explaining the process his lab uses, which (for their lab) usually involves 37 cycles, though the lab doing testing for PMC is using 45*. He states that the virus is unique, and if you find it at all, it's coming from that virus. He also states: “You see the virus coming up at 18-20” cycles.
*We know now that anything over a CT - cycle threshhold - of 20-30 may yield NONSENSE. As Kary Mullis, creator of the PCR process, said, "You can find anything in anyone, if you multiply the cycles high enough." But you won't be able to culture virus at those high levels, which is the pertinent issue.
This is interesting, since it correlates perfectly to the graph shown in this study by the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and infectious Diseases:
This graph shows a rapid decline in the reliability of the PCR test above that number of cycles.
The key to stating it correctly is to avoid the term “false positive” and instead state:
“Specimens were not likely to culture a positive result (0% likely in fact) above 34 or 35 PCR cycles, even though the PCR indicated a positive.” This means that in lab conditions- i.e. conditions perfect for specimen growth (think of your high school science classes and the petri dish), these specimens had such low viral viability as to not be able to grow.
From my interpretation of the graph, and the words of Dr. Hoyt, we should be testing at 18-20 cycles, since that is where you usually see the virus with symptomatic cases. At this cycle threshold (Ct), we would see very few non-infectious positives. Public policy would be based on real, infective cases, instead of "case numbers".
There are now many analyses and scientific papers supporting this premise. The research group of French professor Didier Raoult has recently shown that at a cycle threshold (Ct) of 25, about 70% of samples remained positive in cell culture (i.e. were infectious); at a Ct of 30, 20% of samples remained positive; at a Ct of 35, 3% of samples remained positive; and at a Ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in cell culture.
This study does a good job explaining some other details, and in fact points out that the PCR will detect other coronaviruses 1-3% of the time if only one probe is used. Dr. Hoyt’s lab uses 3, but how many are being used at PMC? See this summary of that study: https://swprs.org/the-trouble-with-pcr-tests/
Dr. Hoyt goes on:
12:18: “The idea in developing the assay was simply, if you’ve got it, then you know that you’re an infected person, how infected, or how infective, the assay has not been set up to determine that at all…. And to try to derive that from the work that was done to get emergency use authorization is extending the science… beyond what it can bear. “
13:13: “in terms of the probe itself… the chance of a… technical false positive is essentially zero, because that’s, the definition of the assay is, we’re looking for those specific sites of now created DNA… really different because it has this incredible specificity… so how does that translate to disease? That’s what Thermo Fisher, didn’t really, there was not time for them to do a actual clinical study, it’s really a technical study to prove whether you’ve got corona virus in this specimen… Does that translate to 'you are an infectious risk?' NO, they didn’t do that work. False positive, could you detect the virus and not be infected, absolutely…. “
Let's hear that one again:
"False positive, could you detect the virus and not be infected, absolutely…."
Wow. Thank you Dr. Hoyt. This articulate and expert witness was able to give us an accurate visual of the strengths and shortcomings of the PCR test.
It is superb for determining the presence of a short piece of RNA.
However, it cannot be used to determine infectivity, and therefore it is NOT the right tool to determine if someone is dangerous to the populace. Something more indicative of a real infection, such as actual symptoms, would make better sense.
Many of Alaska's new emergency policies are based on “case numbers.” A positive PCR test may indicate the presence of RNA material from SARS-CoV-2, but due to the above shortcomings, that presence does not result in an actual case of COVID-19 as much as 97% of the time.
So we are creating an emergency out of a DNA particle, and we are negatively impacting more people than necessary. To me, an “emergency” involves risk to human life, health, or happiness.
With that simple definition, the only emergency that has happened so far on Mitkof Island, is an emergency of psychological damage and lost happiness from lock downs, forced masking, forced quarantines, lost jobs and destroyed businesses. Public policies need to change to reflect this.
Sep 07, 21 01:46 AM
The word "EMERGENCY" seems to have rendered our law-makers impotent. What legal remedies do we have against medical tyranny?
Sep 06, 21 03:03 PM
We now know that PCR tests cannot distinguish between “live” viruses & inactive (noninfectious) viral particles & therefore cannot be used as a diagnostic tool.
Sep 02, 21 02:13 AM
Vaccines - "Safe & Effective" is a SOUNDBITE, not a scientific observation.
At the White Coat Summit 2 produced by America's Frontline Doctors, Dr. Urso speaks plainly about the drawbacks of using tests in the absence of symptoms:
by Kit Knightly at Off-Guardian.org, December 19, 2020
"Warnings concerning high CT value of tests are months too late…so why are they appearing now? The potential explanation is shockingly cynical…
"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?" Full article...
at Mercola.com, December 18, 2020
"We now know that PCR tests:
"1. Cannot distinguish between “live” viruses and inactive (noninfectious) viral particles and therefore cannot be used as a diagnostic tool...
"2. Cannot confirm that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms as the test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens..." Full article
by John O'Sullivan, December 17, 2020
"In a statement released on December 14, 2020 the World Health Organization finally owned up to what 100,000’s of doctors and medical professionals have been saying for months: the PCR test used to diagnose COVID-19 is a hit and miss process with way too many false positives.
"This WHO-admitted “Problem” comes in the wake of international lawsuits exposing the incompetence and malfeasance of public health officials and policymakers for reliance on a diagnostic test not fit for purpose..."
NOT the "gold standard," then?
This article is a PDF download from Public Health England, October 2020. Twelve pages long with diagrams, it is very thorough. A sample:
"A low Ct (cycle threshold) indicates a high concentration of viral genetic material, which is typically associated with high risk of infectivity.
"A high Ct indicates a low concentration of viral genetic material which is typically associated with a lower risk of infectivity. In the context of an upper respiratory tract sample a high Ct may also represent scenarios where a higher risk of infection remains – for example, early infection, inadequately collected or degraded sample.
"A single Ct value in the absence of clinical context cannot be relied upon for decision making about a person’s infectivity." (What does THAT mean? That without a clinical exam in which COVID symptoms can be observed, the person should not be called infected.) See PDF