PCR Pandemic

PCR TEST PANDEMIC - PCR tests have never been recognized for diagnosing virus, they are unreliable, extremely sensitive, and shows many false-positives. The unsuitability of the PCR test for the detection of infectious diseases - Dr Mike Yeadon is the former vice president and scientific director of Pfizer - Dr Yeadon in his piece: ‘Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics - the Deadly Danger of False Positives’ explains the complete unsuitability of the test for the detection of infectious diseases, covid 19 has tested positive in goats, sheep, papayas and even chicken wings - https://lockdownsceptics.org/lies-damned-lies-and-health-statistics-the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/ 

Tests do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses - CDC - Results are for the identification of 2019-nCoV RNA. The 2019-nCoV RNA is generally detectable in upper and lower respiratory specimens during infection. 

Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. 

Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities. -- Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information. 

What this suggests is that a positive infection could be the result of co-infection with other viruses. According to the CDC it “does not rule out “bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.” (CDC) - https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download - How many covid diagnoses are false positives - https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-many-covid-diagnoses-are-false-positives

The Trouble With PCR Tests -- Swiss Policy Research (SPR), founded in 2016, is an independent, nonpartisan and nonprofit research group investigating geopolitical propaganda in Swiss and international media. SPR is composed of independent academics and receives no external funding. - https://swprs.org/the-trouble-with-pcr-tests/ 

Dr Claus Köhnlein, who wrote "Virus Mania in the media" with journalist Torsten Engelbrecht "How the Medical Industry Continually Invents Epidemics, Making Billion-Dollar Profits at Our Expense" - Samantha Bailey, physician from New Zealand, interviews Claus Köhnlein, MD, on her YouTube channel (the largest on health in her country) about the fatal effects of the massive experimental administration of highly toxic drugs to so-called COVID-19 patients and the role of the PCR test. Dr. Sam Bailey’s Youtube channel, 27 October 2020 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LToSnpz8A4&feature=emb_logo 

All-cause mortality during COVID-19: No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response - 

Denis G. Rancourt, PhD Researcher, Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca) --- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341832637_All-cause_mortality_during_COVID-19_No_plague_and_a_likely_signature_of_mass_homicide_by_government_response 

Stability issues of RT-PCR testing of SARS-CoV-2 for hospitalized patients clinically diagnosed with COVID-19 - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jmv.25786 

Letter to WHO and Dr. Fauci - Extremely sensitive, no false-positive tests needed for SARS-CoV-2 - https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/04-30-20-Letter-to-WHO-and-Dr.-Fauci.pdf 

The Corona Simulation Machine: Why the Inventor of The “Corona Test” Would Have Warned Us Not To Use It To Detect A Virus - https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/ 

Was the COVID-19 Test Meant to Detect a Virus? -- https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/ Interpreting a covid-19 test result - 

Jessica Watson GP and National Institute for Health Research doctoral research fellow, Penny FWhiting associate professor in clinical epidemiology, John E Brush professor of internal medicine - https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1808 

Are you infectious if you have a positive PCR test result for COVID-19? 

The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine - https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/infectious-positive-pcr-test-result-covid-19/ 

Why your positive test result is likely wrong - Rob Verkerk PhD - - https://www.anhinternational.org/news/why-your-positive-test-result-is-likely-wrong/ 

Impact of false-positives and false-negatives in the UK’s COVID-19 RT-PCR testing programme - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895843/S0519_Impact_of_false_positives_and_negatives.pdf COVID-19: 

What Does a Positive PCR Test Mean? Association of American Physicians and Surgeons - https://aapsonline.org/covid-19-what-does-a-positive-pcr-test-mean/ 

John O'Sullivan from Principia Scientific International (PSI) - John is not only a seasoned science writer but adept legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. We serve the public interest in providing educational resources freely in the fields of scientific inquiry. Principia Scientific International CIC is about transparency and truth; the only publishing international science association shunning political advocacy and defending the traditional scientific method, as extolled by Karl Popper. The essence of genuine scientific inquiry shall exemplify the sui generis, or the abiding maxim that goodness is indefinable and exists in science only insofar as the pursuit of truth ought to be our abiding goal. Our members feel a moral duty to preserve the traditional methods of open scientific inquiry free from persecution, ridicule and censure. 

The COVID-19 PCR Test Is Key to the Pandemic Fraud - https://principia-scientific.com/the-covid-19-pcr-test-is-key-to-the-pandemic-fraud/ 

Mass testing of people without covid-19 symptoms is “not an accurate way of screening the general population,” a senior figure at the Department of Health and Social Care has said in a letter seen by The BMJ 

The comments were made by James Bethell, one of England’s health ministers, in response to a letter from an MP raising concerns about blanket polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing on behalf of a constituent.

In his letter Bethell stated that “swab testing people with no symptoms is not an accurate way of screening the general population, as there is a real risk of giving false reassurance.” He added, “Widespread asymptomatic testing could undermine the value of testing, as there is a risk of giving misleading results. Rather, only people with covid-19 symptoms should get tested.”

The comments were made as the government expanded mass testing of asymptomatic people after a pilot scheme in Liverpool and announced a further rollout of widespread testing in schools.

Swabs are used both for PCR tests and for rapid tests that have been deployed by the government for mass testing in Liverpool and care homes and do not need to be sent to a laboratory for results. One of the main rapid tests used is the Innova Lateral Flow SARS-CoV-2 antigen test, which involves a self-administered swab. However, data released from the Liverpool pilot programme showed that this test detected just 48.89% of covid-19 infections in asymptomatic people when compared with a PCR test.

When questioned about the letter a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care told The BMJ, “The government is committed to using lateral flow tests in community testing to break the chains of transmission among those with asymptomatic infection . . . The minister’s letter was in reply to a specific question about ‘blanket PCR testing,’ and it remains the case that PCR testing is prioritised for symptomatic testing.”

Experts have argued that it does not make sense that lateral flow tests—which are far less accurate than PCR tests—are considered good enough for mass asymptomatic testing, while PCR testing is being avoided because of its potential for false reassurance.

Jon Deeks, professor of biostatistics at the University of Birmingham and leader of the Cochrane Collaboration’s covid-19 test evaluation activities, said, “There are particular concerns about false reassurance. It doesn’t make sense that the government is concerned about false reassurance for PCR tests but not lateral flow tests.

“Lateral flow tests are going to give more false reassurance than PCR testing, because they are less accurate. It’s good to see the government is concerned about false reassurance, but haven’t they got this the wrong way around?”

Mass testing has been used at universities throughout England to help keep the virus under control on campuses. Most programmes use lateral tests, although some, such as Cambridge University, have used PCR tests.

Mike Gill, former regional director of public health for the South East England region, said, “This letter has emerged as [the education secretary] Gavin Williamson has announced the introduction of widespread testing in schools with the statement, ‘This expansion of testing into schools and colleges will ensure more certainty for children and parents and everyone working so hard in education.’

“Williamson’s statement was bad enough on its own, since it comes across as yet another egregious display of not being guided by science. The last thing anybody should be encouraged to entertain after an Innova test result, whether positive or negative, is certainty, let alone ‘more’ of it.

“Put alongside the very welcome position taken by Lord Bethell in his letter, it becomes impossible to use the word ‘coherent’ in the context of current government approaches to policy development and implementation.”

The BMJ did not receive a response to a request for clarification from Lord Bethell

Fauci has know since at least July that most Covid “cases” are false. The US routinely uses 42-45 cycles, Fauci says any positive test above 35 cycles is a false positive. This is what the whole pandemic is based on - fake test results. Watch Fauci admit it. pic.twitter.com/XatH5OzE6E

— Jeff Nelson (@vegsource) October 30, 2020

PCR works by selectively amplifying trace amounts of genetic material, identifying specific parts of DNA. Trace amounts are amplified millions of times, and will show someone who was exposed six months ago but is in no way infectious

 

In the UK, testing to see whether someone currently has Covid-19 is performed using an extremely common process called PCR, and known as a PCR test. This involves taking a swab from someone’s throat and nose, and then using PCR to detect the genetic material of the virus that causes Covid-19 which is called SARS-CoV-2.

PCR, or polymerase chain reaction, is just the process by which this genetic material can be detected by scientists. The laboratory doing the testing adds a very specific substance to the sample, and if the sample contains any SARS-CoV-2, this substance triggers a chain reaction that creates enough copies of the genetic material so that it can be detected through analysis.

In order to detect a virus like the one that causes COVID-19, firstly scientists need to convert the RNA to DNA using a process called “reverse transcription”. This is because only DNA can be copied (or “amplified”), which is a key part of how the real time RT-PCR process works.

A sample will be collected from parts of the body where the virus gathers, such as a person’s nose or throat. This sample will be treated with chemicals to remove substances such as proteins and fats, until only genetic material is left: DNA, RNA, messenger RNA.

This sample will contain the person’s genetic material and, if present, the RNA of the virus. This RNA is then reverse transcribed to DNA. Short fragments of DNA are added to the sample which will, if the virus is present, make the viral DNA multiply. The sample is then placed in a RT-PCR machine.

The RT-PCR machine will cycle through temperatures that heat and cool the sample to trigger chemical reactions that will cause the target viral DNA, if present, to create an identical copy of itself. Each cycle will cause the amount of viral DNA to double, so the second cycle will create four times the amount of viral DNA, the third cycle eight times as much, and so on.

Typically the process is to go through 40 cycles, which will create billions of copies of any viral DNA strand in the sample. As new copies of viral DNA are made, these will release a fluorescent dye, which can be monitored in real time by the person running the test.

When a certain level of fluorescence is met, this tells the scientist running the test that viral RNA was present in the original sample. The number of cycles required before the virus can be identified is known as the cycle threshold (Ct).