Nate Serg

Mar 18, 202168 min read

SNOWBALL OF LIES

Updated: Aug 10, 2021

"with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.” - Dr. Kery Mullis PhD

The coronavirus panic is just that, AN IRRATIONAL PANIC, BASED ON AND UNPROVEN RNA TEST, THAT HAS NEVER BEEN CONNECTED TO A VIRUS. AND WHICH BE CONNECTED TO A VIRUS UNLESS THE VIRUS IS PURIFIED. Furthermore, even if the test can detect a novel virus THE PRESENCE OF A VIRUS IS NOT PROOF THAT IT IS THE CAUSE OF THE SEVERE SYMPTOMS THAT SOME PEOPLE WHO TEST POSITIVE EXPERIENCE (BUT NOT ALL WHO TEST POSITIVE). Finally, even if the test can detect a virus, and it is dangerous, we do not know what the rate of false positives is. And even a 1% false positive rate could produce 100,000 false positive results just in a city the size of Wuhan and could mean that a significant fraction of the positive test results being found are false positives."

THE FALSE POSITIVE RATE WAS SAID TO BE 40-80%

“PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.” - Dr. Kery Mullis Phd

It's pretty amazing how this thing unravels. Pathogen. A contagion spreading. Well my aim of this collection here wasn't initially to re-program your brain on cause and modes of disease but it might happen anyway.

So regardless of far your willing to shift your adherence to the idea that's captured the hearts man. There are some facts we need to go over.

For some historical reference: Virology has had some bouts prior, and whether you knew it or not. It sorta lost... just not enough people found out.

Everything that is going on can be blamed and stems from the Polymerase Chain Reaction amplification process and our idea of contagion.

There are multiple levels and layers of misunderstanding. Ill try to take you from the shallow to the deep if i can help it.

Some quick facts for a overview before we dive in here.

1. There was always two sides to the story of what caused disease, Germ Theory and Terrain Model.

2. There is a library facts from the other side Including

3. The measles virus lost in court, meaning they didn't have evidence for it.

4. The same thing shouLd happen to all mythical creations conjured up by Rocka-pharma to sell mass amounts of product that basically made you more reliant on their industry. Kinda like MSG in Chinese food, just lot worse.

5. Studies have shown there was no asymptomatic transmission, however that's a shallow understanding when you've seen the promise land of the Terrain Model, that explains everything.

5b. Studies also showed Symptomatic transmission has no solid evidence, which mirrors Florence Nightingales observations, and a lot of science.

6. All these case numbers are faulty, that coupled with the lack of proof of spread, makes mask. distancing, the Rate of Infection, Certificate of Death mislabeled, Contact tracing, mRNA gene therapies, a change in ICU protocols, lockdowns, ruining lives, impoverishing people, excess deaths from from lockdowns ( # ), paving way for a financial takeover by technocracy and pharma globalist, you name it.

PCR was at the center of it. TEST TEST TEST the W.H.O said.

Its a bit more intense than recalculating for the false positive rate. Way more. Way way way more.

“With PCR if you can do it well you can find almost anything in anybody.” "...it doesn't tell you that your sick, or the thing ( you found in the test) will make you sick..."

The inventor of PCR tests Kari Mullis:" They can find almost anything in anybody" - YouTube

"We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings WITHOUT HAVING VIRUS MATERIAL AVAILABLE."

The COVID-19 PCR Test Is Key To The Pandemic Fraud

The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test – used as the bellwether for coronavirus – is not fit for purpose. ......scientific fraud is gravely harming our personal and societal well being.

...The PCR test was invented by Kari Mullis (photo, top) in 1985 but it was never intended for detecting disease; it’s primary applications included biomedical research and criminal forensics.

Before his death in 2019 Mullis told reporters:

“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.

(HE ALSO SAID WITH PCR YOU COULD FIND ANYTHING IN ANYONE!)

Mullis often spoke out against using his test for diagnosing illnesses. So-called experts ignored the warning. But now, many independent scientists and medical professionals are coming forward to denounce the idiocy of governments, the ...for pushing the number of novel coronavirus “cases” (not deaths) premised on spurious results from this problematic PCR test.

Mullis and others correctly called out the idiocy of groupthink – the reliance on ill-informed and misguided ‘experts’ who direct government health policy. A key culprit among prominent world bodies is the World Health Organization (WHO) loudly telling is to

“test, test, test!”

WHO head Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and his co-conspirators pushing the .....plan for a ‘Great Reset’ know full well the more you test, the more positive cases will emerge and the more their insane over reaction to the ‘crisis’ becomes validated. But dissenters are wise to this scam. Here is a typical comment from one the thousands of experts dissenting from the accepted narrative:

“I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine,” warns Dr. David Rasnick, biochemist and protease developer.

{AND MOST STILL MISS THE POINT, NO VIRUS NO TEST}

CDC DID warns not to give the test to asymptomatic persons ...

In fact, there is a famous Chinese paper that stated if you’re testing asymptomatic people with PCR, up to 80% of positives could be false positives.

“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary. In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative. {ACTUALLY THE FIRST THING TO KNOW IS IT CANT HELP YOU AT ALL WITH VIRUS THEORY}

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 [Mullis, the inventor of the test] dismay, that one of the applications of PCR is “…for the diagnosis of infectious diseases.”…

“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.” (ACTUALLY DOESNT DO ANYTHING AND THE AUTHOR OF THIS DOESNT REALIZE WHAT HAVING NO PURIFIED ISOLATE MEANS CLEARLY)

“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...

THIS IS WHATS HAPPENNING NOW WITH THE DROP IN CASES NOT LESS "INFECTIONS" OR SOME SIGN AN EXPERIMENTAL MRNA GENE THERAPY IS SOMEHOW DOING ANYTHING BUT HURTING PEOPLE

{{{{....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.””}}}

Fact is a vast majority of people infected with COVID-19 have mild symptoms and it’s estimated that 50% (nope i read 86%) of people...(testing positive) are asymptomatic.

Many of the people who allegedly died from COVID-19 were already very sick and would have died anyway in a short period of time. The scientific data made available to the public proves that around 95 percent of deaths were patients were over 80 years of age with two or more comorbidities (such as cancer).

...An important Chinese research paper that exposed that around 80 percent of PCR test positives could be false positives was quietly withdrawn by PubMed. Though only the abstract is still online even though the Chinese paper appears to still be published and available. ((ITS ALL FALSE , WELL GET TO THAT))

Interestingly, a month later, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between “negative,” “positive” and “dubious.”

The United States, UK and other major nationals have all but abandoned classical diagnostic medicine in favor of biotech, or lab result medicine. No longer are doctors physically examining patients and determining a simple respiratory infection like a cold or the flu.

Instead, due to prevailing fears, they are jumping the gun to assume “covid” because the symptoms are all but identical. As a clue, check the official records and see how few people are classified as ill from those traditional ailments. ‘Hey presto‘ almost every chest infection now is certified as likely due to the novel coronavirus.

The PCR test is finding so many asymptomatic cases (people who test positive but are otherwise very healthy with no symptoms) because the very replication technique relied on is designed to find microscopic fragments and to amplify them...

The PCR test, in almost all cases, is finding tiny fragments of nucleic acids. On this point consider an email from Kary Mullis, to the widow of boxer Tommy Morrison, whose career and life were destroyed by an “HIV test,” and who litigated ferociously for years, against test manufacturers, Dr. Mullis wrote, on May 7, 2013:

“PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid.... The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment. “

...yet are being reported by labs and thereafter by policymakers as ‘positives.’

Another example of the insanity is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients. The majority went from “positive” to “negative” back to “positive” at least once, and up to five times in one patient.

In Germany 70 percent of the people tested “positive” ..... Yet “they are prescribed quarantine.”

It isn’t what people imagine, say for a pregnancy test, where you have a definable positive or negative indicating a foetus (or not). You don’t keep amplifying the results of a negative pregnancy test until you get a ‘positive’ for a baby. It is insane. But this is what is happening (and passes muster) in coronavirus PCR tests.

As Crowe explained, a lab could conceivably opt to keep amplifying the sequence of testing of a sample UNTIL they reach the point they arbitrarily decide they have enough copies of their sample to declare a positive result for COVID19. Labs are thus motivated to amplify samples and find more covid cases – “just to be safe!” It is a vicious circle of fear driving stupidity.

No ‘Gold Standard’ Therefore No Testing Is Accurate

In any case, those tests were not built on a “gold standard” which means purification of an actual virus. (MEANING THE VIROLOGIST HAS PROVED HE/SHE HAS DISCOVERED A PATHOGEN ) 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.”

Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University ..she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”

David Crowe explains it further:

“PCR is really a manufacturing technique. 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.

Speaking to Principia Scientific International on the shocking absence of any such “gold standard” an internationally respected virus testing expert, Dr Saeed Qureshi said he knows of no such “gold standard” for the virus test. He said this is because no lab has yet satisfactorily identified, isolated and replicated a distinct and new virus – COVID19.

But compounding the problem of false positives is the systemic errors and perhaps potential fakery that is only just being uncovered. ( THERE ALL FALSE POSITIVES )

Big League Politics has reported on widespread errors coming from certain COVID-19 testing facilities, with the total of cases being widely overinflated.

“The Florida Department of Health is scrambling after fraud was discovered in how COVID-19 testing rates were being reported across the state.

After the health department released a report showing a stunning statewide positivity rate of 11 percent, analysis of the numbers revealed severe irregularities. Many labs reported 100 percent positivity, meaning that every test came back positive.

In addition to the labs reporting 100 percent positivity, there were other testing facilities that reported abnormal levels of positive tests. FOX 35 found that Centra Care reported that 83 people who submitted tests were all counted as positive. The Orlando Veteran’s Affairs Medical Center reported a 76 percent positivity rate, NCF Diagnostics reported tests at a 88 percent positivity rate, and Orlando Health reported a 98 percent positivity rate.

Orlando Health has admitted that the results from the health department’s report are dubious. They said that their positivity rate was only 9.4 percent, not 98 percent as it was shown in the report. This casts major doubt regarding the accuracy of the total cases that have been reported in Florida.

...News has used Florida as an example to bolster their COVID-19 mass hysteria due to all of the supposed cases that were popping up throughout the state.”

Award-winning journalist Torsten Engelbrecht gives more details in his article ‘COVID19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless.’ [4]

Adding to the skepticism are pathologists who are yet to find a single autopsy showing COVID19, as reported in a June 27 Off-Guardian article. [5]

We need to stop saying “Stay safe!” to everyone. We are safe. The pandemic emergency needs to cease immediately and the world must never again resort to a knee-jerk ....

The CDC has even quietly updated that only 6% of ~180,000 US “virus” deaths are directly attributed to the virus. [6]. While British mathematician, Andrew Maher‘s analysis of the official data goes even further. He concluded that NO ONE has died from COVID19. [7]

Together, we refuse to surrender to fear.

[1] http://blog.banditobooks.com/labs-can-manipulate-how-many-cases-of-covid-19-their-country-has/

[2] E-mail from Prof. Thomas Löscher from March 6, 2020

[3] https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/

[4] https://principia-scientific.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/

[5] https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/

[6] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

[7] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Andrew+Mather

https://principia-scientific.com/the-covid-19-pcr-test-is-key-to-the-pandemic-fraud/

__________________________________________________________

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 ....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.

[[THEY ARE AVOIDING THE POINT, NO ISOLATE NO PROOF]]

The UN body is now clearly looking to distance itself from the fatally flawed test as a growing number of lawsuits are processing through the courts exposing the insanity of relying on a test that even the inventor, Professor Kary B. Mullis said was never designed to diagnose diseases. [1]

Professor Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993. ‘Coincidentally’, Mullis died just before the pandemic started.

((Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests ‘Unreliable’ & Quarantines ‘Unlawful’))

We reported on November 22, 2020 that a landmark court case in Portugal had ruled that the polymerase chain reaction test (PCR) used worldwide to diagnose COVID-19 was not fit for purpose. Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection.

As Off-Guardian.org reported at the time:

“In their ruling, judges Margarida Ramos de Almeida and Ana Paramés referred to several scientific studies. Most notably this study by Jaafar et al., which found that

– when running PCR tests with 35 cycles or more – the accuracy dropped to 3%, meaning up to 97% of positive results could be false positives.

The ruling goes on to conclude that, based on the science they read, any PCR test using over 25 cycles is totally unreliable. Governments and private labs have been very tight-lipped about the exact number of cycles they run when PCR testing, but it is known to sometimes be as high as 45. Even fearmonger-in-chief Anthony Fauci has publicly stated anything over 35 is totally unusable.” (( HE LIED ABOUT HIV PAPER TO MULLINS, THE TEST ARE USELESS WITHOUT PROOF OF A PATHOGEN ))

You can read the complete ruling in the original Portuguese here, and translated into English here. https://principia-scientific.com/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful/

Among thousands of angry doctors arguing PCR tests should not be used is Dr. Pascal Sacré. He wrote that:

“This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.”

However, none of this is new information to science. These facts were known at least be fore 2007 after a New York Times report entitled, “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t,” (image, above) clearly showed how scientifically inaccurate PCR tests are, featuring many shocking statements from medical experts on the use of these tests, clearly laying out how they result in false positives and lead to dangerous exaggerations and false alarms." [3]

This insanity of testing anyone and everyone, even without symptoms has been an unmitigated global public health scandal and must be stopped. All officials in high places complicit in this crime must be prosecuted.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/national-security-alert-covid-tests-scientifically-fraudulent-epidemic-false-positives/5720271

Now FDA Admits PCR Tests Give False COVID Results - ( THATS NOT ENOUGH! )

The FDA today joined The WHO and Dr.Fauci in admitting there is a notable risk of false results from the standard PCR-Test used to define whether an individual is a COVID “Case” or not.

The Wadworth Center, a New York State laboratory, analyzed the results of its July tests at the request of the NYT: 794 positive tests with a Ct of 40: “With a Ct threshold of 35, approximately half of these PCR tests would no longer be considered positive,” said the NYT. “And about 70% would no longer be considered positive with a Ct of 30! “

An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2, and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful.

A new study from the Infectious Diseases Society of America, found that at 25 cycles of amplification, 70% of PCR test “positives” are not “cases”. And by 35: 97% of the positives are non-clinical.

5. PCR is not testing for disease, it’s testing for a specific RNA pattern and this is the key pivot. When you crank it up to 25, 70% of the positive results are not really “positives” in any clinical sense, since it cannot make you or anyone else sick.

As PJMedia’s Stacey Lennox wrote, the “casedemic” is the elevated number of cases we see nationwide because of a flaw in the PCR test.

Just a few days earlier, the CDC had updated its guidelines to discourage testing for asymptomatic individuals.

the new guidance on testing was scrapped, and testing for asymptomatic individuals is now recommended again.

In reality, the change will only eliminate false positives, but most Americans won’t know that.---

And for that reason, the great 2020 disappearing flu passes largely under the mass media’s radar. Media proliferated mass deception and power of repetition get most people to believe and having successfully “killed the flu”, they will now do the same with COVID… and, if allowed by our betters, we will all return to the new normal they desire. (DEFLECTING)

MORE ON THE SUPERNATANT

Today’s virologists use the supernatant— the liquid obtained after filtration or sometimes centrifugation—processes that remove bacteria, fungi and other larger material. This is what they refer to as “purification.” However, this is like filtering the grounds out of coffee to get caffeine; your aim may be to study caffeine’s effects, but there are hundreds or thousands of other compounds in the coffee, so you will still need to isolate the caffeine.

What virus researchers ought to do after obtaining the supernatant is to put it in a “sucrose density centrifuge column,” which spins out the various compounds into bands. One of these bands will contain the pure virus, which can then be photographed and analyzed as discussed. This is the equivalent of isolating caffeine from coffee.

Instead of working with pure virus, however, researchers commonly continue to use the supernatant, which contains all kinds of molecules and particles. In other words, instead of doing a genetic analysis of the isolated virus, they do genetic analysis on the mess of compounds in the supernatant.

Now, to get enough “virus” to use experimentally, virologists must grow it in a biological medium such as an animal (or at least cells from an animal). Unlike bacteria, which can be grown in Petri dishes, viruses are not alive and can only “grow” in other living cells. However, virologists do not transfer the supernatant to healthy tissue, but to tissue that has been poisoned with strong antibiotics and starved of nutrients (using what’s called a “minimum-nutrient medium”). They do this to make sure that what is left is only viruses and not bacteria. Moreover, the main type of tissue used is kidney cells from various species (often monkey kidney cells called Vero cells) or lung cancer cells. When researchers do this, the “viruses” seem to multiply, allowing them to sell the resultant mess of “viruses,” particles, poisons, dead tissue and cellular debris—called “cultured” virus—to other researchers as samples of “purified” or “isolated” virus for use in studies.

By the way, the CDC has published guidelines on “transport medium” for viruses.7 Transport medium is what they use to inoculate the starved tissue, which then grows the “virus.” The three main ingredients (“reagents”) are fetal bovine serum (extracted from still-living fetal calves and preserved with antifungals, among other poisons) along with two highly toxic antibiotics, amphotericin (affectionately called “ampho-terrible”) and gentamicin. This ungodly mixture is then grown on monkey or fetal kidney cells.

Interestingly, all doctors know that the main organ affected by gentamicin and ampho-terrible is the kidneys. So, you poison the kidney and the kidney breaks down; then the virologist claims that the virus killed the kidney—without performing any controls. Don’t look behind the curtain, folks!

These practices are fraught with obvious problems if one wishes to prove that it is the virus—and not the cancer cells or poisoned kidney cells—that are causing disease when the “viruses” get injected into healthy test animals. Remember, to prove that a specific virus is making humans or animals sick, scientists need to find the identical virus in many subjects who are sick with the same symptoms—and then make healthy humans or animals sick by exposing them to this virus. However, when researchers try to grow purified virus on healthy cells, they don’t get a lot of viruses—and when they subject healthy tissue, healthy animals or healthy people to these “viruses,” illness does not result—yet this is the wily virus that is going to kill us all!

VIRUSES OR EXOSOMES (EV's)?

Why do “viruses” multiply in the starved and poisoned kidney or cancer cells? The answer is that when cells are starved or poisoned, they produce (EV's or) exosomes. These tiny particles, which are identical in appearance and characteristics to what are called “viruses,” are helpful, not toxic. Exosomes (or EV's) do not attack the cells and then multiply; rather, they are produced inside the cell, often in large amounts, when the cells are stressed by poison and starvation.

A study titled “The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS viruses,” published in May 2020 in the journal Viruses, explains that viruses and exosomes (which the authors call “extracellular vesicles” or EVs) are indistinguishable.8 To quote from the paper,

“The remarkable resemblance between EVs and viruses has caused quite a few problems in the studies focused on the analysis of EVs released during viral infection. Nowadays, it is an almost impossible mission to separate EVs and viruses by means of canonical vesicle isolation methods, such as differential ultracentrifugation, because they are frequently co-pelleted due to their similar dimension. To overcome this problem, different studies have proposed the separation of EVs from virus particles by exploiting their different migration velocity in a density gradient or using the presence of specific markers that distinguish viruses from EVs. However, to date, a reliable method that can actually guarantee a complete separation does not exist” [emphasis added].

In other words, researchers can’t distinguish viruses from exosomes. That’s because they are the same thing; in reality, all viruses are exosomes. Stated another way, scientists are discovering that all of these “viruses” originate in our own tissues—they don’t attack us from the outside.

CORONAVIRUS PROOF?

With this background, let’s look in more detail at the methods described in a 2003 study titled, “Koch’s Postulates Fulfilled for SARS Virus.”4 First, the researchers took unpurified sediment from the snot of sick people and grew it in lung cancer cells until they got a sufficient quantity of cellular material to work with. Next, they centrifuged this mess—not even attempting to purify any virus from the mixture. Finally, they took this unholy mixture (of snot sediment, lung cancer cells and who-knows-what-else) and injected the cellular-debris-laden goop into two unfortunate monkeys. There was no control group (which could have been achieved by injecting saline or lung cancer cells or even the liquid from the centrifuged material into other monkeys for comparison). One of the injected monkeys got pneumonia, the other got a rash, and the researchers claimed this as the proof that a “coronavirus” can cause disease and that Koch’s postulates have been satisfied.

“The Coronavirus Unveiled,” an October 9 article appearing in the New York Times,9 continues to give the impression that researchers are working with a genuine isolated coronavirus, despite telling readers that “In February, as the new coronavirus swept across China and shut down entire cities. . . the best pictures anyone had managed to take were low-resolution images, in which the virus looked like a barely discernible smudge.” How did the researchers isolate the virus? In the New York Times reporter’s words, they “doused the viruses with chemicals to render them harmless. . . .” In other words, they poisoned them. After they somehow “concentrated the virus-laden fluid from a quart down to a single drop” and flash-froze the drop, they saw, under microscope, structures they called “viruses”—most likely helpful exosomes (or EV's representing part of pleomorphic cycle) responding to the poisonous chemicals.

We reiterate that this is not the proper way to isolate and characterize a virus. Proper isolation involves ultrafiltration and centrifuging—not dousing with chemicals and flash freezing—and requires the performance of various physical, biochemical and immunological analyses. Nonetheless, researchers concluded that the coronavirus’s “intimately twisted genes commandeer our biochemistry” and “throw wrenches into our cellular factories, while [other viral proteins] build nurseries for making new viruses.” This is highly imaginative horror-movie speculation, not science. (see Koch and Rivers postulates bellow)

TESTING PATHOGENESIS

Leaving aside the fact that virologists never actually isolate and purify viruses—which they openly admit and which we have now explained—let’s assume that the unpurified fluid they use does contain the relevant virus and, therefore, should be able to transmit infection. After “isolating” a virus, virologists have three “hosts” they can use in their attempts to prove that viruses cause illness: they can expose humans to the virus; they can expose animals to the virus; or they can use tissue cultures taken from various animal or human sources and expose the tissue cultures to the virus.

In the history of virology, most virologists have decided not to do their experiments on human subjects, as this is considered unethical. In the case of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, we know of no published study that has used humans as the test subjects. Virologists also admit that in the case of most viral infections, there are no studies available proving infection in animals. How a virus can infect and kill humans—but not animals—is left unexplained. Researchers get around this obvious biological conundrum by saying, “There are no animal models on which to test such-and-such a virus.” In other words, “We know that the virus infects and kills humans even though we’ve never tested the virus on humans because that would be unethical. Therefore, we do our tests on animals, even though when we test animals, they don’t get sick, because they are not proper ‘hosts’ for the virus. So, you’ll just have to trust us.”

In the case of SARS-CoV-2, we know of two animal model studies that used unpurified “virus,” one in hamsters and one in mice. In the hamster study,10 researchers took the unpurified, lung-cancer-grown, centrifuged animal secretions and squirted them down the throats and into the lungs of a group of unfortunate hamsters. Some—but not all—of the hamsters got pneumonia, and some even died. Perplexingly, however, some of the hamsters didn’t even get sick at all, which certainly doesn’t square with the deadly contagious virus theory. Because there was no comparison group, we also have no idea what would have happened if the researchers had squirted plain lung cancer cells into the lungs of the hamsters; probably not anything good.

In the mouse study,11 researchers infected both transgenic mice (that is, mice genetically programmed to get sick) and wild (normal) mice with unpurified virus. None of the wild mice exposed to the “virus” got sick. Of the transgenic mice, a statistically insignificant number either lost some fur luster or experienced weight loss. Thus, scientists have not been able to show that the Covid-19 “virus” causes harm to animals.

The third method virologists use to prove infection and pathogenicity—the method they usually rely on—is to infect human and animal tissue with a “culture” of the virus to see what happens. As we have already pointed out, this inoculation of solutions reportedly containing the virus onto a variety of tissue cultures has never been shown to kill (lyse) the tissue, unless the tissue is first starved and poisoned.

Nevertheless, researchers used this third approach in a study entitled, “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States” published in the CDC’s Emerging Infectious Diseases journal in June 2020.12 The purpose of the study was for a group of about thirty-five virologists to describe the state of the science dealing with the isolation, purification and biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research. A thorough and careful reading of this important paper reveals some shocking findings.

First, in the Methods section titled “Whole Genome Sequencing,” we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, they “designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence.”12 What this means is that they actually looked at a mere thirty-seven primers out of the approximately thirty thousand base pairs claimed to be the genome of an intact virus.

Next, the virologists took these thirty-seven segments and put them into a computer program, which filled in the rest of the genome. This computer-generation step—called “whole genome sequencing”—constitutes scientific fraud of the highest order.

Here is an equivalency: A group of researchers claims to have found a unicorn because the group has a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail and a sliver of a horn. After putting that information into a computer and programming it to re-create the unicorn, they claim that this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they have never actually seen a unicorn, so they could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with an actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.

In the case of SARS-CoV-2, the authors of the June study report that they decided on the virus’s real genome by “consensus”—in other words, by vote.12 Because different computer programs will come up with different versions of the imaginary “unicorn” (virus), scientists have to come together as a group and decide which is the “real” imaginary unicorn. (By the way, this is also how scientists characterized the measles “virus”—by consensus!)

The real blockbuster finding in this study comes later, however, a finding so shocking that it is hard to believe what we are reading. Summarizing their procedures in the paper’s Results section, the authors explain that they “examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines, including human adenocarcinoma cells (A549), human liver cells (HUH7.0), and human embryonic kidney cells (HEK-293T), in addition to Vero E6 and Vero CCL81 cells.” Their aim was to monitor “cytopathic effects” (CPEs)—meaning structural changes in host cells caused by “viral invasion”—where the infecting virus causes either lysis (breaking up) of the host cell or, if the cell dies without lysis, an inability to reproduce. Both of these effects are said to occur due to CPEs. Yet, as the authors plainly state, though each cell line “was inoculated at high multiplicity of infection and examined 24 h post-infection,” the investigators observed no CPE “in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells.”12

So did this viral material with its “intimately twisted genes” commandeer the cellular biochemistry and throw wrenches into the cellular factories, while other viral proteins built nurseries for making new viruses? Nothing of the sort! In fact, the shocking thing about these findings is that, using their own methods, the virologists found that solutions claimed to contain SARS-CoV-2—as well as poisons, even in high amounts—were not infective to any of the three human tissue cultures they tested. In plain English, this means they proved, on their terms, that this “new coronavirus” is not infectious to human beings. It is infective only to Vero monkey kidney cells, and only when you add two potent drugs (gentamicin and amphotericin)—drugs known to be toxic to the kidneys—to the mix.

Interestingly, the authors don’t mention this important fact in their conclusions. Only virologists who read the whole paper will find out that if they want to grow the virus, they needn’t bother to use human cell lines. As you can read yourself, in all three human cell lines, no CPE (meaning no cell death, no infection) was observed. Only Vero monkey kidney cells were adversely affected—and remember, the material injected into the Vero cells contained kidney toxins. Basically, the study proved that the SARS-CoV-2 virus does not infect human tissue. Meanwhile, we have worldwide lockdowns predicated on the idea that something called “coronavirus” is highly infectious and causes disease.

___________

SMOKE AND MIRRORS

Another study sent to us comes with the fancy title, “A Novel Chimpanzee Adenovirus Vector with Low Human Seroprevalence: Improved Systems for Vector Derivation and Comparative Immunogenicity.”13 In the “Viruses and Cells” portion of the methods section, the researchers explain that they used “wild type chimpanzee adenovirus isolate Y25. . . originally obtained from William Hillis, John Hopkins University of Medicine [sic].” This virus was then “passaged in HEK293A cells (Invitrogen, Cat. R705-07) and purified by CsCl gradient ultracentrifugation.” Finally, “Viral DNA was phenol extracted for genomic sequencing and cloning.”

In other words, the researchers purchased some material (not properly isolated even though it is called an “isolate”), which they then “passaged” through human embryonic kidney cells (called HEK293A) and “purified” by CsCl gradient. This “purification” method separates DNA molecules (not viruses) after mixing them with cesium chloride (a heavy metal salt) and ethidium bromide (a mutagen that can affect DNA biological processes like DNA replication and transcription).14 This is the same smoke and mirrors we have seen before—not true separation and isolation but “surrogate” techniques that use various poisons.

Another study sent to us, a preprint published on June 23, 2020, is entitled, “SARS-CoV-2 Structure and Replication Characterized by in situ Cryo-electron Tomography” (cryo-ET).15 The authors begin with the creed of the faithful: “β-coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-1 and Middle Eastern Respiratory Virus (MERS-CoV) are highly contagious pathogens that can cause severe lower respiratory infections. At the end of 2019, SARS-CoV-2 emerged in the city of Wuhan, China, likely through zoonotic transmission via a bat reservoir and a still unidentified intermediate host that subsequently led to a pandemic, accumulating to date to over 8 million cases and close to 500,000 deaths worldwide.”

The article provides no references for the statement that the SARS virus is “highly contagious” but does contain a lot of fuzzy electron-microscope photographs of tissues and cells whose genetic material the authors determined using PCR tests—the equivalent of finding moats and turrets in a bunch of Lego pieces. The researchers did not isolate and purify the virus but instead used “monkey kidney derived VeroE6 cells” and “human pulmonary cell lines.” In other words, they used cell lines grown in starved and poisoned cultures.

Later in the paper, the authors state that they got different “morphologies” of the virus depending on which cell line they used. In other words, the virus looks one way when grown on monkey kidney cells, but the same virus looks different when grown on lung cancer cells. That is like saying that if you plant some seeds in one garden, you will get tomatoes, but if you plant them in another garden, you will get turnips. What this observation tells us is that what the researchers found comes from the tissue, not the source “virus”; that is why the “viruses” are different.

In their concluding remarks, the authors state, “Our report provides the first in situ cryo-ET analysis of coronaviruses at high preservation levels.” Wait a minute—this study was published on June 23, 2020. You mean they had no analyses of this virus before health officials called for universal lockdowns?

By the way, Stefano Scoglio, PhD, from Italy, has come to the same conclusions that we have. In a talk posted on social media entitled “THE INVENTED PANDEMIC, the lack of VIRUS ISOLATION and the INVALID COVID-19 test,” Scoglio says, “At the center of the pandemic project stands the Covid swab test, which is based on the RT-PCR (Reverse Transcriptase- Polymerase Chain Reaction): a sample of organic material is taken from the throat, or more rarely from the broncho-alveolar fluid, of the individual, and then the presence of the SARS-Cov-2 virus in the sample is tested. This is done by using the same RT-PCR methodology used to originally ‘isolate’ the virus from patient zero. Thus, the Covid test depends essentially on the original isolation, or lack thereof, of the SARS-Cov-2 virus, the original PCR isolation of the virus constituting the golden standard necessary to validate any subsequent Covid test. The problems with the original virus isolation, and thus with the ensuing swab test, are many, and they all point to the truth that the SARS-Cov-2 virus has never been isolated and never tested for its pathogenicity.”16

KOCH’S POSTULATES IRRELEVANT?

One argument we hear is that Koch’s postulates are irrelevant, out of date, useless or even “wrong.” If so, why do researchers claim to have satisfied Koch’s postulates, not only for Covid-19 but for other diseases like HIV/AIDS and Lyme disease?

In 1997, for example, scientists announced that human immuno- deficiency virus (HIV) fulfills Koch’s postulates and hence is the proven cause of AIDS.17 The study involved taking blood from an HIV-positive person and injecting it into one chimpanzee. The researchers did not purify or isolate anything but just injected the blood into one chimpanzee. They then kept the chimp for ten years (and who knows what they fed it or anything about its conditions of confinement?). After ten years, the chimp developed an “opportunistic infection” (which could even have been a yeast infection) and tested “HIV-positive” (a test result that can occur in at least thirty-three other medical conditions). As with so many of the studies we have looked at, this study had no controls—such as injecting a different chimp with blood from someone with cancer or from a healthy person. And this was the proof that HIV causes AIDS! This is not science (but it keeps the grant money flowing).

With Lyme disease, the “proof ” that Koch’s postulates were fulfilled comes from a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1983 that reported detection of spirochetes (a family of common spiral-shaped bacteria) in the blood of two Lyme patients.18 The researchers then examined some ticks in the neighborhood and found the same spirochete. That’s it—that was the “proof” of Koch’s postulates.

As we have explained, finding bacteria at the site of an injury or in a person with a disease in no way constitutes proof of causation, any more than finding firemen at the site of a fire means they caused the fire. Among other roles, bacteria act as scavengers in nature; they “eat” dead or diseased tissue. Maggots play the same role. If you see a dead dog crawling with maggots, it would be crazy to conclude that the maggots killed the dog, so why do scientists assume that the presence of “viruses” in a cell means that the cell has been attacked from the outside and taken over by hostile compounds?

If anyone can show us a properly done study in which the “coronavirus” from many sick people was isolated, purified, photographed and characterized—according to the consensus agreement of the 1973 Pasteur Institute guidelines—and then was shown to cause disease in healthy organisms (animals or humans), we will gladly withdraw the book. Meanwhile, we contend that the idea of a contagious coronavirus is a fairy tale.

SIDEBARS

KOCH’S POSTULATES AND RIVERS’ POSTULATES

In 1890, the German physician and bacteriologist Robert Koch set out criteria for determining whether a given bacterium is the cause of a given disease. Koch’s postulates are as follows:

1. The bacteria must be present in every case of the disease.

2. The bacteria must be isolated from the host with the disease and grown in pure culture.

3. The specific disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the bacteria is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host.

4. The bacteria must be recoverable from the experimentally infected host.

In reality, scientists have failed to fulfill all of the postulates for any disease. In fact, Koch had to abandon the first postulate when he discovered asymptomatic carriers of cholera and, later, of typhoid fever.

Koch’s postulates are for bacteria, not for viruses. In 1937, Thomas Rivers modified Koch’s postulates in order to determine the infectious nature of viruses. Rivers’ postulates are as follows:

1. The virus can be isolated from diseased hosts.

2. The virus can be cultivated in host cells.

3. Proof of filterability—the virus can be filtered from a medium that also contains bacteria.

4. The filtered virus can produce a comparable disease when the cultivated virus is used to infect experimental animals.

5. The virus can be re-isolated from the infected experimental animal.

6. A specific immune response to the virus can be detected.

As with bacteria, scientists have never proved Rivers’ postulates for any so-called viral disease.

For the rest of this article .........

https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/the-contagion-fairy-tale/?fbclid=IwAR0WLZCrpbhNnE9JGiwl4ynxh3h1kEvwCILka3nHe8yI3kVkt1g8FQK4Upw#.YEEqnq0N4bU.facebook

REFERENCES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel. For Emergency Use Only. Instructions for Use. Division of Viral Diseases. Effective: 07/13/2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download.

Fauxlex. Bombshell: WHO coronavirus PCR test primer sequence is found in all human DNA. Piece of Mindful, April 6, 2020. https://pieceofmindful.com/2020/04/06/bombshell-who-coronavirus-pcr-test-primer-sequence-is-found-in-all-human-dna/.

Corman VM, Landt O, Kaiser M et al. Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro Surveill. 2020;25(3):2000045.

Fouchier RAM, Kuiken T, Schutten M et al. Koch’s postulates fulfilled for SARS virus. Nature. 2003;423(6937):240.

Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner VF, Papadimitriou JM, Causer D. Isolated facts about HIV – a reply. n.d. http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/epreplyek.htm.

Park WB, Kwon N-J, Choi S-J et al. Virus isolation from the first patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea. J Korean Med Sci. 2020;35(7):e84.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preparation of viral transport medium. SOP#: DSR-052-05. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/Viral-Transport-Medium.pdf.

Giannessi F, Aiello A, Franchi F, Percario ZA, Affabris E. The role of extracellular vesicles as allies of HIV, HCV and SARS viruses. Viruses. 2020;12(5):571.

Zimmer C. The coronavirus unveiled. The New York Times. October 9, 2020.

Chan JFW, Zhang AJ, Yuan S et al. Simulation of the clinical and pathological manifestations of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in golden Syrian hamster model: implications for disease pathogenesis and transmissibility. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 26;ciaa325.

Bao L, Deng W, Huang B et al. The pathogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 in hACE2 transgenic mice. Nature. 2020;583(7818):830-833.

Harcourt J, Tamin A, Lu X et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 from patient with coronavirus disease, United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(6):1266-1273.

Dicks MDJ, Spencer AJ, Edwards NJ et al. A novel chimpanzee adenovirus vector with low human seroprevalence: improved systems for vector derivation and comparative immunogenicity. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e40385.

https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/CsCl_density-gradient_centrifugation.html.

Klein S, Cortese M, Winter SL et al. SARS-CoV-2 structure and replication characterized by in situ cryo-electron tomography. bioRxiv, June 23, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.23.167064.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/stefano-scoglio/the-invented-pandemic-the-lack-of-virus-isolation-and-the-invalid-covid-19-test/10219132803013133/.

Novembre FJ, Saucier M, Anderson DC et al. Development of AIDS in a chimpanzee infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1. J Virol. 1997;71(5):4086-4091.

Benach JL, Bosler EM, Hanrahan JP et al. Spirochetes isolated from the blood of two patients with Lyme disease. N Engl J Med. 1983;308(13):740-742.

Fenner F, Woodroofe GM. The pathogenesis of infectious myxomatosis: the mechanism of infection and the immunological response in the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Br J Exp Pathol. 1953;34(4):400-411.

“Myxomatosis.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myxomatosis.

“Myxomatosis.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/myxomatosis.

____________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

PCR Is non science or nonsense

A properly purified and isolated "virus" is ESSENTIAL to proving a "virus" exists. This has never been done with "Coronavirus" nor any other "virus" for that matter:

"Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health” Nature Medicine, March 2020

Replying Author: Malik Peiris

Date: May 12, 2020

Answer: “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. IT IS NOT PURIFIED VIRUS.”

Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020

Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han

Date: May 6, 2020

Answer: “We could not estimate the degree of purification because WE DO NOT PURIFY AND CONCENTRATE THE VIRUS CULTURED IN CELLS.”

Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020

Replying Author: Wan Beom Park

Date: March 19, 2020

Answer: “WE DID NOT OBTAIN AN ELECTRON MICROGRAPH SHOWING THE DEGREE OF PURIFICATION.”

Study 4: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020

Replying Author: Wenjie Tan

Date: March 18, 2020

Answer: “[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, NOT PURIFIED ONES.”

"Regarding the mentioned papers it is clear that what is shown in the electron micrographs (EMs) is the end result of the experiment, meaning there is no other result that they could have made EMs from.

That is to say, if the authors of these studies concede that their published EMs DO NOT SHOW PURIFIED PARTICLES, THEN THEY DEFINITELY DO NOT POSSESS PURIFIED PARTICLES CLAIMED TO BE VIRAL. (In this context, it has to be remarked that some researchers use the term “isolation” in their papers, but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation (purification) process. Consequently, in this context the term “isolation” is misused).

Thus, the authors of four of the principal, early 2020 papers claiming discovery of a new coronavirus CONCEDE THEY HAD NO PROOF THAT THE ORIGIN OF THE VIRUS GENOME WAS VIRAL-LIKE PARTICLES OR CELLULAR DEBRIS, PURE OR IMPURE, OR PARTICLES OF ANY KIND. In other words, the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.

We have also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a SEASONED VIROLOGIST. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea…to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:

[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction […] tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”[3]

And that’s why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows ONE SINGLE PAPER IN WHICH SARS-CoV-2 HAS BEEN ISOLATED AND FINALLY REALLY PURIFIED. His answer:

I KNOW OF NO SUCH A PUBLICATION. I have kept an eye out for one.”[4]

THIS ACTUALLY MEANS THAT ONE CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE RNA GENE SEQUENCES, which the scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for which the PCR tests are finally being “calibrated,” BELONG TO A SPECIFIC VIRUS — in this case SARS-CoV-2."

https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/?fbclid=IwAR35AgZuAsZ8A-c50Sj8Nnr1RNNf5GZW4PDGKqDsK6oJegPVGPbRLy0pIv8

Confirmed: Confirmed: PCR Tests CANNOT Detect SARS-CoV-2, Cause Of COVID19

The genetic sequences used in PCRs to detect suspected SARS-CoV-2 and to diagnose cases of illness and death attributed to Covid-19 are present in dozens of sequences of the human genome itself and in those of about a hundred microbes.

This includes the initiators or primers, the most extensive fragments taken at random from their supposed “genome” and even the so-called “target genes” allegedly specific to the “new coronavirus”.

The Test Is Worthless And All “Positive” Results Obtained So Far Should Be Scientifically Invalidated And Communicated To Those Affected; And If They Are Deceased, To Their Relatives.

Stephen Bustin, one of the world’s leading experts on PCR, in fact says that under certain conditions anyone can test positive!

We have been warning you since March: you cannot have specific tests for a virus without knowing the components of the virus you are trying to detect. And the components cannot be known without having previously isolated/purified that virus.

Since then we continue to accumulate evidence that no one has isolated SARS-CoV-2 and, more importantly, that it can never be isolated for the reasons we explained last month (read the report “Can you prove that there are pathogenic viruses?” on our website -www.dsalud.com-). And in the present report we are going to offer new data that show that RT-PCR does not detect the so called SARS-CoV-2 as it is known, but fragments of human RNA and those of numerous microbes.

We have already explained the numerous problems that RT-PCR poses, recognised by organisations or governments such as the WHO or the CDC and by prestigious international experts such as Dr. Stephen Bustin who considers both the arbitrariness of establishing criteria for results and the choice of the number of cycles to be nonsense because they can lead to anyone testing positive.

In this report we are going to add the results of a particular research we have done from the data published on the alleged SARS-CoV-2 and on the protocols endorsed by the WHO for the use of RT-PCR as well as the data corresponding to the rest of the “human coronaviruses”.

The conclusions are extremely serious:

None of the seven “human coronaviruses” have actually been isolated.

Moreover, all the sequences of the primers of their respective PCRs as well as those of a large number of fragments of their supposed genomes are found in different areas of the human genome and in genomes of bacteria and archaea.

These include, but not limited to:

Shwanella marina JCM, Dialister succinatiphilus, Lactobacillus porcine, Lactobacillus manihotivorans, Leptospira sarikeiensis, Bizionia echini, Sanguibacteroides justesenil, Bacteroides massiliensis, Lacinutrix venerupis, Moraxella bovis, Leptospira saintgironsiae, Winogradskyella undariae, Acetobacterium puteale, Chryseobacterium hispanicum, Paenibacillius koleovorans, Tamiana fuccidanivorans, Fontibacillua panacisegetis, Ru bacter ruber , Skemania piniformis, Chryseobacterium shigense, Caloramator peoteoclasticus, Cellulosilyticum ruminicola, Nitrosopumilius evryensis and a long list of others.

We are going to explain step by step the research that has led us to such an unusual conclusion.

HAVE ANY HUMAN CORONAVIRUSES BEEN ISOLATED?

During the first half of April, when the first research we conducted indicated that SARS-CoV-2 had not been isolated and since those who claimed to have done so were relying on “isolates” of previous “human coronaviruses”, we began to do a thorough review of those claimed isolates.

Specifically, we reviewed the alleged isolation work of suspected human coronaviruses 229E (said to have been isolated in 1965), OC43 (in 1967), SARS-CoV (in 2003), NL63 (in 2004), HKU1 (in 2005) and MERSCoV (in 2012). And these have been the results:

Coronavirus 229E

Reference article: Dorothy Hamre and John Procknow. A new virus isolated from the human respiratory Tract. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 121: 1: 190-193. January 1, 1966.

Since the authors refer to other articles to explain the method of isolation – which they call Complement Fixation – we consulted a reference article for that method: that of Janet W. Hartley et al. Complement Fixation and tissue culture assay for mouse leukaemia viruses PNAS, 53(5): 931-938, May 1965.

This is a procedure already in disuse that uses the antigen-antibody reaction to detect either one or the other. In the case we are dealing with, the aim was to detect the antigens of the supposed new virus but, as we have already explained, specific antibodies are needed which cannot be obtained the first time a virus is detected.

Coronavirus OC43

Reference article: Paul Lee. Molecular epidemiology of human coronavirus OC43 in Hong Kong. Thesis for the Department of Microbiology, University of Hong Kong, August 2007. The HKU Scholars Hub.

What was considered to be viral RNA was extracted from cultures without any proof that the RNA belongs to a virus. The tool used – a QIAamp kit – removes reagents, inhibitors and contaminants but what it cannot do is determine where the extracted RNA comes from. And there are no controls.

It is then amplified by PCR and sequenced assuming (!) that it is genetic information of a virus. Finally, the author speculates about mutations, recombinations, genotypes, molecular evolution, strains and other jargon that conveys the idea -unproven- that a “virus” is being worked with.

SARS-CoV Coronavirus

Reference article: J. S. M. Peiris and others. Coronavirus as a possible cause of SARS. Lancet 361: 1319-25, April 2003.

There is no mention of purification in the article. There is not even any mention of filtration or centrifugation. It is only stated that “the viruses were isolated in fetal monkey liver cells from nasopharyngeal aspirates and lung biopsies of two patients“. There are no controls. The only mention is of a “cytopathic effect” that is attributed to a virus and that PCR was done for known viruses and retroviruses without obtaining results. Finally, RT-PCR was done with “random initiators” and a sequence “of unknown origin” is detected to which “a weak homology with the coronaviridiae family” is found. Then they designed primers for that sequence and when testing 44 samples from SARS patients only 22 were positive.

Coronavirus NL63

Reference article: Lia van der Hock and others. Identification of a new human coronavirus. Nature Medicine, 10, 4 April 2004.

The authors state that “the identification of unknown pathogens using molecular biology tools is difficult because the target sequence is not known so that PCR-specific initiators cannot be designed“. What they used is a tool they developed themselves called VIDISCA which, they claim, does not require prior knowledge of the sequence!

Is that possible?

Let’s see how it works: first the culture is prepared and it is assumed that a virus is present due to the evidence of “cytopathic effect”. The novelty introduced by this method is that “restriction enzymes” are added, enzymes that cut the nucleic acid molecules at certain locations and always by the same length.

In this way, if after the action of these enzymes they observe many fragments of DNA or RNA that are the same or very similar, they deduce that it comes from a virus, since the host genome would present random cuts, while the virus genome presents a large number of copies that are the same due to the replication of the virus.

And is such a deduction correct? Of course not!

This assumption (which adds to the previous assumption that there is a virus) does not take into account that there are “virus-like particles”, “retrovirus-like particles”, “endogenous retroviruses”, “exosomes”, “extracellular” particles and even mitochondrial DNA.

In denial, there are a multitude of particles that possess the same reproductive characteristics in large quantities as “viruses” and therefore can falsify results by producing large numbers of identical copies when cut by enzymes as recognised in an article on the VIDISCA technique entitled Enhanced bioinformatic proSling of VIDISCA libraries for virus detection and Discovery. It was published in volume 263 of Virus Research on April 2, 2019, and its authors-Cormac M. Kinsella et al.-recognise that “no redundancy is expected in the VIDISCA insert from the host background nucleic acid except in the case of ‘virus-like’ characteristics, i.e., high copy numbers as in mitochondrial DNA.”

Coronavirus HKU1

Reference article: Patrick C. Y. Woo and others. Characterisation and Complete Genome Sequence of a Novel Coronavirus, Coronavirus HKU1, from Patients with Pneumonia. Journal of Virology, 79, 2, January 2005.

The article, incredibly, begins with these words: “Despite extensive research in patients with respiratory tract infections, no microbiological cause has been identified in a significant proportion of patients. RNA is extracted from non-purified cultures.” And a PCR with coronavirus genes is used. For the sequencing they use two protein databases organised in families, domains and functional sites -PFAM and INterProScan- combined with two computer programs that carry out “predictions” on how nucleotides should be combined. The text adds: “The sequences were manually assembled and edited to produce a final sequence of the viral genome“.

And Once Again There Are No Controls.

MERS-CoV Coronavirus

Reference article: Ali Moh Zaki and others. Isolation of a Novel Coronavirus from a Man with Pneumonia in Saudi Arabia. The New England Journal of Medicine, 367:19, November 2012.

The genetic material is extracted directly from the culture supernatant and sputum sample with a tool called High Puré Viral Nucleic Acid Kit and then tested with different PCRs for various known microorganisms. There is no mention of purification and there are no controls. In short, what had been done with the first coronaviruses -and with many other supposed viruses- is to cultivate supposedly infected tissues – any “cytopathic effect” was attributed to the presence of a virus only – and then either some proteins are obtained which without any test are considered “virus antigens” and when these “antigens” are detected in cultures it is interpreted as “isolation”, or fragments of nucleic acids are extracted assuming that they belong to a virus.

We already explained in the article published in the previous issue of the magazine that according to Dr. Stefan Lanka the so-called “cytopathic effect” is actually an effect caused by the conditions (poisoning & starvation) of the culture itself. This is recognised for example in the article Antibiotic-induced release of small extracellular vesicles (exosomes) with surface-associated DNA. published on August 15, 2017 on the website of Nature and signed by Andrea Németh and others (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5557920/pdf/41598_2017_Article_8392.pdf)

It explains that certain substances -such as antibiotics- added to in vitro experiments can stress the cell cultures so that they generate new sequences that had not been previously detected. This had already been noticed by none other than Dr. Barbara McClintock in 1983 during her Nobel Prize lecture, as can be seen at https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/mcclintocklecture.pdf

In essence, NOT ONE OF THE SEVEN SUPPOSED HUMAN CORONAVIRUS HAS REALLY BEEN ISOLATED. The only thing that has been different between them are the laboratory procedures and techniques that were becoming progressively more sophisticated which, in this case, has implied not a greater accuracy but a greater capacity for deception and self-deception that has culminated in the virtual manufacture of the SARS-CoV-2.

And the obvious consequence of the lack of evidence of its isolation is that such “coronaviruses” cannot be held responsible for any disease. Moreover, all tests – of whatever kind – based on the presumed components of these “viruses” (nucleic acids or proteins) are completely disqualified as “infection tests” and even more as “diagnostics” of diseases.

MORE UNANSWERED REQUESTS

In the previous issue we already collected the answers given by the authors of several articles that supposedly described the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in which they acknowledged that they had not “purified” which implicitly means acknowledging that the virus was not isolated. And now we are going to add one more piece of evidence: the responses given by different authorities – political and health – from various countries about the purification and isolation of SARS-CoV-2.

James McCumiskey -author of the book The Latest Conspiracy: The Biomedical Paradigm– tells us that the National Virus Reference Laboratory of Ireland requested information about it from the University of Dublin and the latter responded that “it has no records that could provide an answer to their request“.

The director of legal services of the laboratory insisted on his request to the university and the university responded as follows: “The position of the university is that material of academic debate cannot be subject to the Freedom of Information Act“. It follows from the NVR’s request that they have not cultivated SARS-CoV-2 or purified it. They only acknowledge having “detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA in diagnostic samples.”

On June 22, a group of experts sent a consultation in similar terms to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. The letter was signed by Dr. Kevin Corbett, Piers Corbyn – professor at Imperial College London -, the engineer and independent researcher – who we interviewed in the journal at the time – David Crowe, Dr. Andrew Kaufman, the Edinburgh professor of biology Roger Watson and the biologist and chemist David Rasnick – and to this day they still have not received a reply!

Another similar request – in this case to the National Research Council of Canada – received the following response: “We have not been able to carry out a complete search of the NRC’s records so we regret to inform you that no records have been identified that respond to your request.”

We will add that two journalists have been sending similar requests – under the Freedom of Information Act – to various institutions in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States, and as of September 5, twelve institutions have responded, all indicating the same thing: that they have no record of work describing the isolation of the virus that is supposed to cause Covid-19. The details and the answers can be seen at https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/u-k-dept-of-health-and-social-care-has-no-record-ofcovid-19-virus-isolation/

___ LOOKING FOR THE ORIGIN OF THE FALSE GENOME

The question we asked ourselves then was: if the sequences that have been published do not belong – as claimed- to new viruses, where do they come from? And to try to answer that question we decided to carry out a search with a computer program called Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST), a sequence alignment search tool that allows us to compare a given sequence with all the sequences stored in the National Institutes of Health of the United States (it is public and can be consulted at https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi. We explain step by step what we did so that our readers can repeat the search for themselves and check the results.

First we collected all the initiators of the PCRs described in the protocols hosted on the WHO website at the time which were these:

China CDC protocol: uses ORF1ab and N genes as target.

Protocol of the Pasteur Institute (France): uses two fragments of the RdRP (which is supposed to be SARS.CoV-2 specific).

United States CDC protocol: uses three fragments of the N gene.

Protocol of the National Institute of Infectious Diseases of Japan: it is the only one that has as target the S gene together with other genes supposedly shared with other coronaviruses.

Charite Protocol (Germany): uses the E, N and RdRP genes. – Hong Kong University Protocol: uses ORF1b-nsp14 and N gene.

National Institute of Health Thailand protocol: uses the N gene.

We then introduced the sequence of the primers – the one that indicates the beginning of the sequence to be detected (forward) and the one that indicates the final (reverse) – into the BLAST so that it could search for them in two databases: a collection of microbe genomes and the one corresponding to the human genome.

THE SEQUENCES OF THE SO-CALLED SARS-COV-2 ARE FOUND BOTH IN HUMANS AND IN NUMEROUS MICROBES!

Let’s see in detail the procedure taking as an example the initiators of the French protocol. Once on the BLAST website, we chose Microbes to search the microbial genome databases and moved to the next page. Then a form appeared in which we entered the sequence of the forward initiator of the French protocol -that is ATGAGCTTAGTCCTGTG-, we selected the option Highly similar sequences and pressed the BLAST key. Just a few seconds later the results appeared -we took a screenshot (image 1)- and we were shown 100 sequences of microbes -particularly bacteria and archaea- with a coincidence of between 77% and 100% with an identity percentage of 100%.

We then returned to the homepage and that second time we chose Human to search the human genome, we repeated the same operation and after a few seconds the result appeared which we screen captured again (image 2). And it turns out that the sequence entered coincides with 74 sequences of the human genome, with a coincidence of between 66% and 100% and a percentage of identity of 100%.

And that indicates that the sequence of that initial PCR primer that is supposed to be specific to SARS-CoV-2 actually corresponds to 74 fragments of the human genome and a hundred microbial fragments as well!

We then decided to repeat the operation but with the final or reverse primer – which is CTCCCTTTGTGTGTGT – and the results were similar.

Since these were very short sequences -about twenty genetic letters or nucleotides- we decided to try again but with the target sequence defined by these two primers, i.e. the sequence of the supposed SARS-CoV-2 genome that is between the initial primer and the final primer. Obviously, for this we needed the sequence that is officially claimed to be the “SARS-CoV-2 genome” and although thousands of laboratories claim to have isolated and sequenced it -a false claim as we have explained in previous reports- we decided to go to the National Centre for Biotechnology Information website: Once there, we located the “target sequence”, a fragment of 108 nucleotides located between positions 12,690 and 12,797 of the “genome”, which is this one:

ATGAGCTTAGTCCTGTTGCACTACGACAGATGTTGTGCCGGTACACAAACTGCTTGCACTGAT GACAATGCGTTAGCTTACAACAACAAAGGGAG.

With this we repeated the steps previously described and the results were again surprising since there appeared again a hundred microbe sequences with a percentage of a match of 100% and four sequences of the human genome with an identity percentage between 83% and 95%. The matches were therefore lower but the important thing is that we continue to find fragments of the supposed “target sequence” of SARS-CoV-2 both in microbes and in our own genome.

Truly astonished we took a further step and tested with the gene considered at that time as the most specific of SARS-CoV-2, the E gene that is supposed to generate the envelope proteins and is located between positions 26,245 and 26,472: ATGTACTCATTCGTTTCGGAAGAGACAGGTACTACGTTAATAGTTAATAGCGTACTTCTCTTGCTTTCGTGGTATTCTTGCTAGTTACACTAGCCATCCTGCTTCGATTGTGCGTACTGCTGCAATATTGTTAACGTGAGTCTTGTAAAACCTTTACGTTTACTCGTGTTAAAATCTGAATTCTTCTAGAGTTCG ATTCTGGTCTAA.

We repeated with it the steps already described and the result was even more surprising because despite its length another hundred microbe sequences appeared with a percentage of identity of 100% and 10 sequences of the human genome with a percentage of identity between 80% and 100%. And similar results were obtained with a fragment chosen at random and with the N gene which they say corresponds to the proteins of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid.

We finally decided to test with the S gene which is said to generate the structural “spike” proteins that are key to entry into the cell and was subsequently considered to be the most specific SARSCoV-2 gene. Since it is a gene whose sequence is much longer – 3821 nucleotides between positions 21,563 and 25,384 – we tested with two fragments chosen at random within that gene and the first – TTGGCAAAATTCAAGACTCACTTTC – resulted in another hundred microbe sequences and 93 sequences of the human genome and the second – CTTGCTGCTACTAAATGCAGAGTGT – a hundred microbial sequences and 90 of the human genome.

Finally we decided to test with the initiators of the Japan Protocol, the only one that includes target sequences of the S gene and, the reader will have already guessed, the results were once again similar: a hundred microbe sequences and 93 sequences of the human genome with an identity percentage between 94.12% and 100%!

CONCLUSIONS

The consequence of all that we have just explained is clear and immediate: THERE IS NO VALID TEST TO DETECT SARS-COV-2, neither antibody or antigen tests nor RT-PCR. And we included those based on the supposed gene that codes for the S1 or spike protein. And that means that ALL THE NUMBERS OF “CASES”, “INFECTED”, “SICK”, “Asymptomatic” OR “DEAD DUE TO COVID-19” LACK A SCIENTIFIC BASE AND ALL “POSITIVES” ARE FALSE POSITIVES, something that should be communicated immediately to those affected and those responsible should be held accountable.

We end by adding that even the WHO itself does not really believe in these tests. Just read the document published last September 11 as a laboratory guide for SARS-CoV-2 entitled Diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 – it is available at https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1302661/ retrieve – and it literally says on page 5: “Whenever possible, suspected active infection should be tested with a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) such as RT-PCR. NAAT tests should target the SARS-CoV-2 genome but since there is no known global circulation of SARS-CoV-1 a Sarbecovirus sequence (presumed to include at least five human and animal coronaviruses including SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-Cov-2) is also a reasonable target“. That is, WHO agrees to use non-specific sequences to detect SARS-CoV-2.

That is not all because the manual later states, “An optimal diagnosis consists of a NAAT test with at least two genome-independent targets of the SARS-CoV-2; however, in areas where transmission is widespread, a simple single-target algorithm can be used.”

The WHO manual states, “One or more negative results do not necessarily rule out SARSCoV-2 infection. There are a number of factors that can produce a negative result in an infected individual including poor quality of the sample, late collection of the sample, inadequate handling, or technical reasons inherent in the test, such as mutation of the virus or inhibition of PCR.” What are the judges waiting for to act on their own initiative?

What are the judges waiting for to act on their own initiative?

https://principia-scientific.com/confirmed-pcr-tests-cannot-detect-sars-cov-2-cause-of-covid19/?fbclid=IwAR1UNcFyVfDDk78B1ZxCqQmMVjhWYuYryrEeiu-UPjzIfgwO8zdx6_gro54

THE DETAILS OF PCR -

20 UNDENIABLE FACTS ABOUT PCR TESTS:

1. No PCR test has been validated against the gold standard of a purified/isolated "SARS-COV-2."

"RT-PCR assays in the UK have analytical sensitivity and specificity of greater than 95%, BUT NO SINGLE GOLD STANDARD ASSAY EXISTS. 1"

Diverging for a moment to look at the citation:

"No test gives a 100% accurate result; TESTS NEED TO BE EVALUATED TO DETERMINE THEIR SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY, IDEALLY BY COMPARISON WITH A “GOLD STANDARD.” The LACK OF SUCH A CLEAR-CUT “GOLD-STANDARD” FOR COVID-19 TESTING MAKES EVALUATION OF TEST ACCURACY CHALLENGING."

https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1808

Why is the lack of a GOLD STANDARD important?

"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."

https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/?fbclid=IwAR0as3y7SamcFxeCVHCqq7KKI99O7xO_6ovIBtl5OZGWPQpcSmZTp4qPQ3A

2. No "SARS-COV-2" isolate was used in the creation of the CDC and Drosten tests, the two most widely used around the world.

This is from the FDA emergency use authorization of the CDC's PCR test used in the USA:

suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) TO MIMIC CLINICAL SPECIMEN."

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

From the Drosten PCR Test used around the world:

"The ongoing outbreak of the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) poses a challenge for public health laboratories AS VIRUS ISOLATES ARE UNAVAILABLE"

"We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings WITHOUT HAVING VIRUS MATERIAL AVAILABLE."

"Here we present a validated diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV, ITS DESIGN RELYING ON CLOSE GENETIC RELATEDNESS of 2019-nCoV with SARS coronavirus, MAKING USE OF SYNTHETIC NUCLEIC ACIDS TECHNOLOGY."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/

3. Both the CDC and Drosten PCR tests determined WATER was positive for "SARS-COV-2."

"The E Charité and N2 US CDC assays WERE POSITIVE FOR ALL SPECIMENS, INCLUDING NEGATIVE SAMPLES AND NEGATIVE CONTROLS (WATER). These FALSE-POSITIVE RESULTS were explored (details below), but the sensitivity of these assays was not further assessed."

"It is worth noting that the CHARITÉ ASSAY WAS THE FIRST TO BE PUBLISHED at the early stage of the pandemic [9] AND HAS BEEN WIDELY USED WORLDWIDE [8]."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7355678/

4. Detection of "viral" RNA does not mean infectious "virus" is present nor that what is detected is the cause of symptoms.

From the CDC PCR Test:

"DETECTION OF VIRAL RNA MAY NOT INDICATE THE PRESENCE OF INFECTIOUS VIRUS OR THAT 2019-nCoV IS THE CAUSATIVE AGENT for clinical symptoms.

• The PERFORMANCE OF THIS TEST HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV

infection.

• The performance of this test has not been established for screening of blood or blood products for the presence of 2019-nCoV.

• THIS TEST CANNOT RULE OUT DISEASES CAUSED BY OTHER BACTERIAL OR VIRAL PATHOGENS."

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

5. None of the PCR tests are FDA-approved and are only out on EUA which forgoes many quality controls:

"The FDA granted the first Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for a SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR diagnostic test on February 4, 2020. Consequently, hundreds of tests for SARS-CoV-2, among them rRT-PCRs, other types of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), and automated and/or multiplex methods based on proprietary platforms, obtained FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). As of August 4th, 2020, the FDA has granted EUAs to 203 diagnostic tests, including 166 molecular tests, 35 antibody assays, and 2 antigen tests. Although the FDA began requiring the submission of validation methods and results as part of EUA application for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests, THESE TESTS WERE NOT INITIALLY REQUIRED TO UNDERGO THE RIGOROUS ASSESSMENT THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE PART OF THE FDA APPROVAL PROCESS."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7457918/

"So the agency uses an ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION PROCESS THAT’S DESIGNED TO VET THINGS MORE QUICKLY THAN THE USUAL FDA APPROVAL REGIMEN. If a drug or vaccine passes muster, it’s granted an emergency use authorization, or EUA."

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157902827668576&id=502548575

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157858063398576&id=502548575

6. The Cycle Threshold (Ct) Values used to determine one "infected" or not are completely arbitrary (i.e. RANDOM).

This is a huge problem as explained by PCR expert Professor Stephen Bustin:

"Professor Bustin STATED THAT CYCLING MORE THAN 35 TIMES WAS UNWISE, BUT IT APPEARS THAT NOBODY IS LIMITING CYCLES TO 35 OR LESS (the MIQE guidelines recommend less than 40). CYCLING TOO MUCH COULD RESULT IN FALSE POSITIVES as background fluorescence builds up in the PCR reaction."

"Bustin, in the podcast, DESCRIBED RELIANCE ON AN ARBITRARY Ct NUMBER AS “ABSOLUTE NONSENSE, IT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER”. It certainly cannot be assumed that the same Ct number on tests done at different laboratories indicates the same original quantity of RNA."

https://theinfectiousmyth.com/coronavirus/RT-PCR_Test_Issues.php?fbclid=IwAR1T3O2ZoDhF2rscnuECz2hcODJv512CKbPL6F6eNJOzW6zjRhmBy7-Jlwk

7. According to the CDC, Ct Values related to "infectiousness" are UNKNOWN.

"The exact RT-PCR Ct VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESENCE OF INFECTIOUS SARS-CoV-2 IS UNKNOWN"

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-1595_article#r23

8. The CDC states Ct Values can not be used to determine if one is not "infectious."

According to the CDC:

"Q. Can cycle threshold (Ct) values be used to access when a person is no longer infectious?

A. No. Although attempts to culture virus from upper respiratory specimens have been largely unsuccessful when Ct values are in high but detectable ranges, Ct VALUES ARE NOT A QUANTITATIVE MEASURE OF VIRAL BURDEN. In addition, Ct VALUES ARE NOT STANDARDIZED BY RT-PCR PLATFORM NOR HAVE THEY BEEN APPROVED BY FDA FOR USE IN CLINICAL MANAGEMENT. CDC DOES NOT ENDORSE OR RECOMMEND USE OF Ct VALUES TO ASSESS WHEN A PERSON IS NO LONGER INFECTIOUS."

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/faq.html

9. Fauci has stated any Ct Value over 35 is just "dead nucleotides."

"Dr. Anthony Fauci had the following to say on Jul 16, 2020,

“…What is now sort of evolving into a bit of a standard that if you get [perform the PCR test at] a CYCLE THRESHOLD OF 35 OR MORE…the chances of it being replication-competent [aka accurate] are minuscule… YOU ALMOST NEVER CAN CULTURE VIRUS [DETECT A TRUE POSITIVE RESULT] FROM A 37 THRESHOLD CYCLE… EVEN 36… IT'S JUST DEAD NUCLEOTIDES, PERIOD.” Dr. Anthony Fauci

https://theplatform.ie/covid-19-positive-or-just-dead.../

10. Most PCR tests are run at 40 or more cycles.

"In a list of test kits approved by the US FDA one manufacturer each recommended 30 cycles, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39. 40 CYCLES WAS MOST POPULAR, CHOSEN BY 12 MANUFACTURERS, AND ONE EACH RECOMMENDED 43 AND 45."

"Bustin’s advice in my interview with him WAS THAT NOT MORE THAN 35 CYCLES BE USED. With either 35 or less than 40, the majority of COVID-19 RT-PCR tests approved by the FDA may be pushing RT-PCR to its limits or beyond."

http://theinfectiousmyth.com/coronavirus/FDATestSummary.pdf

"ONE SOLUTION WOULD BE TO ADJUST THE CYCLE THRESHOLD USED TO DECIDE THAT A PATIENT IS INFECTED. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the 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, Dr. Mina said."

"ANY TEST WITH A CYCLE THRESHOLD ABOVE 35 IS TOO SENSITIVE, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’M SHOCKED THAT PEOPLE WOULD THINK THAT 40 COULD REPRESENT A POSITIVE,” she said.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157664130973576&id=502548575

11. The Infectious Disease Society of America and the Association for Molecular Pathology released a joint statement about the PCR Test Ct Values warning healthcare providers not to rely on them.

"Although there is a relative relationship between Ct values and the amount of virus in a clinical specimen, Ct VALUES GENERATED BY QUALITATIVE PCR TESTS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED QUANTITATIVE MEASURES OF VIRAL LOAD. DUE TO THE MYRIAD OF ANALYTICAL AND CLINICAL FACTORS KNOWN TO IMPACT Ct VALUES, CAUTION IS ADVISED WHEN APPLYING PUBLISHED CORRELATIONS OF Ct VALUES WITH DISEASE SEVERITY OR AS A PREDICTOR OF ACTIVE INFECTION AND HENCE TRANSMISSIBILITY. AT THE CURRENT TIME, ROUTINE USE OF Ct VALUES TO INFORM CLINICAL DECISION MAKING IS NOT ADVISED. Development of a quantitative SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR assay may overcome some of the limitations outlined above. The development of such tests may eventually occur if clinical utility for measurement of SARS-CoV-2 viral load is shown."

https://www.idsociety.org/globalassets/idsa/public-health/covid-19/idsa-amp-statement.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2iMWZcjLjxSpWw-ASm9Hp5GfkOYs7fM_WWphWcWJ5sf5WECLaCkSlrPs8

"In a blog post on Wednesday, the ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY CAUTIONED HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS AGAINST BASING CLINICAL DECISIONS ON CYCLE THRESHOLD VALUES FROM PCR TESTS."

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158336870193576&id=502548575

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158252721953576&id=502548575

12. PCR tests are NOT STANDARDIZED across the world and what Ct Value equals positivity is determined by the manufacturers of the test.

"The Food and Drug Administration said in an emailed statement that IT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CYCLE THRESHOLD RANGES USED TO DETERMINE WHO IS POSITIVE, AND THAT “COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURERS AND LABORATORIES SET THEIR OWN.”

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it is examining the use of cycle threshold measures “for policy decisions.” The agency said it would need to collaborate with the F.D.A. and with device manufacturers to ensure the measures “CAN BE USED PROPERLY AND WITH ASSURANCE THAT WE KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html

"Accuracy — The ACCURACY and PREDICTIVE VALUES of SARS-CoV-2 NAATs HAVE NOT BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY EVALUATED."

"However, the CLINICAL APPLICATION OF THE Ct IS UNCERTAIN. Ct values ARE NOT STANDARDIZED across RT-PCR platforms, SO RESULTS CANNOT BE COMPARED ACROSS DIFFERENT TESTS. Furthermore, NO CLINICAL STUDIES HAVE VALIDATED USE OF Ct TO GUIDE MANAGEMENT."

https://www.uptodate.com/contents/covid-19-diagnosis

"Who determines the Ct cutoff?

 THE Ct CUTOFF IS DETERMINED BY THE MANUFACTURER OF THE TEST, not the state or laboratory performing the test. THE CUTOFFS ARE REVIEWED DURING THE SUBMISSION PROCESS FOR THE FDA’s EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA). Once a test receives the EUA, the Ct cutoffs are set and cannot be changed by laboratories.

 NOT ALL TEST MANUFACTURERS USE THE SAME Ct CUTOFFS, EACH TEST DIFFERS BASED ON HOW IT IS DESIGNED AND WHAT PART OF THE SARS-CoV-2 GENETIC MATERIAL IT TARGETS FOR DETECTION. Test manufacturers establish the cutoffs based on evaluation of their test with known positive and negative samples."

"Why isn’t the Ct value reported on SARS-CoV-2 tests?

 The FDA EUA LIMITS MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTIC TESTS TO REPORT QUALITATIVE (positive/negative) of SARS-CoV-2 results and NOT QUANTITATIVE (Ct value) RESULTS.

 Ct values and cutoffs DIFFER BY TEST AND THUS CANNOT BE COMPARED from one test to another. A specimen with a Ct=36 MAY BE CONSIDERED POSITIVE BY ONE TEST BUT PRODUCE A DIFFERENT Ct VALUE AND BE CONSIDERED NEGATIVE OR INDETERMINATE ON ANOTHER."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/health/documents/cedep/novel-coronavirus/Ct_Fact_Sheet.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwit5s2Atv3sAhUEbc0KHQ17DVoQFjAEegQIEBAB&usg=AOvVaw3hSpITU-2g0GNa4HcZGcR7

13. PCR tests are prone to CONTAMINATION which leads to FALSE-POSITIVE results.

This is the CDC's guidelines on FALSE-POSITIVE PCR test results for the original SARS:

"THE MOST COMMON CAUSE OF FALSE-POSITIVE RESULTS IS CONTAMINATION WITH PREVIOUSLY AMPLIFIED DNA. The use of real-time RT-PCR helps mitigate this problem by operating as a contained system. A MORE DIFFICULT PROBLEM IS THE CROSS-CONTAMINATION THAT CAN OCCUR BETWEEN SPECIMENS DURING COLLECTION, SHIPPING, AND ALIQUOTING IN THE LABORATORY. Liberal use of negative control samples in each assay and a well-designed plan for confirmatory testing can help ensure that laboratory contamination is detected and that specimens are not inappropriately labeled as SARS-CoV positive.

IN THE ABSENCE OF SARS-CoV TRANSMISSION WORLDWIDE, THE PROBABILITY THAT A POSITIVE TEST RESULT WILL BE A “FALSE POSITIVE” IS HIGH. To decrease the possibility of a false-positive result, TESTING SHOULD BE LIMITED TO PATIENTS WITH A HIGH INDEX OF SUSPICION FOR HAVING SARS-CoV DISEASE."

"In addition, ANY POSITIVE SPECIMEN SHOULD BE RETESTED in a reference laboratory TO CONFIRM THAT THE SPECIMEN IS POSITIVE. To be confident that a positive PCR specimen indicates that the patient is infected with SARS-CoV, A SECOND SPECIMEN SHOULD ALSO BE CONFIRMED POSITIVE. Finally, ALL LABORATORY RESULTS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CLINICAL AND EPIDEMIOLOGIC INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THE PATIENT."

https://www.cdc.gov/sars/guidance/f-lab/assays.html

"THE MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION IS FROM THE REPEATED AMPLIFICATION OF THE SAME TARGET SEQUENCE, which leads to accumulation of amplification products in the laboratory environment. EVEN MINUTE AMOUNT OF CARRYOVER CAN LEAD TO FALSE-POSITIVE RESULTS. A typical PCR generates theoretically as many as 108 copies of target sequence [11]. If uncontrolled, amplification products will contaminate laboratory reagents, equipment, and ventilation systems. CARRYOVER OF PREVIOUSLY ACCUMULATED AMPLIFIED DNA IS CONSIDERED THE MAJOR SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION."

https://www.intechopen.com/.../regulatory-concern-of...

"Although PCR is a valuable technique, it does have limitations. Because PCR is a highly sensitive technique, ANY FORM OF CONTAMINATION OF THE SAMPLE BY EVEN TRACE AMOUNTS OF DNA CAN PRODUCE MISLEADING RESULTS (Bolognia et al, 2008; Smith & Osborn, 2009). In addition, in order to design primers for PCR, SOME PRIOR SEQUENCE DATA IS NEEDED. Therefore, PCR can only be used to identify the presence or absence of a known pathogen or gene. Another limitation is that the PRIMERS USED FOR PCR CAN ANNEAL NON-SPECIFICALLY TO SEQUENCES THAT ARE SIMILAR, BUT NOT COMPLETELY IDENTICAL TO TARGET DNA. In addition, INCORRECT NUCLEOTIDES CAN BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PCR SEQUENCE BY THE DNA POLYMERASE, albeit at a very low rate."

"LIMITATIONS

1. The DNA polymerase used in the PCR reaction is PRONE TO ERRORS and can lead to mutations in the fragment that is generated

2. The specificity of the generated PCR product MAY BE ALTERED BY NONSPECIFIC BINDING OF THE PRIMERS TO OTHER SIMILAR SEQUENCES on the template DNA

3. In order to design primers to generate a PCR product, SOME PRIOR SEQUENCE INFORMATION IS USUALLY NECESSARY."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4102308/

14. PCR accuracy depends upon disease prevalence which can only be determined by clinical diagnosis. Diagnosis of "Covid-19" by clinical symptoms alone is impossible.

"WHO reminds IVD users that DISEASE PREVALENCE ALTERS THE PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TEST RESULTS; AS DISEASE PREVALENCE DECREASES, THE RISK OF FALSE POSITIVES INCREASES (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CLAIMED SPECIFICITY."

https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05?fbclid=IwAR2WOpEmzwUhgSS-pWt8idxj0eJPheUXqKYWenc4qfj7s9PDUSYdfT-LleY

How Disease Prevalence is calculated:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157971669038576&id=502548575

15. "Viral" load estimates are useless and meaningless.

"Viral load information is in the PCR tests done to confirm SARS-CoV-2 infection BUT THE TESTS AREN'T APPROVED BY THE FDA FOR THAT QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION, Satlin says."

https://www.axios.com/viral-load-dose-coronavirus-246b334d-5420-488d-a1b1-ec9a39c55f58.html

"QUALITATIVE REAL-TIME PCR TESTS, HOWEVER, ARE NOT DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A QUANTITATIVE OR SEMI-QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENT OF NUCLEIC ACID IN A SAMPLE. THIS IS BECAUSE QUALITATIVE TEST Ct VALUES ARE NOT NORMALIZED TO STANDARDIZED CONTROLS OF KNOWN CONCENTRATION. Qualitative assays are also not optimized to have a linear relationship between the Ct value and the concertation of target nucleic acid in the specimen, WHICH MAY DISPROPORTIONALLY IMPACT THE RELIABILITY OF Ct VALUES OBTAINED FROM SAMPLES CONTAINING EITHER HIGH OR LOW VIRAL LOADS. Truly quantitative viral load tests are typically performed using blood specimens. Phlebotomy is an easily standardized and reproducible procedure. In contrast, RESPIRATORY SPECIMEN TYPES ARE LESS AMENABLE TO QUANTITATIVE PCR TESTING DUE TO THE VARIABILITY INHERENT TO COLLECTION PROCESS AS WELL AS DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH TESTING COMPLEX SAMPLE TYPES LIKE SALIVA OR SPUTUM."

https://www.idsociety.org/.../covi.../idsa-amp-statement.pdf

"LITTLE EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO TRACK VIRAL LOADS IN COVID-19 PATIENTS. This month, however, the Food and Drug Administration said clinical labs MIGHT REPORT NOT JUST WHETHER A PERSON WAS INFECTED WITH THE CORONAVIRUS, BUT AN ESTIMATE OF HOW MUCH VIRUS WAS CARRIED IN THEIR BODY."

"BUT THE USE OF Ct VALUES TO ESTIMATE VIRAL LOAD IS A FRAUGHT PRACTICE. Viral load measurements for HIV are highly precise, because they are based on blood samples. Tests for the coronavirus rely on swabbing the nose or throat — A PROCEDURE SUBJECT TO USER ERROR AND WHOSE RESULTS ARE LESS CONSISTENT."

"THE EXACT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A Ct VALUE AND THE CORRESPONDING VIRAL LOAD CAN VARY BETWEEN TESTS. RATHER THAN VALIDATE THIS QUANTITATIVE RELATIONSHIP FOR EACH MACHINE, the FDA authorized the tests to deliver diagnoses based on a cutoff for the cycle threshold.

MOST MANUFACTURERS CONSERVATIVELY SET THEIR MACHINE'S THRESHOLDS FOR DIAGNOSIS FROM 35 TO 40, values that generally correspond to an extremely low viral load. BUT THE EXACT THRESHOLD FOR A POSITIVE RESULT, or for a specific Ct to indicate infectiousness, WILL DEPEND ON THE INSTRUMENT USED."

https://www.nytimes.com/.../coronavirus-viral-load.htm

16. PCR is prone to FALSE-POSITIVES.

"Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, admitted that “PCR TESTS ARE ONLY 30 TO 50% ACCURATE”

https://www.scmp.com/tech/science-research/article/3049858/race-diagnose-treat-coronavirus-patients-constrained-shortage?fbclid=IwAR1lIxBgXALolQ-nWL8ZsteqlsrOGMDZVSXrDCiSJYcoBXjYZ-jXbXyNFyg

"Gina Kolata’s story in the New York Times about what happened in 2006 at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center makes for astonishing reading. I can’t recount it better than she did — you should really just go and read it right now. But if you’d rather not, I’ll quote some of the most important parts (emphasis mine):

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.

… specialists say the problem was that THEY PLACED TOO MUCH FAITH IN A QUICK AND HIGHLY SENSITIVE MOLECULAR TEST THAT LED THEM ASTRAY … At Dartmouth the decision was to use a test, P.C.R., for polymerase chain reaction … THEIR 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."

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html

From Dr. Andrew Cohen:

"Contrary to the practice during previous epidemics, with COVID-19 health authorities have treated a single positive result from a PCR-based test as confirmation of infection, irrespective of signs, symptoms and exposure. THIS IS BASED ON A WIDESPREAD BELIEF THAT POSITIVE RESULTS IN THESE TESTS ARE HIGHLY RELIABLE. HOWEVER, EVIDENCE FROM EXTERNAL QUALITY ASSESSMENTS AND REAL-WORLD DATA INDICATE ENOUGH A HIGH ENOUGH FALSE POSITIVE RATE TO MAKE POSITIVE RESULTS HIGHLY UNRELIABLE OVER A BROAD RANGE OF SCENARIOS. This has clinical and case management implications, and affects an array of epidemiological statistics, including the asymptomatic ratio, prevalence, and hospitalization and death rates, as well as epidemiologic models. STEPS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO RAISE AWARENESS OF FALSE POSITIVES AND REDUCE THEIR FREQUENCY. The most important immediate action is to check positive results with additional tests, at least when prevalence is low."

https://www.medrxiv.org/con.../10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v4

SNOWBALL OF LIES

“PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.” - Dr. Kery Mullis Phd

“With PCR if you can do it well you can find almost anything in anybody.” "...it doesn't tell you that your sick, or the thing ( you found in the test) will make you sick..."

"We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings WITHOUT HAVING VIRUS MATERIAL AVAILABLE."

Recent Posts

Comments

DON'T MISS THE FUN.

FOLLOW ME ELSEWHERE

SHOP MY LOOK

POST ARCHIVE

BLOG

ABOUT

CONTACT