Optimistic reverse transcription polymerase chain response (RT-PCR) checks have been used because the justification for retaining giant parts of the world locked down for the previous 9 months. Not dependable hospitalization or demise charges; simply constructive PCR check numbers — a big portion of that are from individuals who haven’t any signs of precise sickness — are the triggers behind the shutdowns.
Consultants at the moment are coming ahead in rising numbers denouncing mass PCR testing as foolhardy and nonsensical if not outright prison. Why? As a result of we’re now discovering that PCR checks not often inform us something actually helpful, a minimum of not once they’re used as they’ve been to date.
Why PCR Checks Are the Unsuitable Instrument to Assess Pandemic Risk
We now know that PCR checks:
1. Can’t distinguish between “dwell” viruses and inactive (noninfectious) viral particles and subsequently can’t be used as a diagnostic device — For that reason, it’s grossly deceptive to confer with a constructive check as a “COVID-19 case.”
As defined by Dr. Lee Merritt in her August 2020 Medical doctors for Catastrophe Preparedness1 lecture, featured in “How Medical Technocracy Made the Plandemic Possible,” media and public well being officers seem to have purposefully conflated “instances” or constructive checks with the precise sickness.
Medically talking, a “case” refers to a sick particular person. It by no means ever referred to somebody who had no signs of sickness. Now abruptly, this well-established medical time period, “case,” has been arbitrarily redefined to imply somebody who examined constructive for the presence of noninfectious viral RNA. As famous by Merritt, “That’s not epidemiology. That’s fraud.”
2. Can’t verify that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for medical signs because the check can’t rule out illnesses attributable to different bacterial or viral pathogens.
3. Have not been established for monitoring the remedy of 2019-nCoV an infection.
4. Have exceptionally excessive false outcome charges — The upper the cycle threshold (CT) — i.e., the variety of amplification cycles used to detect RNA particles — the larger the prospect of a false constructive.
Whereas any CT over 35 is deemed scientifically unjustifiable,2,3,4 the U.S. Meals and Drug Administration and the U.S. Facilities for Illness Management and Prevention advocate working PCR checks at a CT of 40.5
Drosten checks and checks advisable by the World Well being Group are set to a CT of 45. These excessively excessive CTs assure the looks of widespread (pandemic) an infection when an infection charges are in actual fact low.
The CT Is the Key to the Pandemic
Many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many instances, which ends up in wholesome folks testing “constructive” for SARS-CoV-2 an infection and being ordered to take off work and self-isolate for 2 weeks.
To optimize accuracy and keep away from imposing pointless hardship on wholesome folks, PCR checks have to be run at far fewer cycles than the 40 to 45 CTs at the moment advisable.
An April 2020 examine6 within the European Journal of Scientific Microbiology & Infectious Illnesses confirmed that to get 100% confirmed actual positives, the PCR check have to be run at 17 cycles. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically.
By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy charge is a mere 20%, that means 80% are false positives. Past 34 cycles, your likelihood of a constructive PCR check being a real constructive shrinks to zero, as illustrated within the following graph from that examine.7
By working PCR checks at 40 to 45 amplification cycles, you find yourself with the false look of an outbreak, and this grossly flawed testing scheme is what authorities leaders are basing their masks mandates and lockdown orders on.
Share of constructive viral tradition of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive nasopharyngeal samples from Covid-19 sufferers, based on Ct worth (plain line). The dashed curve signifies the polynomial regression curve.
Scientific Assessment Confirms PCR Flaws
Extra just lately, a December 3, 2020, systematic assessment8 revealed within the journal of Scientific Infectious Illnesses assessed the findings of 29 completely different research — all of which have been revealed in 2020 — evaluating proof of SARS-CoV-2 an infection with the CTs utilized in testing. In addition they appeared on the timing of the check, and the way symptom severity pertains to PCR check outcomes. As reported by the authors:
“The information recommend a relationship between the time from onset of symptom to the timing of the specimen check, cycle threshold (CT) and symptom severity. Twelve research reported that CT values have been considerably decrease and log copies increased in specimens producing dwell virus tradition.
Two research reported the odds of dwell virus tradition decreased by roughly 33% for each one unit enhance in CT. Six of eight research reported detectable RNA for longer than 14 days however infectious potential declined after day 8 even amongst instances with ongoing excessive viral hundreds …”
In different phrases, if in case you have signs of COVID-19, by Day 8 from the onset of signs, the possibilities of you spreading it to others begins to say no, and in the times following, you’re unlikely to be infectious even if you happen to nonetheless check constructive. That is significantly true if the PCR check is utilizing a better than very best CT. As famous by the authors:9
“Full dwell viruses are crucial for transmission, not the fragments recognized by PCR. Potential routine testing of reference and tradition specimens and their relationship to signs, indicators and affected person co-factors ought to be used to outline the reliability of PCR for assessing infectious potential. These with excessive cycle threshold are unlikely to have infectious potential.”
Reside Virus Unlikely in Checks Utilizing CT Above 24
In accordance to The New York Occasions,10 researchers have been “unable to develop the coronavirus out of samples from volunteers whose PCR checks had CT values above 27,” and if the virus can’t replicate, you’ll not get unwell and will not be infectious, so you can not unfold it to others.
The Scientific Infectious Illnesses assessment11 confirms this. Beneath the heading “The Relationship Between RT-PCR Outcomes and Viral Tradition of SARS-CoV-2,”12 they level out that “considerably decrease” CTs have been utilized in research that appropriately recognized infectious sufferers.
5 of the research included have been unable to determine any dwell viruses in instances the place a constructive PCR check had used a CT above 24. What’s extra, in an effort to produce dwell virus tradition, a affected person whose PCR check used a CT at or above 35 needed to be symptomatic.
So, to make clear, if in case you have signs of COVID-19 and check constructive utilizing a PCR check that was run at 35 amplification cycles or increased, then you’re more likely to be contaminated and infectious.
Nevertheless, if you happen to wouldn’t have signs, but check constructive utilizing a PCR check run at 35 CTs or increased, then it’s probably a false constructive and also you pose no threat to others as you’re unlikely to hold any dwell virus. In truth, offered you’re asymptomatic, you’re unlikely to be infectious even if you happen to check constructive with a check run at 24 CTs or increased.
Timing of PCR Check Additionally Issues
The Scientific Infectious Illnesses assessment additionally confirmed that the timing of the check issues. In line with the authors:13
“… there seems to be a time window throughout which RNA detection is at its highest with low cycle threshold and better risk of culturing a dwell virus, with viral load and likelihood of rising dwell virus of SARS-CoV2 …
We suggest that additional work ought to be achieved on this with the goal of developing an algorithm for integrating the outcomes of PCR with different variables, to extend the effectiveness of detecting infectious sufferers.”
One other scientific assessment14,15 that appeared into how the timing of the check influences outcomes and your threat of being infectious was posted on the preprint server medRxiv September 29, 2020. Fourteen research have been included on this assessment.
The information present that your possibilities of getting a real constructive on the primary day of COVID-19 symptom onset is barely about 40%. Not till Day 3 from symptom onset do you’ve an 80% likelihood of getting an correct PCR outcome.
By Day 5 the accuracy shrinks significantly and by Day 8 the accuracy is nil. Now, these are symptomatic folks. While you’re asymptomatic, your odds of a constructive PCR check being correct is just about nonexistent.
The graph under, from one of many research16 included within the assessment (Bullard et. al.), illustrates the likelihood of a affected person being infectious (having dwell virus) primarily based on the CT used and the timing of the check. As defined by the assessment authors:17
“The determine … reveals how the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infectious virus is larger (the pink bars) when the cycle threshold is decrease (the blue line) and when signs to check time is shorter — past 8 days, no dwell virus was detected.”
Florida to Require Disclosure of CT Information
Despite the fact that well being authorities know that top CTs lead to excessive charges of false positives, they don’t specify the CT used for the PCR checks they’re reporting. Fortuitously, that’s about to alter in Florida, which simply grew to become the primary state to require all labs within the state to report the CT used for his or her PCR checks.18
The Florida Well being Division issued the order December 3, 2020, and labs should adjust to the brand new necessary reporting rule inside seven days.19
This might show fairly fascinating, particularly if the state well being division decides to invalidate constructive outcomes obtained from checks run above a sure amplification threshold. Time will inform precisely how this reporting requirement may affect pandemic response measures similar to masks mandates and lockdowns.
Portugal Guidelines Quarantine Based mostly on PCR Outcomes Is Illegal
In associated information, an appeals courtroom in Portugal just lately dominated20,21 that the PCR check is “not a dependable check for SARS-CoV-2” and that “a single constructive PCR check can’t be used as an efficient analysis of an infection.” Subsequently, “any enforced quarantine primarily based on the outcomes is illegal.”22
The courtroom additionally famous that forcing wholesome folks to self-isolate might be a violation of their elementary proper to liberty. The case was introduced by 4 German vacationers who had been compelled to self-quarantine after certainly one of them examined constructive.
A number of scientific research have been introduced forth as proof on this case, together with a September 28, 2020, examine23 in Scientific Infectious Illnesses, which discovered that if you run a PCR check at a CT of 35 or increased, the accuracy drops to three%, leading to a 97% false constructive charge. The courtroom dominated that, primarily based on the science introduced, any PCR check utilizing a CT over 25 is unreliable.
Deadly Errors Present in Paper on Which PCR Testing Is Based mostly
The Portuguese appeals courtroom will not be alone in its critique of the PCR check getting used because the sole standards for quarantine. November 30, 2020, the scientific paper24 describing the work movement of easy methods to use the PCR check to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 an infection — which was rapidly accepted as the usual by the WHO and utilized internationally — was challenged25 by 22 worldwide scientists who demand that the paper be retracted attributable to “deadly errors.”26
The paper in query was written by Christian Drosten, Ph.D., a German virologist, and Victor Corman, who heads a German working group on virus diagnostics and medical virology. In accordance to Reiner Fuellmich,27 founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss,28 or ACU),29,30 Drosten is a key culprit in the COVID-19 pandemic hoax.
One of many key “deadly errors” within the Corman-Drosten paper is that they wrote it — and developed the PCR check — earlier than there was any viral isolate obtainable. All they used was the genetic sequence revealed on-line by Chinese language scientists in January 2020.
Apparently, the paper was revealed a mere 24 hours after it was submitted, which suggests it wasn’t even peer-reviewed earlier than being embraced by the entire world. Undercover DC interviewed Kevin Corbett, Ph.D., one of many 22 scientists who at the moment are demanding the paper’s retraction, who said:31
“Each scientific rationale for the event of that check has been completely destroyed by this paper. It’s like Hiroshima/Nagasaki to the COVID check.
When Drosten developed the check, China hadn’t given them a viral isolate. They developed the check from a sequence in a gene financial institution. Do you see? China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate. That they had a code, however no physique for the code. No viral morphology.
Within the fish market, it’s like supplying you with just a few bones and saying ‘that’s your fish.’ It might be any fish … Hear, the Corman-Drosten paper, there’s nothing from a affected person in it. It’s all from gene banks. And the bits of the virus sequence that weren’t there they made up.
They synthetically created them to fill within the blanks. That’s what genetics is; it’s a code. So, its ABBBCCDDD and also you’re lacking some, what you suppose is EEE, so you place it in … That is mainly a pc virus.
There are 10 deadly errors on this Drosten check paper … However right here is the underside line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they have been doing. The PCR merchandise of the amplification didn’t correspond to any viral isolate at the moment. I name it ‘donut ring science.’ There may be nothing on the middle of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with actuality …
There have since been papers saying they’ve produced viral isolates. However there are not any controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July … the place they mentioned: ‘Right here’s the viral isolate.’ Have you learnt what they did? They swabbed one particular person. One particular person, who’d been to China and had chilly signs. One particular person. They usually assumed he had [COVID-19] to start with. So, it’s all stuffed with holes, the entire thing.”
No Viable Virus Present in Optimistic Circumstances
The critique in opposition to PCR testing is additional strengthened by a November 20, 2020, examine32 in Nature Communications, which discovered no viable virus in PCR-positive instances. The examine evaluated information from 9,865,404 residents of Wuhan, China, who had undergone PCR testing between Could 14 and June 1, 2020.
A complete of 300 examined constructive however had no signs. Of the 34,424 folks with a historical past of COVID-19, 107 examined constructive a second time. But once they did virus cultures on these 407 people who had examined constructive (both for the primary or second time), no dwell virus was discovered.
Expose the Fraud, Finish the Distress
Various specialists have now come ahead, calling out the COVID-19 pandemic as a merciless hoax perpetuated by fatally flawed testing. Other than this testing information, there’s no proof of a deadly pandemic in any respect. Whereas there’s such a factor as COVID-19, and folks have and do die from it, there are not any extra deaths attributable to it.33,34,35
In different phrases, the whole mortality for 2020 is regular. The pandemic has not killed extra folks than would die in any given 12 months — from one thing, something — anyway. So, until we predict we must always shut down the world and cease dwelling as a result of folks die from coronary heart illness, diabetes, most cancers, the flu or the rest, then there’s no motive to close down the world as a result of some folks occur to die from COVID-19.
The excellent news is the hoax is beginning to be uncovered, and can proceed to be uncovered as extra instances are introduced earlier than the courts of the world. Fuellmich and his ACU authorized staff are main that cost. As for what you are able to do within the meantime, contemplate:
• Turning off mainstream media information and turning to unbiased specialists — Do the analysis. Learn by the science.
• Proceed to counter the censorship by asking questions — The extra questions are requested, the extra solutions will come to gentle. Arm your self with mortality statistics and the info on PCR testing, so you possibly can clarify how and why this pandemic merely isn’t a pandemic anymore.
• If you’re a medical skilled, particularly if you happen to’re a member of an expert society, write an open letter to your authorities, urging them to talk to and heed suggestions from unbiased specialists.
• Signal The Great Barrington Declaration,36 which requires an finish to lockdowns.
• Be part of a gaggle so that you simply can have assist. Examples of teams fashioned to combat in opposition to authorities overreach embrace:
◦ Us for Them, a gaggle campaigning for reopening faculties and defending kids’s rights within the U.Okay.
◦ The COVID Restoration Group (CRG), based by 50 conservative British MPs to combat lockdown restrictions37
◦ The Freedom to Breathe Agency, a U.S. staff of attorneys, docs, enterprise homeowners and fogeys who’re combating to guard freedom and liberty