The Insanity of the PCR Testing Saga

For a number of months, consultants have highlighted the true trigger behind the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the incorrect use of PCR tests set at a ridiculously excessive cycle rely (CT), which falsely labels wholesome individuals as “COVID-19 cases.” In actuality, the PCR take a look at is just not a correct diagnostic take a look at, though it has been promoted as such.

An vital query that calls for a solution is whether or not the consultants at our federal well being companies and the World Health Organization had been actually too ignorant to perceive the implications of utilizing this take a look at at extreme CT, or whether or not it was finished on goal to create the phantasm of a harmful, out-of-control pandemic.

Regardless, these in cost must be held accountable, which is exactly what the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss,1 or ACU),2,3 intends to do.

They’re in the course of of launching a world class-action lawsuit towards these answerable for utilizing fraudulent testing to engineer the look of a harmful pandemic with the intention to implement economically devastating lockdowns round the world. I wrote about this in “Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun” and “German Lawyers Initiate Class-Action Coronavirus Litigation.”

FDA Demands Higher False Positives

An fascinating case detailed in a January 21, 2021, Buzzfeed article4 that raises those self same questions in regard to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is its latest spat with Curative, a California testing firm that received its begin in January 2020. It has since risen to turn into one of the largest COVID-19 take a look at suppliers in the U.S.

Curative’s most well-liked PCR take a look at differs from different suppliers in that it makes use of spit swabbed from the affected person’s tongue, cheek and mouth fairly than from the again of the nasal cavity.

In April 2020, the FDA issued an accelerated emergency use authorization5 for the Curative spit take a look at, however just for sufferers who had been symptomatic inside the two weeks previous to taking the take a look at, as the knowledge out there at that time confirmed it didn’t catch asymptomatic “cases.”

However, the take a look at was subsequently used off-label on people with out signs anyway, and the firm has been urging the FDA to increase its authorization to incorporate asymptomatic people primarily based on newer knowledge.

In December 2020, Curative submitted that knowledge,6 displaying its oral spit take a look at precisely recognized about 90% of optimistic circumstances when put next towards a nasopharyngeal PCR take a look at set to 35 CT.7

The FDA objected, saying that Curative was evaluating its take a look at towards a PCR that had a CT that was too low, and would due to this fact produce too many false negatives.8 According to the FDA, the bar Curative had chosen was “not appropriate and arbitrary,” Buzzfeed reviews.9

This is a curious assertion coming from the FDA, contemplating the scientific consensus on PCR assessments is that something over 35 CTs is scientifically unjustifiable.10,11,12

From the begin, the FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisable operating PCR assessments at a CT of 40.13 This was already excessive sufficient to supply an inordinate quantity of false positives, thereby labeling wholesome individuals as “COVID-19 cases,” however when it comes to Curative’s spit take a look at, the FDA is demanding they examine it towards PCR processed at a CT of 45, which is much more more likely to produce false positives.

The FDA’s concern is that Curative’s take a look at is lacking infections and giving infectious individuals a clear invoice of well being. However, in actuality, it’s way more possible that the take a look at is precisely removing individuals who certainly will not be infectious in any respect and rightly needs to be given a clear invoice of well being. It appears the FDA is merely pushing for a course of that can guarantee the next “caseload” to maintain the phantasm of widespread an infection going.

When Are You Actually Infectious?

A persistent sticking level with the PCR take a look at is that it picks up useless viral particles, and by excessively magnifying these particles with CTs in the 40s, noninfectious people are labeled as infectious and informed to self-isolate. In brief, media and public well being officers have conflated “cases” — optimistic assessments — with the precise sickness.

Medically talking, a “case” refers to a sick individual. It by no means ever referred to somebody who had no signs of sickness. Now all of a sudden, this well-established medical time period, “case,” has been arbitrarily redefined to imply somebody who examined optimistic for the presence of noninfectious viral RNA.

The analysis is unequivocal on the subject of who’s infectious and who’s not. You can’t infect one other individual until you carry reside virus, and also you usually won’t develop signs until your viral load is excessive sufficient.

As it pertains to PCR testing, when excessively excessive CTs are used, even a minute viral load that’s too low to trigger signs can register as optimistic. And, since the take a look at can’t distinguish between reside virus and useless viral particles, you could not even be carrying reside virus in any respect.

These vital drawbacks are why PCR testing actually solely needs to be finished on symptomatic sufferers, and why a optimistic take a look at needs to be weighed as only one issue of analysis. Symptoms should even be taken under consideration. If you don’t have any signs, your possibilities of being infectious and spreading the an infection to others is principally nil, as knowledge14 from 9,899,828 people have proven.

Of these, not a single individual who had been in shut contact with an asymptomatic particular person ended up testing optimistic. This research even confirmed that even in circumstances the place asymptomatic people had had an lively an infection, and had been carriers of reside virus, the viral load had been too low for transmission. As famous by the authors:15

“Compared with symptomatic sufferers, asymptomatic contaminated individuals typically have low amount of viral masses and a brief period of viral shedding, which lower the transmission danger of SARS-CoV-2.

In the current research, virus tradition was carried out on samples from asymptomatic optimistic circumstances, and located no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus. All shut contacts of the asymptomatic optimistic circumstances examined unfavorable, indicating that the asymptomatic optimistic circumstances detected on this research had been unlikely to be infectious.”

PCR Picks Up Dead Virus for Weeks After Infection Has Cleared

Because the PCR take a look at can’t discern between reside virus and useless, noninfectious viral particles, the timing of the take a look at finally ends up being vital. One instance of this was introduced in a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine,16 during which the writer describes an investigation finished on hospitalized COVID-19 sufferers in Seoul, South Korea.

Whereas the median time from symptom onset to viral clearance confirmed by cultured samples was simply seven days, with the longest timeframe being 12 days, the PCR take a look at continued to select up SARS-CoV-2 for a median of 34 days. The shortest time between symptom onset to a unfavorable PCR take a look at was 24 days.

In different phrases, there was no detectable reside virus in sufferers after about seven days from onset of signs (at most 12 days). The PCR take a look at, nevertheless, continued to register them as “positive” for SARS-CoV-2 for about 34 days. The purpose this issues is as a result of in case you have no reside virus in your physique, you aren’t infectious and pose no danger to others.

This then means that testing sufferers past, say, Day 12 to be secure, after symptom onset is pointless, as any optimistic result’s more likely to be false. But there’s extra. As famous in that New England Journal of Medicine article:17

“Viable virus was identified until 3 days after the resolution in fever … Viral culture was positive only in samples with a cycle-threshold value of 28.4 or less. The incidence of culture positivity decreased with an increasing time from symptom onset and with an increasing cycle-threshold value.”

This suggests symptomology is a extremely vital piece of the puzzle. If no viable virus is detectable past Day 3 after your fever ends, it’s in all probability pointless to retest past that time. A optimistic outcome past Day 3 after your fever breaks is, once more, more likely to be a false optimistic, as it’s important to have reside virus with the intention to be infectious.

Even extra vital, these outcomes reconfirm that CTs above 30 are inadvisable as they’re extremely more likely to be incorrect. Here, they discovered the CT needed to be under 28.4 to ensure that the optimistic take a look at to correspond with reside virus. As famous by the authors:18

“Our findings may be useful in guiding isolation periods for patients with Covid-19 and in estimating the risk of secondary transmission among close contacts in contract tracing.”

Testing for Dead Viruses Will Ensure Everlasting Lockdowns

To circle again to the Curative PCR take a look at, the firm argues that the take a look at is correct on the subject of detecting lively an infection, and as CEO Fred Turner informed Buzzfeed:19

“If you’re screening for a return to work and you’re picking up everyone who had COVID two months ago, no one’s going to return to work. If you want to detect active COVID, what the ‘early’ study shows is that Curative is highly effective at doing that.”

Again, this has to do with the incontrovertible fact that the Curative spit take a look at has a sensitivity resembling that of a nasopharyngeal PCR set at a CT of 30. The decrease CT rely narrows the pool of optimistic outcomes to incorporate primarily these with greater viral masses and those that usually tend to really carry reside virus. This is an efficient factor. What the FDA desires Curative to do is to widen that internet in order that extra noninfectious people might be labeled as a “case.”

In an e-mail to Buzzfeed, Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, acknowledged that utilizing a CT of 45 is “absolutely insane,” as a result of at that magnification, you could be taking a look at a single RNA molecule, whereas “when people are sick and are contagious, they literally can have 1,000,000,000,000x that number.”20

Mina added that such a delicate PCR take a look at “would potentially detect someone 35 days post-infection who is fully recovered and cause that person to have to enter isolation. That’s crazy and it’s not science-based, it’s not medicine-based and it’s not public health-oriented.”21

While the FDA has issued a warning to not use the Curative spit take a look at on asymptomatic individuals, Florida has dismissed the warning and can proceed to make use of the take a look at on symptomatic and asymptomatic people alike. Only Miami-Dade County is reconsidering how it’s utilizing the take a look at, though a definitive determination has but to be introduced.22

The Lower the CT, the Greater the Accuracy

While the FDA claims excessive sensitivity (that means greater CT) is required to make sure we don’t find yourself with asymptomatic spreaders in our communities, as reviewed above, this danger is exceedingly small. We actually have to cease panicking about the chance of wholesome individuals killing others. It’s not a sane development, as detailed in “The World Is Suffering from Mass Delusional Psychosis.”

According to an April 2020 research23 in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, to get 100% confirmed actual positives, the PCR take a look at should be run at simply 17 cycles. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically.

By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy price is a mere 20%, that means 80% are false positives. Beyond 34 cycles, your probability of a optimistic PCR take a look at being a true optimistic shrinks to zero.

Similarly, a December 3, 2020, systematic overview24 revealed in the journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases, which assessed the findings of 29 completely different research, discovered that “CT values were significantly lower … in specimens producing live virus culture.” In different phrases, the greater the CT, the decrease the probability of a optimistic take a look at really being as a consequence of the presence of reside (and infectious) virus.

“Two studies reported the odds of live virus culture reduced by approximately 33% for every one unit increase in CT,” the authors famous. Importantly, 5 of the research included had been unable to establish any reside viruses in circumstances the place a optimistic PCR take a look at had used a CT above 24.

In circumstances the place a CT above 35 was used, the affected person needed to be symptomatic so as to acquire a reside virus tradition. This once more confirms that PCR with a CT over 35 actually shouldn’t be used on asymptomatic individuals, as any optimistic result’s more likely to be meaningless and easily pressure them into isolation for no purpose.

PCR Testing Based on Erroneous Paper

In closing, the complete premise of PCR testing to diagnose COVID-19 is in critical query, as the observe seems to be primarily based on an misguided paper that didn’t even bear peer-review earlier than being applied worldwide.

November 30, 2020, a crew of 22 worldwide scientists revealed a overview25 difficult the scientific paper26 on PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 written by Christian Drosten, Ph.D., and Victor Corman (the so-called “Corman-Drosten paper”).

According to Reiner Fuellmich,27 founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee talked about at the starting of this text, Drosten is a key perpetrator in the COVID-19 pandemic hoax.

The scientists demand the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted as a consequence of “fatal errors,”28 one of which is the incontrovertible fact that it was written, and the take a look at itself developed, earlier than any viral isolate was out there. The take a look at is solely primarily based on a partial genetic sequence revealed online by Chinese scientists in January 2020. In an Undercover DC interview, Kevin Corbett, Ph.D., one of the 22 scientists who’re now demanding the paper’s retraction, acknowledged:29

“Every scientific rationale for the improvement of that take a look at has been completely destroyed by this paper … When Drosten developed the take a look at, China hadn’t given them a viral isolate. They developed the take a look at from a sequence in a gene financial institution. Do you see? China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate.

They had a code, however no physique for the code. No viral morphology … the bits of the virus sequence that weren’t there they made up. They synthetically created them to fill in the blanks …

There are 10 deadly errors on this Drosten take a look at paper … But right here is the backside line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they had 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 is nothing at the heart of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with actuality …

There have since been papers saying they’ve produced viral isolates. But there aren’t any controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July … the place they stated: ‘Here’s the viral isolate.’ Do what they did? They swabbed one individual. One individual, who’d been to China and had chilly signs. One individual. And they assumed he had [COVID-19] to start with. So, it’s all full of holes, the complete factor.

The critique towards PCR testing is additional strengthened by the November 20, 2020, research30 in Nature Communications, which discovered no viable virus in any PCR-positive circumstances. I referenced this research earlier, noting that not a single one who had been in shut contact with an asymptomatic particular person ended up testing optimistic.

But that’s not all. After evaluating PCR testing knowledge from 9,899,828 individuals, and conducting extra reside cultures to examine for lively infections in those that examined optimistic, utilizing a CT of 37 or decrease, they had been unable to detect reside virus in any of them, which is a fairly astonishing discovering.

On the complete, it appears clear that mass testing utilizing PCR is inappropriate, and does little or no if something to maintain the inhabitants secure. Its major result’s merely the perpetuation of the false concept that wholesome, noninfectious individuals can pose a mortal risk to others, and that we should keep away from social interactions. It’s a delusional thought that’s wreaking havoc on the international psyche, and it’s time to place an finish to this unhealthy, unscientific approach of life.


Source Link –

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button