“Arguing the science of PCR testing for COVID seems pointless these days because politicians, autocrats and Technocrats have blown the whole topic into a full-blown ‘casedemic’ that is driven by irrational fears and in some cases, just plain lust for power.”
“Lost in this whole pandemic hysteria are some key considerations that when carefully analyzed place the whole COVID-19 narrative in a highly questionable light. The gatekeepers of information dissimulation are manufacturing consent at an alarming rate, but their fatigue is setting in, and their masks are falling off. What better, albeit unlikely, source to go for some much needed illumination than the New York Times?
During a considerably quieter time, back in 2007, the New York Times featured a very interesting exposé on molecular diagnostic testing — specifically, the inadequacy of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test in achieving reliable results. The most significant concern highlighted in the Times report is how molecular tests, most notably the PCR, are highly sensitive and prone to false positives. At the center of the controversy was a potential outbreak in a hospital in New Hampshire that proved to be nothing more than “ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold.” Unfortunately, the results wroughseemsby the PCR told a different story.
Thankfully, a faux epidemic was avoided but not before thousands of workers were furloughed and given antibiotics and ultimately a vaccine, and hospital beds (including some in intensive care) were taken out of commission. Eight months later, what was thought to be an epidemic was deemed a non-malicious hoax. The culprit? According to “epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists … too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test .. led them astray.” At the time, such tests were “coming into increasing use” as maybe “the only way to get a quick answer in diagnosing diseases like … SARS, and deciding whether an epidemic is under way.”
Nevertheless, today, the PCR test is considered the gold standard of molecular diagnostics, most notably in the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, a closer analysis reveals that the PCR has actually been pretty spotty and that false positives abound. Thankfully, the New York Times is once again on the case.
“Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive; Maybe It Shouldn’t Be,” according to NYT reporter Apoorva Mandavilli. Essentially, positive results are getting tossed around way too frequently. Rather, they should probably be reserved for individuals with “greater viral load.” So how have they’ve been doing it all this time you ask?
“The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample . .. the more likely the patient is to be contagious.”
Unfortunately, the “cycle threshold” has been ramped up. What happens when it’s ramped up? Basically, “huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus” are deemed infected. However, the severity of the infection is never quantified, which essentially amounts to a false positive. Their level of contagion is essentially nil.
How are they determining the cycle threshold? If I didn’t suspect that it was based on maximizing the amount of “cases,” I would find the determination pretty arbitrary. More than a few of the professionals on record for Times report appear pretty perplexed on this vital detail which is essentially driving “clinical diagnostics, for public health and policy decision-making.” Considering all that’s at stake and everything that hinges on positive vs negative case tallies, it’s outrageous that these tests would be tweaked in a way that would inflate the positive rate totals and percentages. According to one virologist, ”any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive.” She went on to to say, “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive.”
Personally, I think the science is just about settled on COVID-19. The conclusion? We’ve been duped!”
Dr. Andrew Kaufman –COVID-19 RT-PCR TEST FRAUD: PCR Test is meaningless.
Re: PCR Tests — “Contrary to official assurances, are completely unsuitable for detecting an infection.”
“Dr. Reiner Fuellmich is a licensed lawyer in Germany and the USA. He studied law in Göttingen and Los Angeles. Among other activities he has published on banking law, medical law and international law and has been a professor and lecturer at universities in Germany and Estonia.”
Mike Pompeo Won’t Say Whether Coronavirus Is a Hoax or Not
February 28, 2020
1. Coronavirus Patent _ US10130701B2 – PCT Filed: Jul.23,2015
2. PCR Test Patent_US Patent 2020279585_ Submitted October 13, 2015
3. National Review: The Constitution Isn’t Suspended Because of CV
4. 2003 Science Daily- Discovery of Coronavirus — UN-WHO-Collaboration
“The successful identification of the coronavirus means that scientists can now confidently turn to other SARS challenges…collaborationcontinues as top laboratory researchers have come to WHO to design the next steps, a strategy for transforming these basic research discoveries into diagnostic tools which will help us to successfully control this disease”
“Two laboratories in China recently joined this network of laboratories from Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America.”
5. Report of the UN WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 — The China Response & Next Steps
“In the face of a previously unknown virus, China has rolled out perhaps the most ambitious, agile and aggressive disease containment effort in history. The strategy that underpinned this containment effort was initially a national approach that promoted universal temperature monitoring, masking, and hand washing.”
6. China Daily US Governors promote PCR tests
7. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo Speech
February 8, 2020
“China has been methodical in assessing our system of government , assessed our vulnerabilities, and it’s decided to exploit our freedoms to gain advantage over us at the federal level, the state level and the local level.” Link to video
(A) China Think Tank Rates All 50 US governors- Article
(B) China Thinktank Document PDF
Translated from Chinese:
“…in American politics, in addition to the White House and Congress, there is a class of important actors – the governors of the 50 states. Because of the federal system in the United States, the governor can ignore the White House orders, and the state has its own local government solely, the state can change or even cancel the city, county, school district and other local governments.”
8. Short Course on Communist Takeover of U.S.
G. Edward Griffin’s 1984 interview with KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov, who explains the four stages of communist strategy for taking over the U.S. from within utilizing media propaganda and Marxist programming.
9. G. Edward Griffin:
Rockefeller Foundation/Johns Hopkins/ Gates Foundation
(A) 2010_Rockefeller Foundation_LockStep_Page 18
(B) Maryland Governor Is the Chairman of The National Governor’s Association_NY Governor is Vice Chairman
RE: Rockefeller Collaboration
(C) Governor Hogan Announces State of Maryland Aquires 500,000 covid-19 Tests From South Korea’s LabGenomics
(D) Lab Genomics_DNA_Chipping_Biometrics
(E) Hogan_Big Pharma WindFall
10. EVENT 201 October 2019 Pandemic Planning and Strategy
11. *Intersecting technology — 4G-5G ( microwave radiation is a human tracking system ) is China’s Communist system of surveillance known as biometrics – using harvested DNA (PCR TEST & chipping_vaccines) to monitor, track and confine each member of society into a permanent electronic Communist prison_lockdown.
(A) Biometric Surveillance Update 2019
(B) CNN_2017 Authorities in China’s far-west are collecting DNA samples, fingerprints, eye scans and blood types of millions of people
(C) Internet of Bodies_Law_ William & Mary_2019
(D) $Billions to S. Korea Biotech
(E) Big Pharma Outsourcing
(F) Biotech – Korea
12. Lawyer Reiner Fuellmich – Fraudulent PCR Tests Taken To Court
1. How dangerous is the virus?
Infection mortality rate of .14% – About roughly the same as that of the common flu, so CV is about as dangerous as the common flu.
2.How much damage do the anti-corona measures do both health-wise for the world’s population and as far as the economy is concerned?
Damage goes far beyond anything that’s ever been experienced on a global level.
3. How much can we trust the PCR tests?
PCR test can not tell you anything about infections. The only thing they are good for is to cause panic.