Summary Without PCR testing data mortality and morbidity would not be attributable to the novel virus and if this attribution is false there must therefore be other explanations for the ‘pandemic’. Whilst scandals about PCR testing are well known a materially important aspect of PCR testing has been given scant attention and that is cross reactivity (or crosstalk). This is where other viruses, such as common colds or flus etc., might trigger a false positive PCR result for SARS-CoV-2.
On a different, but related subject, I think many of us would also greatly appreciate your unbiased professional opinion on the ONS changes to the methodology for calculating excess deaths? I'm sure you must be looking at this already in view of it's trend changes and so reduction in excess deaths and attendent reduction in percentage increases over the "Vaccine years" as a result of higher figures in the "Pre-vaccine" years? Except 2019 which seems like an unexplainable outlier OR was set to deceive in advance?
Why this?, why now? seem relevant questions, particularly since this change now means that UK data will no longer be comparable with ROW data, which still uses the simple moving average method. That's just an accidental coincidence, I'm sure?
Cross reactivity, if I'm thinking about this correctly, sure could explain why cold and flu and every other illness of its type virtually "disappeared" during the pandemic. Meaning, we still had the same numbers of cold and flu but we're instead blamed on covid -substantially inflating its number and thereby creating its pandemic. Deducing that, means a pandemic never really happened but instead what may have actually occurred was the usual seasonal viruses alongside the addition of covid substantially (and falsely)increasing its numbers of positive PCR.
Husband was "kidnapped" from a local hospital's ER (Maine) in May 2021 using the PCR test declaring him to have covid (he didn't have symptoms of anything; he was there requiring some sutures regarding a fall) and "locked up" for 9 days in a newly created covid unit until I could figure out how to advocate for him.
NO visitors allowed so, therefore, the hospital has "full" control of the situation.
Was he kidnapped for financial gain? Were others also kidnapped to fill up the newly created covid unit?
He had Anthem coverage, and some claim that Anthem was in on the whole fraud offering financial incentives.
Over time, I created a 15 page document citing various violations of laws regarding this human trafficking, body snatching, and kidnapping and sent it to the Maine AG, local, county sheriff, and our representative requesting an investigation all to to avail.
Lotta good stuff in this critical overview. Helpful.
I like this angle: "We analysed the very few studies that used blind samples of colds or flu viruses to undertake ‘mystery shopper’ testing of laboratories using PCR. ... We identified many systematic weaknesses in these studies, finding that numerous implicit tricks had been used to supress evidence of cross reactivity, thus misleading the public into believing PCR tests are reliable."
Feb 23·edited Feb 23Liked by Jonathan Engler, Martin Neil
Thank you for questioning the accuracy/validity of the COVID PCR tests. As the authors note, the entire pandemic "fear narrative" is based on the results of these tests. I agree that the number of genuine Covid "cases" must be greatly inflated. This would also mean the number of "Covid deaths" is greatly inflated (as these deaths are attributed to a positive result on these tests). This would mean the numerator in the IFR calculations (deaths) is not nearly as high as has been reported.
This paragraph from the article particularly grabbed my attention:
"Hence, based on this data we might be able to safely assume that there is evidence to support the contention there was a wave of false positive covid tests in the UK in winter 2020/21, likely partly caused by common colds (and in the UK these should have been officially recognised as false positives)."
I've always wondered why there was such a massive increase in the number of (alleged) Covid cases and deaths in the fall and winter of 2020 and the early months of 2021. If one believes this virus really began to spread in the fall of 2019, this massive spike would be the SECOND year this novel virus had been spreading.
If early spread of a novel coronavirus had infected large numbers of people in late 2019 and early 2020, far more people than realized would have had natural immunity in the "cold and flu" season of 2020-2021 and, thus, the number of Covid cases might have been expected to have gone DOWN.
The above paragraph gives me an answer that would partially or fully explain the spike in cases in the second year of Covid - namely, a significant percentage of these "Covid cases" weren't really Covid. They were people with ILIs one would expect to see in ANY cold and flu season. The positives probably were caused by "cross reactivity" with other coronaviruses.
If significant numbers of these positive cases in the winter of 2020-2021 were falsely labelled "Covid cases" (and then "Covid deaths"), these deaths must have been caused by something that wasn't a novel coronavirus. They were either caused by an existing coronavirus or ILI bug (highly doubtful as these aren't typically "lethal" viruses) or by the Covid treatment protocols. This, if true, should qualify as a major scandal or a complete failure of the medical and science community to correctly identify the true cause of these deaths.
Conflation of a background signal with the intent to transfect and amplify a danger response. Greatest Experiment of All TIME (GEOAT)! So far IMHO. Unfortunately I don't think the Principle Investigators have any intention to publish, much less provide public access to methods/materials and raw data. I am not willing, yet, to speculate as to what the primary endpoint was/is? However, I do remain intensely curious.
If they do publish, you can bet your ass that it will be behind the biggest paywall the publishing industry has ever seen. Fraud all the way down. Tyrants and Parasites are known to violently attack when they sense danger. And killing them en masse can lead to very toxic conditions in the host. Thank you for this courageous act of sharing. I love it.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, positive cases have driven everything: masks, social distancing, lockdowns, economic and food destruction, mental and physical health destruction, the arrested development of millions of children, a large number of preventable suicides, and a bevy of new, rushed, and barely tested vaccines. PCR false positives were the engine of the plandemic:
The RT-PCR test being used for COVID involves a cycling function. The more you cycle the test material in the lab, the more people test positive for COVID> IF you cycle the test material 60 times, every sample tests positive for COVID. If you cycle it 10 times, not one tests positive. If you cycle it 30 times, some test positive and some don't. This means all our corrupt governments have full control of how many people test positive, depending on how many times they insist the test material be cycled. They've picked this test purposely so they can up-regulate or down-regulate the pandemic at will.
For my sins I am reading through the WHO's End-to-End integration of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza sentinel surveillance- revised interim guidance January 2022.
In short: There are established centres in countries that take samples of ill people (symptoms consistent with ILI- influenza like illness, ARI- acute respiratory infection, SARI- severe acute respiratory infection), in sentinel centres and then test for Influenza and SARS-CoV2 using PCR testing.
Depending on their first testing preference they use singleplex assays for Influenza or SARS-CoV2 and then multiplex assays for both.
Would be really interesting to look at their raw data to determine the level of this interference?
Results should be reported on FluNet and FluID (both on platform FluMart).
The other reason for the supposed downturn in other respiratory pathogens would be the fact that some labs stopped or greatly reduced their testing, so that they could focus their limited resources on Covid testing. I live in Nova Scotia and was a senior leader in our health authority in 2020-21. Faced with the massive expectation for Covid testing, the centralized lab issued memo after memo shutting down testing for everything else, including things like influenza, strep, etc.
Great article... Detailed analysis too... Thanks for this hard work, will add to my collection!!
As mentioned above PCR determination of covid is super suspicious... Ramped up to approx 40 cycles, where you could find "just about anything in anyone" as inventor Kary Mullis said ...
Not sure if this helps or if my interpretation is on the mark, but...
The caveats in the CDC "diagnostic" panel relay of the PCR test sound very inconclusive...
Therefore exactly what are they looking for... ??
"Important to note re PCR used for Covid CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel" Page 38:
"Detection of viral RNA may NOT indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the CAUSATIVE agent for clinical symptoms"
"This test CANNOT rule out diseases caused by OTHER BACTERIAL or VIRAL pathogens.”
Starting at that reference, what vague thing were they testing for, and it sounds like they expect cross reactivity with other viruses and bacterial agents??
☝️This link no longer works, maybe it copied wrong at the time but it said (luckily I copied pasted when I saved the original reference):
"During the early months of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, CLINICAL SPECIMENS WERE NOT READILY AVAILABLE to developers of IVDs to DETECT SARS-CoV-2".
"Therefore, the FDA authorized IVDS based on available data from CONTRIVED samples generated from A RANGE of SARS-CoV-2 material sources (for example, gene specific RNA, synthetic RNA, or whole genome viral RNA) for analytical and clinical performance evaluation".
"While validation using these CONTRIVED SPECIMENS provided a measure of confidence in test performance at the beginning of the pandemic, it is NOT FEASIBLE to PRECISELY COMPARE the performance of VARIOUS TESTS that used CONTRIVED specimens because EACH TEST validated performance USING SAMPLES DERIVED from DIFFERENT gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid SOURCES".
"From February through the middle of May, the FDA issued a total of 59 EUAS for IVDs for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid from SARS-CoV-2 based on validation data using contrived specimens derived from SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA."
"Contrived" specimens?? 🤔
Also the non universality of different tests (as you mentioned), found in paper below is probably even more sus as it makes determining "covid" very individualistic as there is no standardization and high variability in determining "covid"... (Let alone using PCR as a diagnostic tool, let alone not distinguishing between live virus versus exposure and non viable sequences.) 👇
"Although PCR Ct (cycle threshold) values have been shown to be inversely associated with viral load and infectivity, there is NO international standardization across laboratories, rendering PROBLEMATIC the interpretation of RT-PCR tests when used as a tool for mass screening."
*If you were trying to worm your way out of a future court case, are these are the types of disclaimers you would write to clear your organisation or company of blame??
More info that the original CDC test may have been using pre-existing virus sequences, rather than covid specific found in link below (same link as first referenced but providing it again) 👇
"Since NO quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with CHARACTERIZED STOCKS of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of KNOWN TITER (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.”
Characterised stock (so pre existing samples in Genebank) of known titers, that mimics a clinical specimen???
A "CONTRIVED" specimen...??
This sounds incredibly sketchy as to what they were really looking for...
Pre existing, known gene sequences from other viruses?? Cross reactivity again??
PS the sequence info came fully trusted from China from one patient initially (who are owned by the WEF, but save that rant for another day)
Only other thing I'd add is HOW did they isolate for sequences so quickly? Even though some of the above disclaimers mentioned "contrived" samples... apparently China had isolated covid early 2020?
Covid was claimed not only as isolated by Jan 2020, but what was isolated was also deemed "causitive"...
☝️I doubt this story (unless they'd prepared "Covid" earlier) as the following basic fact still applies, even in this day and age:
"More than 200 strains of viruses that cause colds have be identified, which makes the development of appropriate immunization methods very difficult, if not impossible. For about 40% OF ALL COLDS, the responsible agents havent even been identified."
Biology (2nd Edition) 1989 Raven and Johnson page 576.
Okay, given they have trouble identifying causitive viruses normally, there's hundreds of potential viruses to choose from, all never before identified...
Think about this...
How did they identify this one SO EARLY??? BY JANUARY 2020???? And determine what they found as the CAUSITIVE AGENT??
I can understand they may identify the sequences and virus a few years later, but within days??? Come on...
There's NO QUESTIONING up the chain as to the AUTHENTICITY of this Genebank delivered from CHINA, which was ISOLATED for Genebank SUPER EARLY in Jan 2020... To deliver "known titers" of covid.. with which they'll TEST FOR RELIGIOUSLY using OVER AMPLIFIED PCR.
How were these tell tale titers so well known in January 2020?
Well don't worry Australia to the rescue of the covid narrative ... Apparently Covid was isolated via research here:
The only reason to doubt the above research, which I would have swallowed hook line and sinker a few years ago, is two things:
1.) Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RTPCR) was used, which means that the Melbourne researchers "must have had the information from Chinese authorities" on the selections of primers... Really, they must have had the primers from the Chinese?? Neat trick to get the right primers to detect "covid" so early... What were these primers? The sequences are listed in the research notes, but yet again, thanks CHINA for supplying these sequences which we won't check or verify.
2.) ... Which really leads on from point 1.).... They detected and determined "covid" in Australia on Jan 24, 2020??!!!!
Seriously ONE SICK GUY, a SAMPLE from him yielded the elusive covid...
Wow...
Fortuitously all happened at Monash University ... Where "Moderna's vaccine production factory will be based at Melbourne's Monash University under a 10-year deal inked with both state and federal governments."... according to government talking points in the media.
So sus that THIS IS THE PLACE to isolate covid in January 2020 isn't it?
Oh and they took a photo... Of a coronavirus... Hmmmm ...
Could be ANY coronavirus to be honest, one of the known human coronaviruses, or any of the many wild coronaviruses that do not cause human illness... And of course around 40% of viruses that cause colds have never been identified... Never ... So how did they get this one so fast??
In October 2020 campaigner Tony Heller showed in a short video how the UK was enduring what has been described as a “casedemic” or “scamdemic”, with Covid-attributed cases skyrocketing while Covid-attributed deaths flatlined at a minimal level: https://realclimatescience.com/2020/10/latest-on-the-second-wave/#gsc.tab=0.
It is interesting that even within the virus paradigm the PCR test is so highly questionable.
I say "even" because the authors of the paper (Corman-Drosten) that defines the use of PCR for "detecting" SARS-CoV-2 admit that they did not have samples of the (supposed) virus when devising the test. Without samples of the virus, there is no way that they can prove that a positive result means what they say that it means.
Here is the statement they make:
Aim: We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.
As I see it, there is no reason to believe any claims about SARS-CoV-2 because the test is detecting some DNA fragments never shown to be related to a virus or any pathogen.
When making measurements one has to worry about the signal to noise ratio. When the noise level approaches the signal level one has a very iffy signal. Yes, sometimes one can tease out the signal if there something specific about the signal such as a specific Known frequency. There are no reasonable ways to isolate the signal in PCR testing.
Magnifying the measurement magnifies the noise so there can be no improvement in the signal to noise ratio. PCR testing uses cycles, each cycle doubles the amount of mRNA/DNA in the sample. Covid testing used 40 cycles! 2^40 = 1,000,000,000,000, 1 trillion magnification. My daughter, working for a degree in biology used PCR testing and found that more than 17 cycles (130,000x magnification) resulted in garbage results. Just noise.
Oh, it gets worse. I know of multiple stories, some only one person seperation, where the people running these tests felt they needed to play it safe and tell those that missed a scheduled covid test that they tested positive for covid when no test was done. Apparently these people were suppose to isolate themselves for a couple weeks based on Nothing!
With a strong relationship between PCR Ct and viral culture positives I don't see how there is room to deny that PCR tests with low Ct are indicative of viral infection to a high degree of certainty.
On a different, but related subject, I think many of us would also greatly appreciate your unbiased professional opinion on the ONS changes to the methodology for calculating excess deaths? I'm sure you must be looking at this already in view of it's trend changes and so reduction in excess deaths and attendent reduction in percentage increases over the "Vaccine years" as a result of higher figures in the "Pre-vaccine" years? Except 2019 which seems like an unexplainable outlier OR was set to deceive in advance?
Why this?, why now? seem relevant questions, particularly since this change now means that UK data will no longer be comparable with ROW data, which still uses the simple moving average method. That's just an accidental coincidence, I'm sure?
Cross reactivity, if I'm thinking about this correctly, sure could explain why cold and flu and every other illness of its type virtually "disappeared" during the pandemic. Meaning, we still had the same numbers of cold and flu but we're instead blamed on covid -substantially inflating its number and thereby creating its pandemic. Deducing that, means a pandemic never really happened but instead what may have actually occurred was the usual seasonal viruses alongside the addition of covid substantially (and falsely)increasing its numbers of positive PCR.
Hi!
Husband was "kidnapped" from a local hospital's ER (Maine) in May 2021 using the PCR test declaring him to have covid (he didn't have symptoms of anything; he was there requiring some sutures regarding a fall) and "locked up" for 9 days in a newly created covid unit until I could figure out how to advocate for him.
NO visitors allowed so, therefore, the hospital has "full" control of the situation.
Was he kidnapped for financial gain? Were others also kidnapped to fill up the newly created covid unit?
He had Anthem coverage, and some claim that Anthem was in on the whole fraud offering financial incentives.
Over time, I created a 15 page document citing various violations of laws regarding this human trafficking, body snatching, and kidnapping and sent it to the Maine AG, local, county sheriff, and our representative requesting an investigation all to to avail.
NO investigation happened.
NO one cared in this instance.
Thank you!
Lise from Maine (former licensed clinician)
Lotta good stuff in this critical overview. Helpful.
I like this angle: "We analysed the very few studies that used blind samples of colds or flu viruses to undertake ‘mystery shopper’ testing of laboratories using PCR. ... We identified many systematic weaknesses in these studies, finding that numerous implicit tricks had been used to supress evidence of cross reactivity, thus misleading the public into believing PCR tests are reliable."
Thank you for questioning the accuracy/validity of the COVID PCR tests. As the authors note, the entire pandemic "fear narrative" is based on the results of these tests. I agree that the number of genuine Covid "cases" must be greatly inflated. This would also mean the number of "Covid deaths" is greatly inflated (as these deaths are attributed to a positive result on these tests). This would mean the numerator in the IFR calculations (deaths) is not nearly as high as has been reported.
This paragraph from the article particularly grabbed my attention:
"Hence, based on this data we might be able to safely assume that there is evidence to support the contention there was a wave of false positive covid tests in the UK in winter 2020/21, likely partly caused by common colds (and in the UK these should have been officially recognised as false positives)."
I've always wondered why there was such a massive increase in the number of (alleged) Covid cases and deaths in the fall and winter of 2020 and the early months of 2021. If one believes this virus really began to spread in the fall of 2019, this massive spike would be the SECOND year this novel virus had been spreading.
If early spread of a novel coronavirus had infected large numbers of people in late 2019 and early 2020, far more people than realized would have had natural immunity in the "cold and flu" season of 2020-2021 and, thus, the number of Covid cases might have been expected to have gone DOWN.
The above paragraph gives me an answer that would partially or fully explain the spike in cases in the second year of Covid - namely, a significant percentage of these "Covid cases" weren't really Covid. They were people with ILIs one would expect to see in ANY cold and flu season. The positives probably were caused by "cross reactivity" with other coronaviruses.
If significant numbers of these positive cases in the winter of 2020-2021 were falsely labelled "Covid cases" (and then "Covid deaths"), these deaths must have been caused by something that wasn't a novel coronavirus. They were either caused by an existing coronavirus or ILI bug (highly doubtful as these aren't typically "lethal" viruses) or by the Covid treatment protocols. This, if true, should qualify as a major scandal or a complete failure of the medical and science community to correctly identify the true cause of these deaths.
Conflation of a background signal with the intent to transfect and amplify a danger response. Greatest Experiment of All TIME (GEOAT)! So far IMHO. Unfortunately I don't think the Principle Investigators have any intention to publish, much less provide public access to methods/materials and raw data. I am not willing, yet, to speculate as to what the primary endpoint was/is? However, I do remain intensely curious.
If they do publish, you can bet your ass that it will be behind the biggest paywall the publishing industry has ever seen. Fraud all the way down. Tyrants and Parasites are known to violently attack when they sense danger. And killing them en masse can lead to very toxic conditions in the host. Thank you for this courageous act of sharing. I love it.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, positive cases have driven everything: masks, social distancing, lockdowns, economic and food destruction, mental and physical health destruction, the arrested development of millions of children, a large number of preventable suicides, and a bevy of new, rushed, and barely tested vaccines. PCR false positives were the engine of the plandemic:
The RT-PCR test being used for COVID involves a cycling function. The more you cycle the test material in the lab, the more people test positive for COVID> IF you cycle the test material 60 times, every sample tests positive for COVID. If you cycle it 10 times, not one tests positive. If you cycle it 30 times, some test positive and some don't. This means all our corrupt governments have full control of how many people test positive, depending on how many times they insist the test material be cycled. They've picked this test purposely so they can up-regulate or down-regulate the pandemic at will.
WHO's message to the world: "Test Test Test!"
Excerpt from: https://tritorch.com/PCRFraud <---this---- breaks down how fraudulent PCR was into its components
For my sins I am reading through the WHO's End-to-End integration of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza sentinel surveillance- revised interim guidance January 2022.
In short: There are established centres in countries that take samples of ill people (symptoms consistent with ILI- influenza like illness, ARI- acute respiratory infection, SARI- severe acute respiratory infection), in sentinel centres and then test for Influenza and SARS-CoV2 using PCR testing.
Depending on their first testing preference they use singleplex assays for Influenza or SARS-CoV2 and then multiplex assays for both.
Would be really interesting to look at their raw data to determine the level of this interference?
Results should be reported on FluNet and FluID (both on platform FluMart).
The other reason for the supposed downturn in other respiratory pathogens would be the fact that some labs stopped or greatly reduced their testing, so that they could focus their limited resources on Covid testing. I live in Nova Scotia and was a senior leader in our health authority in 2020-21. Faced with the massive expectation for Covid testing, the centralized lab issued memo after memo shutting down testing for everything else, including things like influenza, strep, etc.
Great article... Detailed analysis too... Thanks for this hard work, will add to my collection!!
As mentioned above PCR determination of covid is super suspicious... Ramped up to approx 40 cycles, where you could find "just about anything in anyone" as inventor Kary Mullis said ...
Not sure if this helps or if my interpretation is on the mark, but...
The caveats in the CDC "diagnostic" panel relay of the PCR test sound very inconclusive...
Therefore exactly what are they looking for... ??
"Important to note re PCR used for Covid CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel" Page 38:
"Detection of viral RNA may NOT indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the CAUSATIVE agent for clinical symptoms"
"This test CANNOT rule out diseases caused by OTHER BACTERIAL or VIRAL pathogens.”
https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
Starting at that reference, what vague thing were they testing for, and it sounds like they expect cross reactivity with other viruses and bacterial agents??
https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-covid-19-and-medical-devices/sars-cov-2-reference-panel-comparative-data
☝️This link no longer works, maybe it copied wrong at the time but it said (luckily I copied pasted when I saved the original reference):
"During the early months of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, CLINICAL SPECIMENS WERE NOT READILY AVAILABLE to developers of IVDs to DETECT SARS-CoV-2".
"Therefore, the FDA authorized IVDS based on available data from CONTRIVED samples generated from A RANGE of SARS-CoV-2 material sources (for example, gene specific RNA, synthetic RNA, or whole genome viral RNA) for analytical and clinical performance evaluation".
"While validation using these CONTRIVED SPECIMENS provided a measure of confidence in test performance at the beginning of the pandemic, it is NOT FEASIBLE to PRECISELY COMPARE the performance of VARIOUS TESTS that used CONTRIVED specimens because EACH TEST validated performance USING SAMPLES DERIVED from DIFFERENT gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid SOURCES".
"From February through the middle of May, the FDA issued a total of 59 EUAS for IVDs for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid from SARS-CoV-2 based on validation data using contrived specimens derived from SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA."
"Contrived" specimens?? 🤔
Also the non universality of different tests (as you mentioned), found in paper below is probably even more sus as it makes determining "covid" very individualistic as there is no standardization and high variability in determining "covid"... (Let alone using PCR as a diagnostic tool, let alone not distinguishing between live virus versus exposure and non viable sequences.) 👇
"Although PCR Ct (cycle threshold) values have been shown to be inversely associated with viral load and infectivity, there is NO international standardization across laboratories, rendering PROBLEMATIC the interpretation of RT-PCR tests when used as a tool for mass screening."
(So why was it used for mass screening?)
SOURCE:
https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)00265-6/fulltext
*If you were trying to worm your way out of a future court case, are these are the types of disclaimers you would write to clear your organisation or company of blame??
More info that the original CDC test may have been using pre-existing virus sequences, rather than covid specific found in link below (same link as first referenced but providing it again) 👇
https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
Page 40
"Since NO quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with CHARACTERIZED STOCKS of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of KNOWN TITER (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.”
Characterised stock (so pre existing samples in Genebank) of known titers, that mimics a clinical specimen???
A "CONTRIVED" specimen...??
This sounds incredibly sketchy as to what they were really looking for...
Pre existing, known gene sequences from other viruses?? Cross reactivity again??
PS the sequence info came fully trusted from China from one patient initially (who are owned by the WEF, but save that rant for another day)
Only other thing I'd add is HOW did they isolate for sequences so quickly? Even though some of the above disclaimers mentioned "contrived" samples... apparently China had isolated covid early 2020?
Covid was claimed not only as isolated by Jan 2020, but what was isolated was also deemed "causitive"...
☝️I doubt this story (unless they'd prepared "Covid" earlier) as the following basic fact still applies, even in this day and age:
"More than 200 strains of viruses that cause colds have be identified, which makes the development of appropriate immunization methods very difficult, if not impossible. For about 40% OF ALL COLDS, the responsible agents havent even been identified."
Biology (2nd Edition) 1989 Raven and Johnson page 576.
Okay, given they have trouble identifying causitive viruses normally, there's hundreds of potential viruses to choose from, all never before identified...
Think about this...
How did they identify this one SO EARLY??? BY JANUARY 2020???? And determine what they found as the CAUSITIVE AGENT??
I can understand they may identify the sequences and virus a few years later, but within days??? Come on...
There's NO QUESTIONING up the chain as to the AUTHENTICITY of this Genebank delivered from CHINA, which was ISOLATED for Genebank SUPER EARLY in Jan 2020... To deliver "known titers" of covid.. with which they'll TEST FOR RELIGIOUSLY using OVER AMPLIFIED PCR.
How were these tell tale titers so well known in January 2020?
Well don't worry Australia to the rescue of the covid narrative ... Apparently Covid was isolated via research here:
https://open.substack.com/pub/geoffpain/p/first-detected-covid19-case-arrived?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=tymb5
The only reason to doubt the above research, which I would have swallowed hook line and sinker a few years ago, is two things:
1.) Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RTPCR) was used, which means that the Melbourne researchers "must have had the information from Chinese authorities" on the selections of primers... Really, they must have had the primers from the Chinese?? Neat trick to get the right primers to detect "covid" so early... What were these primers? The sequences are listed in the research notes, but yet again, thanks CHINA for supplying these sequences which we won't check or verify.
2.) ... Which really leads on from point 1.).... They detected and determined "covid" in Australia on Jan 24, 2020??!!!!
Seriously ONE SICK GUY, a SAMPLE from him yielded the elusive covid...
Wow...
Fortuitously all happened at Monash University ... Where "Moderna's vaccine production factory will be based at Melbourne's Monash University under a 10-year deal inked with both state and federal governments."... according to government talking points in the media.
So sus that THIS IS THE PLACE to isolate covid in January 2020 isn't it?
Oh and they took a photo... Of a coronavirus... Hmmmm ...
Could be ANY coronavirus to be honest, one of the known human coronaviruses, or any of the many wild coronaviruses that do not cause human illness... And of course around 40% of viruses that cause colds have never been identified... Never ... So how did they get this one so fast??
In October 2020 campaigner Tony Heller showed in a short video how the UK was enduring what has been described as a “casedemic” or “scamdemic”, with Covid-attributed cases skyrocketing while Covid-attributed deaths flatlined at a minimal level: https://realclimatescience.com/2020/10/latest-on-the-second-wave/#gsc.tab=0.
It is interesting that even within the virus paradigm the PCR test is so highly questionable.
I say "even" because the authors of the paper (Corman-Drosten) that defines the use of PCR for "detecting" SARS-CoV-2 admit that they did not have samples of the (supposed) virus when devising the test. Without samples of the virus, there is no way that they can prove that a positive result means what they say that it means.
Here is the statement they make:
Aim: We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.
Here is the paper:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31992387/
As I see it, there is no reason to believe any claims about SARS-CoV-2 because the test is detecting some DNA fragments never shown to be related to a virus or any pathogen.
Whole thing was faked and it wasn’t hard to do
When making measurements one has to worry about the signal to noise ratio. When the noise level approaches the signal level one has a very iffy signal. Yes, sometimes one can tease out the signal if there something specific about the signal such as a specific Known frequency. There are no reasonable ways to isolate the signal in PCR testing.
Magnifying the measurement magnifies the noise so there can be no improvement in the signal to noise ratio. PCR testing uses cycles, each cycle doubles the amount of mRNA/DNA in the sample. Covid testing used 40 cycles! 2^40 = 1,000,000,000,000, 1 trillion magnification. My daughter, working for a degree in biology used PCR testing and found that more than 17 cycles (130,000x magnification) resulted in garbage results. Just noise.
Oh, it gets worse. I know of multiple stories, some only one person seperation, where the people running these tests felt they needed to play it safe and tell those that missed a scheduled covid test that they tested positive for covid when no test was done. Apparently these people were suppose to isolate themselves for a couple weeks based on Nothing!
Thank you for this clear and excellent summary
On a related note, the Feb 4, 2020 Instructions for Use for the CDC's original test (the one with the primer & false positive problems) makes clear that there was cross-reactivity with SARS. See page 33 and Table 7. https://web.archive.org/web/20200205171727/https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
Have you looked at viral culture positives as the gold standard for determining replicating virus?
Heneghan and Jefferson did a thorough review of this question https://trusttheevidence.substack.com/p/the-sars-cov-2-transmission-riddle-74e. They found a strong relationship between Ct under 25 and viral culture positive, and hence infectivity https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/73/11/e3884/6018217?login=false.
With a strong relationship between PCR Ct and viral culture positives I don't see how there is room to deny that PCR tests with low Ct are indicative of viral infection to a high degree of certainty.