Reports are streaming in, declaring a Dark Winter for the world due to COVID19. The media rushes to tell the public that case numbers are on the rise again. In response, case numbers are used to support calls for lockdowns, travel and dining restrictions, and the push for compulsory vaccines.
However, in recent months an abundance of evidence has shown that the “gold standard” procedure for detecting COVID-19 is unreliable and could be producing untold numbers of false positives. If this is the case, why are health officials around the world calling for more tests?
This report is a brief look into the history of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedure and the evidence that PCR is unreliable and should not be used as a determinant for the number of COVID-19 cases or as a factor in political decisions. Please share with friends and family to keep them informed, and if someone shared this with you, please watch with an open mind.
The Conscious Resistance Network presents:
The PCR Deception (Documentary)
Researched, written, and narrated by Derrick Broze
Edited by Becca Godwin
The PCR Deception
In the months since the COVID-19 panic began health authorities around the world have encouraged the public to “get tested” to help track the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the strain of coronavirus that causes COVID19. However, as fear and hysteria subside, the scientific community and public at large are calling into question the efficacy of the test used to determine a patients status.
The main test that is used to determine an individual status involves the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. This incredibly sensitive technique was developed by Berkeley scientist Kary Mullis, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1993. The PCR method amplifies a small segment of DNA hundreds of times to make it easier to analyze. For COVID19, a process known as Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is used to detect SARS-CoV-2 by amplifying the virus’ genetic material so it can be detected by scientists.
PCR is sometimes described as a technique or process, but for simplicity we will refer to it as a test. PCR is viewed as the gold standard, however, it is not without problems. PCR amplifies a virus’s genetic material and then each sample goes through a number of cycles until a virus is recovered. This is known as the “cycle threshold” and has become a key component in the debate around the efficacy of the PCR test.
In late August 2020, I attended a press conference in Houston, Texas to ask Houston Health Authority Dr. David Persse about concerns about PCR.
Dr. Persse says that when the labs report numbers of COVID-19 cases to the City of Houston they only offer a binary option of “yes” for positive or “no” for negative. “But, in reality, it comes in what is called cycle-thresholds. It’s an inverse relationship, so the higher the number the less virus there was in the initial sample,” Persse explained. “Some labs will report out to 40 cycle-thresholds, and if they get a positive at 40 – which means there is a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of virus there – that gets reported to us as positive and we don’t know any different.”
Persse noted that the key question is, at what value is someone considered still infectious?
“Because if you test me and I have a tiny amount of virus, does that mean I am contagious? that I am still infectious to someone else? If you are shedding a little bit of virus are you just starting? or are you on the downside?.”
He believes the answer is for the scientific community to set a national standard for cycle-threshold. Unfortunately, a national standard would not solve the problems expressed by Dr. Persse.
UK Parliament and Scientists Have Concerns About PCR Test
In the first weeks of September 2020 a number of important revelations regarding PCR came to light. First, new research from the University of Oxford’s Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and the University of the West of England found that the PCR test poses the potential for false positives when testing for COVID-19. Professor Carl Heneghan, one of the authors of the study said there was a risk that an increase in testing in the UK will lead to an increase in the risk of “sample contamination” and thus an increase in COVID-19 cases.
The team reviewed evidence from 25 studies where virus specimens had positive PCR tests. The researchers state that the “genetic photocopying” technique scientists use to magnify the sample of genetic material collected is so sensitive it could be picking up fragments of dead virus from previous infections. The researchers reach a similar conclusion as Dr. David Persse, specifically they state:
“A binary Yes/No approach to the interpretation RT-PCR unvalidated against viral culture will result in false positives with segregation of large numbers of people who are no longer infectious and hence not a threat to public health.”
Heneghan, who is also the the editor of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, told the BBC that the binary approach is a problem and tests should have a cut-off point so small amounts of virus do not lead to a positive result. This is because of the cycle threshold mentioned by Dr. Persse. A person who is shedding an active virus and someone who has leftover infection could both receive the same positive test result. Heneghan also stated that the test could be detecting old virus which would explain the rise in cases in the UK and said setting a standard for the cycle threshold would eliminate the quarantining and contact tracing of people who are healthy and help the public better understand the true nature of COVID-19.
Video censored by GooTube [they have become criminals]
Shortly after Heneghan’s criticisms the UK’s leading health agency, Public Health England, released an update on the testing methods used to detect COVID-19 and appeared to agree with Professor Heneghan regarding the concerns on the cycle threshold. On September 9, 2020, PHE released an update which concluded, “all laboratories should determine the threshold for a positive result at the limit of detection.”
This is not the first time Heneghan’s work has directly impacted the UK’s COVID-19 policies. In July 2020, UK health secretary Matt Hancock called for an “urgent review” of the daily COVID-19 death numbers produced by Public Health England after it was revealed the stats included people who died from other causes. The Guardian reported that Professor Heneghan and a fellow scientist released a paper showing that if someone dies after having tested positive for COVID-19, their death is recorded in the COVID-19 death statistics. A source in the Department of Health and Social Care told The Guadian, “You could have been tested positive in February, have no symptoms, then hit by a bus in July and you’d be recorded as a COVID death.’”
Heneghan also recently told the BMJ , “one issue in trying to interpret numbers of detected cases is that there is no set definition of a case. At the moment it seems that a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive result is the only criterion required for a case to be recognised.”
“In any other disease we would have a clearly defined specification that would usually involve signs, symptoms, and a test result. We are moving into a biotech world where the norms of clinical reasoning are going out of the window. A PCR test does not equal covid-19; it should not, but in some definitions it does.”
Heneghan says he is concerned that as soon as there is the appearance of an outbreak there is panic and over-reacting. “This is a huge problem because politicians are operating in a non-evidence-based way when it comes to non-drug interventions,” he stated.
Heneghan is correct that the scientific authorities ought to take false positives seriously, especially when a person can be sent to isolate or quarantine for weeks due to a positive test result. Even the U.S. FDA’s own fact sheet on testing acknowledges the dangers posed by false positives:
“ in the event of a false positive result, risks to patients could include the following: a recommendation for isolation of the patient…. unnecessary prescription of a treatment or therapy, or other unintended adverse effects.”
A CDC fact sheet also acknowledges the possibility of false positives with the PCR test.
Professor Heneghan believes the confusion around COVID-19 has come as a result of a shift away from “evidence-based medicine.” In a recent opinion piece published at The Spectator, Heneghan wrote that patients have become a “prisoner of a system labelling him or her as ‘positive’ when we are not sure what that label means.” He warns:
“Governments are producing a series of contradictory and confusing policies which have a brief shelf life as the next crisis emerges. It is increasingly clear the evidence is often ignored. Keeping up to date is a full time occupation.”
More evidence for the unreliability of PCR came on November 11, 2020, when the Lisbon Court of Appeal ruled that PCR ““in view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
The decision relates to an appeal by the Regional Health Administration of the Azores,Portugal which forced four German citizens to comply with a 14 day quarantine in a hotel room. After the four citizens appealed the decision, the panel of judges concluded that “the number of cycles of such amplification results in a greater or lesser reliability of such tests. And the problem is that this reliability shows itself, in terms of scientific evidence (…) as more than debatable.”
The ruling was criticized by some scientists in Portugal and has been completely ignored by the United States media and politcians.
More recently, On December 3, 2020, the Florida Department of Health announced a new update requiring all laboratories conducting COVID-19 tests to record new details for the PCR test.
The update notes that all Florida “laboratories are subject to mandatory reporting to the Florida Department of Health (FDOH),” including for “PCR, other RNA, antigen and antibody results.” The update adds new requirements for the PCR test, asking labs to record the “cycle threshold” (CT) values for the process. The FDOH document states:
“Cycle threshold (CT) values and their reference ranges, as applicable, must be reported by laboratories to FDOH via electronic laboratory reporting or by fax immediately.”
On December 14, the World Health Organization (WHO) posted a notice on their website warning that PCR may not be entirely accurate for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The WHO memo admits that using too high of a cycle threshold will likely result in false positives.
“Users of RT-PCR reagents should read the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is necessary to account for any background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a positive result.”
“The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus and so the Ct value will be low. Conversely, when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.”
The fact that the Florida Department of Health and the WHO is taking this step is another sign that an increasing number of health professionals and regulators are questioning the accuracy of PCR. Unfortunately, both of these stories have been ignored by the mainstream media.
As noted earlier, this incredibly sensitive technique was developed by Berkeley scientist Kary Mullis, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1993. By the mid-90’s, Mullis had become skeptical that PCR was able to detect HIV and made several statements towards the end of his life indicating that he believed the technique was being improperly used by researchers.
As we approach 2021 the public is being told that a Dark Winter is waiting, with governments and media predicting a rise in cases and deaths. However, it’s important that we pause to acknowledge the many concerns surrounding the PCR test before international health authorities crash the economy, send millions into poverty, and threaten civil liberties. We must help the public understand the limitations of the PCR test and the dangers of resting public health policy on such a flawed process.
Finally, we must also hold accountable those who continue to promote PCR and refuse to answer these questions or even acknowledge these concerns. We cannot ignore the disastrous results produced by policymakers who failed to heed warnings about PCR.
Thank you for watching. Please share this video with your friends and family.
CDC withdrawing approval for the PCR test
By DKR - 24. July 2021
Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing
After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.
Visit the FDA website for a list of authorized COVID-19 diagnostic methods. For a summary of the performance of FDA-authorized molecular methods with an FDA reference panel, visit this page.
Gee - with a 90%+ false positive rate, the vaunted CDC finally figures out the test is....worthless. Oh, looks like it may have flagged the flu as a positive as well.
Those who live asleep will awake with horror...too late.
DROSTEN PCR TEST BUSTED - After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the FDA for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 testing
19. July 2021
ON 21. July 2021 CDC will announce:
Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing
Audience: Individuals Performing COVID-19 Testing
Level: Laboratory Alert
After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 [N.B.: By meanwhile infamous Dr. Drosten, Charité Clinic Berlin] for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.
In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test. CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season. Laboratories and testing sites should validate and verify their selected assay within their facility before beginning clinical testing.
- FAQ: CDC Distribution of COVID-19 Assays
- Guidance for SARS-CoV-2 Point-of-Care Testing
- Interim Guidance for SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Testing
- Interim Guidelines for Collecting, Handling, and Testing Clinical Specimens for COVID-19
- Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19 for Laboratories
- Information for Laboratories about COVID-19
- CDC COVID-19 Website
- Clinical Laboratory COVID-19 Response Weekly Calls
- CDC Laboratory Outreach Communication System (LOCS)
The Laboratory Outreach Communication System
Laboratory Outreach Communication System (LOCS) | Division of Laboratory Systems (DLS)
Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services (CSELS)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Page last reviewed: July 19, 2021
Content source: Division of Laboratory Systems (DLS)
THIS CONSTITUTES RAPE PENETRATION OF A BABY
15. July 2021
FDA Issues Second Class 1 Recall in Two Weeks for Unauthorized COVID-19 Test
By TDIG - 15. June 2021
Second recall and warning by FDA indicate a strong crackdown on unauthorized COVID-19 tests
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its second Class 1 recall (the most serious recall the FDA uses) of a COVID-19 test. This one comes less than two weeks after the FDA recalled another COVID-19 test for similar issues.
The first recall occurred May 28, 2021, and it applied to COVID-19 tests sold by Lepu Technology without authorization (See FDA Issues Public Safety Communication WarningPublic and Healthcare Providers About COVID-19 Tests Sold By Lepu Technology).
On June 10, 2021, the FDA issued the second and most recent Class 1 recall for COVID-19 testing. Simultaneously, the FDA provided a letter to the public and to healthcare providers, warning them to immediately stop using the affected tests. The test affected by the second recall is the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test.
The FDA cited multiple reasons for issuing the warning and recall, including the fact that the test’s performance was not adequately established; the fact that the test had not yet received authorization; and concerns that the data provided by the Innova Medical Group with their emergency use authorization (EUA) application appeared to be copied from data provided by other test manufacturers.
The FDA warns that the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test is sold under many names, including:
- Innova COVID-19 Self-Test Kit (3T Configuration)
- Innova SARS-CoV-2-Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test (7T Configuration)
- Innova SARS-CoV-2-Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test (25T Configuration)
The FDA recommends that healthcare providers who have used the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test retest any patients who may have experienced an inaccurate result.
BY TYLER DURDEN- 23. May 2021
New policies will artificially deflate “breakthrough infections” in the vaccinated, while the old rules continue to inflate case numbers in the unvaccinated.
The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) is altering its practices of data logging and testing for “Covid19” in order to make it seem the experimental gene-therapy “vaccines” are effective at preventing the alleged disease.
They made no secret of this, announcing the policy changes on their website in late April/early May, (though naturally without admitting the fairly obvious motivation behind the change).
The trick is in their reporting of what they call “breakthrough infections” – that is people who are fully “vaccinated” against Sars-Cov-2 infection, but get infected anyway.
Essentially, Covid19 has long been shown – to those willing to pay attention – to be an entirely created pandemic narrative built on two key factors:
- False-positive tests. The unreliable PCR test can be manipulated into reporting a high number of false-positives by altering the cycle threshold (CT value)
- Inflated Case-count. The incredibly broad definition of “Covid case”, used all over the world, lists anyone who receives a positive test as a “Covid19 case”, even if they never experienced any symptoms.
Without these two policies, there would never have been an appreciable pandemic at all, and now the CDC has enacted two policy changes which means they no longer apply to vaccinated people.
Firstly, they are lowering their CT value when testing samples from suspected “breakthrough infections”.
From the CDC’s instructions for state health authorities on handling “possible breakthrough infections” (uploaded to their website in late April):
For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing. (Sequencing is not feasible with higher Ct values.)
Throughout the pandemic, CT values in excess of 35 have been the norm, with labs around the world going into the 40s.
Essentially labs were running as many cycles as necessary to achieve a positive result, despite experts warning that this was pointless (even Fauci himself said anything over 35 cycles is meaningless).
But NOW, and only for fully vaccinated people, the CDC will only accept samples achieved from 28 cycles or fewer. That can only be a deliberate decision in order to decrease the number of “breakthrough infections” being officially recorded.
Secondly, asymptomatic or mild infections will no longer be recorded as “covid cases”.
That’s right. Even if a sample collected at the low CT value of 28 can be sequenced into the virus alleged to cause Covid19, the CDC will no longer be keeping records of breakthrough infections that don’t result in hospitalisation or death.
From their website:
As of May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported vaccine breakthrough cases to focus on identifying and investigating only hospitalized or fatal cases due to any cause. This shift will help maximize the quality of the data collected on cases of greatest clinical and public health importance. Previous case counts, which were last updated on April 26, 2021, are available for reference only and will not be updated moving forward.
Just like that, being asymptomatic – or having only minor symptoms – will no longer count as a “Covid case” but only if you’ve been vaccinated.
The CDC has put new policies in place which effectively created a tiered system of diagnosis. Meaning, from now on, unvaccinated people will find it much easier to be diagnosed with Covid19 than vaccinated people.
Person A has not been vaccinated. They test positive for Covid using a PCR test at 40 cycles and, despite having no symptoms, they are officially a “covid case”.
Person B has been vaccinated. They test positive at 28 cycles, and spend six weeks bedridden with a high fever. Because they never went into a hospital and didn’t die they are NOT a Covid case.
Person C, who was also vaccinated, did die. After weeks in hospital with a high fever and respiratory problems. Only their positive PCR test was 29 cycles, so they’re not officially a Covid case either.
The CDC is demonstrating the beauty of having a “disease” that can appear or disappear depending on how you measure it.
To be clear: If these new policies had been the global approach to “Covid” since December 2019, there would never have been a pandemic at all.
If you apply them only to the vaccinated, but keep the old rules for the unvaccinated, the only possible result can be that the official records show “Covid” is much more prevalent among the latter than the former.
This is a policy designed to continuously inflate one number, and systematically minimise the other.
What is that if not an obvious and deliberate act of deception?
The Mysterious Death of Dr. Fauci’s Most Notable Critic
First published on BITCHUTE May 22nd, 2021.
The late Dr. Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, has been blowing the whistle on Fauci and big pharma for thirty years.
May 22, 2021
French translation, version francaise https://odysee.com/@CapitaineCosmos:9/pcr_vih:1?r=8sHkQuWpkYMUjSZbQkoaj99NgnpcZSVQ
Other backups on BITCHUTE
COVID-19 PCR Test: CRASHING and BURNING🔥
12. May 2021
As cases of coronavirus rise across the world, shouldn’t death rates be going up too? The final nail in the coffin of the COVID-19 PCR test is here with a major dissection and debunking of the Drosten paper. PCR tests are seriously flawed by providing less than accurate results and why the majority of positive cases are completely false. It's a total scam. Originally aired @The Highwire on December 3rd of 2020.
Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020
Sweden Stops using PCR Tests - RNA from Viruses can be Detected for Months After Infection
By Mike Westcott - 10. May 2021
As Translated from the Swedish Public Health Agency:
Guidance on criteria for assessment of freedom from infection in covid-19
The Swedish Public Health Agency has developed national criteria for assessing freedom from infection in covid-19.
The PCR technology used in tests to detect viruses cannot distinguish between viruses capable of infecting cells and viruses that have been neutralized by the immune system and therefore these tests cannot be used to determine whether someone is contagious or not. RNA from viruses can often be detected for weeks (sometimes months) after the illness but does not mean that you are still contagious. There are also several scientific studies that suggest that the infectivity of covid-19 is greatest at the beginning of the disease period.
The recommended criteria for assessing freedom from infection are therefore based on stable clinical improvement with freedom from fever for at least two days and that at least seven days have passed since the onset of symptoms. For those who have had more pronounced symptoms, at least 14 days after the illness and for the very sickest, individual assessment by the treating doctor.
The criteria have been developed in collaboration with representatives of the specialty associations in infectious disease medicine, clinical microbiology, hygiene and infection control. These have most recently been discussed in the group at a meeting on 19 April 2021 due to the new virus variants. The assessment was then that no update was needed. The recommendations will be updated as new knowledge about covid-19 infectivity is added.
By Anonymous Sage - 25. March 2021
“…these (PCR) tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all.“
In September 2020, The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) had the following to say about the PCR test currently viewed as the “gold standard” for SARS-CoV-2 testing and being utilized all around the world:
“PCR detection of viruses is helpful so long as its accuracy can be understood: it offers the capacity to detect RNA in minute quantities, but whether that RNA represents infectious virus may not be clear.
During our Open Evidence Review of oral-fecal transmission of Covid-19, we noticed how few studies had attempted or reported culturing live SARS-CoV-2 virus from human samples.”
Though they offer a somewhat tempered critique, it is indeed quite evident from examining the key literature that the virus has simply not been isolated and purified, despite numerous—yet hollow—claims to the contrary. So what are they testing for, exactly? The CEBM investigated how the reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test reflects infectivity with the purported SARS-CoV-2 virus. They concluded:
“These studies provided limited data of variable quality that PCR results per se are unlikely to predict viral culture from human samples. Insufficient attention may have been paid how PCR results relate to disease. The relation with infectiousness is unclear and more data are needed on this.”
The figure below, provided by the CEBM, indicates that no live virus was detected with a symptom-to-test delay of more than 8 days. This is a huge red flag with regards to the purported “infectiousness” of COVID-19; after all, if no live virus was detected beyond 8 days, where exactly did the supposedly deadly, sophisticated, and replicating “infectious” virus go? The CEBM’s investigation raises many alarming questions about the rationale behind the use of the PCR test kit.
The CEBM further warned that “PCR results may lead to restrictions for large groups of people who do not present an infection risk.” This is precisely what we are seeing happen all around the world—countless millions, if not billions of people are still being locked down due to a faulty RT-PCR test kit that is evidently inconclusive in detecting the supposedly “novel” coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2.
The ineffectiveness of the RT-PCR test kit is simply not debatable, which basically makes the widespread lockdowns and restrictions entirely unwarranted, not to mention unnecessarily draconian. In September 2020, CNN described how UK students were being locked down in university dorms as a result of COVID-19 “positive” test results with this faulty test kit. This is an incredible sham affecting college students all over the world—not to mention other large segments of the world’s population.
A journal article in The Lancet analyzes the shedding and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2. The authors examine another study conducted by Fei Zhou and colleagues in Wuhan, China, also published in The Lancet. They noted the following:
“We were surprised to note the absence of viral load data in this study. Although the use of sensitive PCR methods offers value from a diagnostic viewpoint, caution is required when applying such data to assess the duration of viral shedding and infection potential because PCR does not distinguish between infectious virus and non-infectious nucleic acid.”
Here we have yet more indication that PCR is incapable of detecting SARS-CoV-2, due to its inability to distinguish an infectious virus from non-infectious nucleic acid. In fact, even Kary B. Mullis—the inventor of PCR technology himself—indicated that it was inappropriate for the detection of an infectious virus. Mullis was awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his invention of PCR, which became popular in the early 1990s (particularly in the “diagnosis” of HIV).
In a 1992 interview with Spin magazine, Mullis stated the following regarding the use of PCR in detecting HIV:
“PCR made it easier to see that certain people are infected with HIV and some of those people came down with symptoms of AIDS. But that doesn’t begin even to answer the question, ‘Does HIV cause it?'”
Mullis, who was a huge critic of Dr. Anthony Fauci—indicating that “he doesn’t know anything really about anything”—died in August 2019. The timing of his death just prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic is incredibly suspicious, and it should certainly raise more than a few eyebrows. Nevertheless, it’s a shame that Mullis isn’t alive today to continue offering his invaluable critique on the widespread usage of PCR tests throughout the COVID-19 scamdemic—er, pandemic—as it could have opened many people’s eyes to the fraudulent nature of the COVID-19 testing.
In the following video, Mullis explains about PCR, “It is just a process that is used to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick and it doesn’t tell you that the thing ended up with really was gonna hurt you or anything like that.”
A fantastic article by OffGuardian from June 2020, aptly titled “COVID-19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless,” also explored the issue of PCR testing and how they are simply unfit for the purpose of diagnosing a SARS-CoV-2 infection. OffGuardian states the following:
“…the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.”
PCR tests utilize something known as a “cycle quantification” (Cq) factor, which “specifies how many cycles of DNA replication are required to detect a real signal from biological samples.” Many PCR tests use a Cq of over 35, and some are even above 45. A Cq value above 40 implies a low efficiency, according to the “Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments” (MIQE) guidelines, which define the minimum information required to evaluate RT-PCR results.
OffGuardian also notes that there are no distinctive symptoms of COVID-19, which means that it shares symptoms with a variety of other illnesses, including the flu and pneumonia. Nevertheless, the fact that the inefficacy of PCR was known nearly three decades ago (and admitted by its very own creator) raises even more questions about why such widespread and improper use of PCR continues to this day. Until these questions are answered, draconian lockdowns and other repressive measures that are not based on sound science need to be eliminated.
Kary Mullis, Cancel Culture, PCR and Covid 19
First published on BITCHUTE February 27th, 2021.
Dr. Sam Bailey, February 23, 2021
Kary Mullis, Cancel Culture and Covid 19. What was Dr. Karry Mullis' background and why did he come into conflict with much of the medical and scientific establishment?
1. Kary Mullis Biographical: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1993/mullis/biographical/
2. Dr Kary Mullis - website: https://www.karymullis.com/
3. Kary Mullis - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis
4. Kansas State University - Dr Kary B. Mullis: https://www.k-state.edu/bmb/seminars/hageman/2013-Mullis.html
5. TED Talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/kary_mullis_play_experiment_discover?language=en
6. Dr Sam Bailey - The Truth About PCR Tests: https://youtu.be/EWNkJUDctdk
7. Kary Mullis correspondence with Trisha & Tommy “The Duke” Morrison - May 7,2013:
8. Virus Mania - 3rd English edition:
9. Kary Mullis - Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, 1998: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48497.Dancing_Naked_in_the_Mind_Field
10. Google TechTalk - September 17 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPETGWDWhNE
11. Off-Guardian - October 5th 2020: https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/05/pcr-inventor-it-doesnt-tell-you-that-you-are-sick/
12. Kary Mullis introduction to “Inventing the AIDS Virus” by Peter Duesberg, 1996: https://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/kintro.html
13. Nobel Lecture - December 8, 1993: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1993/mullis/lecture/
14. ABC Australia - Talkback with Professor Greg Dore, 10 August 2020: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/talkback-%E2%80%94-covid-19-testing/12536006
15. MyNewsLA.com Kary Mullis death - August 8, 2019: https://mynewsla.com/education/2019/08/08/nobel-winner-kary-banks-mullis-who-revolutionized-dna-research-dies-in-o-c/
16. Personal communication with people who knew Kary Mullis but wish to remain anonymous.
China Gave US Diplomats Anal COVID Tests ‘In Error,’ American Officials Say
The U.S. State Department says it is committed to preserving the “dignity” of American diplomats.
By Viola Zhou - 25. February 2021
CHINA HAS SAID THAT ANAL PROBES CAN IMPROVE THE ACCURACY OF COVID-19 TESTING. PHOTO: STRINGER / AFP
The Chinese government has promised to stop using anal swabs on American diplomats to test for COVID-19 after Washington complained that the practice was undignified, the U.S. State Department said.
“The State Department never agreed to this kind of testing and protested directly to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs when we learned that some staff were subject to it,” a State Department spokesperson told VICE World Newson Wednesday.
The spokesperson said Beijing had assured Washington that the test was given “in error” and that diplomatic personnel were exempt from the test, which was mandatory for incoming travelers in some parts of China.
“We have instructed staff to decline this test if it is asked of them, as was done in the past.”
On Thursday afternoon, China’s foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian denied Beijing had asked U.S. diplomats in China to undergo anal swab tests.
Some Chinese regions have been ordering anal swabs for people under quarantine, including those who arrived from abroad. Authorities say the tests can avoid missing infections.
It’s not clear how many U.S. diplomats or their family members have gone through the tests.
The State Department spokesperson said it is committed to preserving the “dignity” of American diplomats and their families, consistent with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and other diplomatic law provisions.
In an online post earlier in February, China’s National Health Commission said in some cases, the coronavirus can be more readily detected in anal samples than in throat and nasal samples. But it acknowledged rectal swabs are not suitable for mass use because they are inconvenient and unpopular.
According to the commission’s instructions, the anal samples are collected by inserting a cotton swab three to five centimeters (about one to two inches) into the rectum.
Reports about anal COVID-19 testing prompted a wave of panic on Chinese social media last month. A traveler from Australia to China who was given anal swabs in September told VICE World Newsit felt like having diarrhea.
China has largely contained the pandemic; only a handful of cases are reported daily across the country of 1.4 billion people. Its relatively early recovery helped its film industry break records earlier this month during the Lunar New Year holiday, but the authorities remain wary of foreign visitors who could bring new outbreaks.
This story has been updated with comments from the Chinese foreign ministry.
Follow Viola Zhou on Twitter.
For all the polarization that grips Washington, here's a source of rare consensus: the emerging threat of China's push to acquire our health care data, including the DNA of American citizens. U.S. officials tell us the communist regime's aggressive collection of our most personal information presents a danger both to national security and our economy. As alarm bells ring across agencies, parties, and presidential administrations, different branches of government have taken action over the past year to stem the tide of our medical data flowing to China. The quest to control our biodata – and, in turn, control health care's future – has become the new space race, with more than national pride in the balance. Our investigation begins with an unsolicited and surprising proposal that came from overseas at the onset of the COVID crisis.
Early last March, the state of Washington was the site of the first major coronavirus outbreak in the U.S. As COVID rates and the need for tests were spiking, BGI Group, the world's largest biotech firm - a global giant based in China - approached the state of Washington with an enticing offer.
In a strikingly personal letter to the governor, BGI proposed to build and help run state-of-the-art COVID testing labs. BGI would quote "provide technical expertise," provide "high throughput sequencers" and even "make additional donations."
It seemed like an offer the state couldn't refuse, especially given the desperate need. But officials were suspicious about BGI and its connections to the Chinese government.
Bill Evanina: They are the ultimate company that shows connectivity to both the communist state as well as the military apparatus.
Bill Evanina recently stepped down as the top counterintelligence official in the U.S., a veteran of both the FBI and CIA. He was so concerned by BGI's COVID testing proposals, and who would ultimately get the data, that he authorized a rare public warning: "Foreign powers can collect, store and exploit biometric information from covid tests."
Bill Evanina: We put out an advisory to not only every American, but to hospitals, associations, and clinics. Knowing that BGI is a Chinese company, do we understand where that data's going?
Jon Wertheim: Tens of millions Americans getting COVID tests this year, you don't think a lot of them are thinking, "Boy, where is this data going, what third party's involved in this?"
Bill Evanina: I would proffer no one's thinking that. But this shows the nefarious mindset of the Communist Party of China, to take advantage of a worldwide crisis like COVID.
Evanina suspects these lab offers are modern-day Trojan horses. BGI comes to the U.S. bearing gifts, but harboring other motives. It's unclear whether BGI, or any COVID tester, would get DNA from nasal swabs, he says, but the labs are a way to establish a foothold, to bring their equipment here, start mining your data, and set up shop in your neighborhood.
Edward You: You have to take a step back and ask yourself who has access to that data.
Supervisory Special Agent Edward You is a former biochemist turned FBI investigator.
Edward You: And with that, there's a very uncomfortable truth that comes out, that in the last decade or so, you'll see that China has heavily invested, through the purchase or acquisition of actual companies, access to our data.
Jon Wertheim: If the question is where is this data going, all roads lead to China?
Edward You: They are the biggest player right now.
The authoritarian government of China and its leader Xi Jinping have been boldly open about their ambitions to beat the west and reap the benefits of advances in DNA science and technology. The communist regime even has a published manifesto with a catchy name.
Edward You: They have something called Made in China 2025. And in these national strategies, they absolutely call out wanting to be the dominant leader in this biological age. So wanting to be the leader and being able to develop vaccines, precision medicine.
For all the classified briefings about China that Bill Evanina received, the threat really hit home when he called home.
Bill Evanina: This is the argument I would have with my dad. Is ten years from now-- my dad gets a phone call and is told, "Hey, by the way, we understand you're gonna develop hypertension. And you're on the verge of Parkinson's. Here are three medicines you should take moving forward to help alleviate some of the symptoms." My dad's gonna be like, "Well, how do they know this?" And the company's from China. Because they've already micro-targeted my dad based upon his DNA. And my dad says, "Okay, (CLAP) I'll do it."
Jon Wertheim: The devil's advocate argument would say, "Listen, if you're able to pinpoint something in my DNA, I'll sign up for that."
Bill Evanina: That's exactly what my dad said. (LAUGH) So my argument is, to him, from a long-term existential cost to our nation, do we want to do that? Do we wanna have another nation systematically eliminate our health care services? Are we okay with that as a nation? If we are as a nation, then so be it. But that's what's happening.
Our dependence on China during COVID - for PPE, for masks - will pale in comparison to our potential health care dependence going forward, according to Edward You of the FBI.
Edward You: What happens if we realize that all of our future drugs, our future vaccines, future health care are all completely dependent upon a foreign source? If we don't wake up, we'll realize one day we've just become health care crack addicts and someone like China has become our pusher.
Jon Wertheim: Health care crack addicts, you say?
Edward You: Right. If they're in a position to be able to offer you personalized, effective, low-cost health care, would we be in a position to say no, I don't think so?
Jon Wertheim: How close are we to that?
Edward You: I don't know how close we are, but I can feel it breathing down our neck.
Jon Wertheim: This sounds a little xenophobic. I mean, if China is the industry leader here, why wouldn't you do business with them?
Edward You: Well, at the end of the day, it's not about the Chinese people. It's about the Chinese government.
He says China's government understands that their future success hinges on accumulating large amounts of human DNA.
Edward You: They are building out a huge domestic database. And if they are now able to supplement that with data from all around the world, it's all about who gets the largest, most diverse data set. And so, the ticking time bomb is that once they're able to achieve true artificial intelligence, then they're off to the races in what they can do with that data.
Jon Wertheim: You're saying biggest data set wins?
Edward You: Correct.
Think of DNA as the ultimate treasure map, a kind of double-helixed chart containing the code for traits ranging from our eye color to our susceptibility to certain diseases. If you have 10,000 DNA samples, scientists could possibly isolate the genetic markers in the DNA associated with, say, breast cancer. But if you have 10 million samples, your statistical chances of finding the markers improve dramatically, which is why China wants to get so much of it.
Edward You: It is one-sided, though. China passed a law last year. The Chinese government has absolutely clamped down on any access to their biological data or their biological samples. So it is a one-way street.
Jon Wertheim: So, their data's not leaving China but they're sucking it in from all over the world?
Edward You: Right.
It's not just DNA, according to Bill Evanina. He and his colleagues have been tracking China as the country uses less-than-honorable methods to vacuum up all sorts of data from outside their borders.
Bill Evanina: They do it both legitimately and illegitimately. They steal some data, but they're very strategic in how they acquire it from around the world.
Jon Wertheim: You're saying at least in some cases, China's hacking to get this information.
Bill Evanina: China is number one in the world at any kind of hacking capability, and they're brazen about it.
In December, John Ratcliffe, then the director of national intelligence, went so far as to name China as the number one national security threat to America, citing specifically, their theft of data and technology.
Bill Evanina: You have probably five or six health care companies the last five years who have been, I would say, penetrated, exfiltrated, hacked by China.
Jon Wertheim: What's the likelihood you and I have been hacked by China?
Bill Evanina: 110%.
Jon Wertheim: Personal data?
Bill Evanina: Personal data. Current estimates are that 80% of American adults have had all of their personally identifiable information stolen by the Communist Party of China.
The concern is that the Chinese regime is taking all that information about us - what we eat, how we live, when we exercise and sleep - and then combining it with our DNA data. With information about heredity and environment, suddenly they know more about us than we know about ourselves and, bypassing doctors, China can target us with treatments and medicine we don't even know we need.
Edward You: Think about the dawn of-- the Internet of Things and the 5G networks and the-- and smart homes and smart cities. There are going to be sensors everywhere. It's gonna be tracking your movement, your behavior, your habits. And ultimately, it's gonna have a biological application, meaning that based on the data that gets collected, they'll be able to analyze that and look at improving your health. That data becomes incredibly relevant and very, very valuable.
Jon Wertheim: You're describing data almost as-- as a commodity.
Edward You: Data is absolutely gonna be the new oil.
All this may sound like a premise for a dystopian futuristic science fiction movie, but U.S. government officials say the picture gets even scarier given how China is already using DNA strategically against its own citizens today.
Sophie Richardson: These are some of the most serious abuses that the Chinese government has committed in modern history.
Sophie Richardson, director of the China program for Human Rights Watch, says China has rounded up more than a million Uyghurs, Chinese citizens who are a Muslim minority, and jailed them in camps. The U.S. government calls this a crime against humanity.
Sophie Richardson: They're being subjected to political indoctrination. They can't use their own language. They're not allowed to worship. Those people are highly restricted in how they can live their lives.
Jon Wertheim: This is a population under constant surveillance?
Sophie Richardson: Yeah. It's-- it's a region that's awash in surveillance technology, ranging from, you know, facial recognition software, surveillance cameras, data doors, Wi-Fi sniffers.
Part of the social control includes the forced collection of DNA. Under the guise of free physicals for Uyghurs, Richardson says China is actually collecting DNA and other biometric data that's then used specifically to identify people, target other family members and refine facial recognition software. And those, national security officials say, are just the uses we know about.
In response to the Uyghur repression, last July, the U.S. Department of Commerce sanctioned two subsidiaries of a Chinese biotech company. That company? BGI, the same one offering Washington state the COVID testing lab.
Edward You: Those companies were identified to have been facilitating the collection of genetic information of ethnic Uyghurs. If anything, that should serve as a warning signal for all of us that that is potentially what can happen if our data gets out of our hands, how it could be used.
It's not a coincidence BGI is involved in the Uyghur crisis given the company's close relationship with the communist regime. In 2010, after receiving $1.5 billion from China's government, BGI was able to expand dramatically.
Bill Evanina: They're monstrous. They have contracts with over 60 countries globally to provide not only genomic sequencing, but also to provide analytics.
Jon Wertheim: They say, "We're a private company." Are they?
Bill Evanina: There's no such thing as a private company in the Communist Party of China.
Under a series of laws unthinkable in western democracies, Chinese companies like BGI are obligated to share data with the Chinese regime. It's as if, say, Google, Amazon and Facebook had to turn over their data to the CIA, on demand.
Jon Wertheim: So you're trying to tell me that the Chinese government, whether it's biotech or-- they can say, "Hey, we want your information. Please provide it."
Bill Evanina: Absolutely. You must provide any and all data that's asked for by the Communist Party in China. Which, the scary part is, sometimes it's not all their data. If you are in a joint partnership, a joint venture, their data is now susceptible to go to the Chinese Communist Party.
As BGI touts on its own website, the company has been steadily developing partnerships with hospitals and biotech companies inside the United States, giving BGI — and by extension, the Chinese government — potential access to our DNA data, sequencing technology and analytics.
Jon Wertheim: How does BGI partner with U.S. companies?
Bill Evanina: So they do it, first of all, with money. So investment. I wanna invest $10 million, $20 million, $80 million in your company. Every company says yes, come on in. At the same time they're gonna have an unwritten rule that they're gonna be able to take that data and your sequencing capabilities. And what they don't know is China's keepin' it and they're givin' you a copy back.
BGI declined our request for an interview and said in a statement, "the notion that the genomic data of American citizens is in any way compromised through the activities of BGI in the U.S. is groundless." They said they are "a private organization" founded "to benefit human health and wellbeing."
Remember BGI's proposal to build COVID labs for the state of Washington? 60 Minutes learned that the company made similar proposals to more than five other states, including New York and California…. And, after federal officials warned against partnering with BGI, each state said no to BGI's labs.
It's not just China that's recognized what a valuable commodity your DNA can be. As you'll hear: some of the fastest-growing U.S. tech companies are in this space, as well. In fact, you may have already surrendered your DNA by spitting in a tube.
Questions regarding relationships between U.S. firms and foreign entities can be directed to the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).
Produced by Oriana Zill de Granados. Associate producer, Emily Gordon. Broadcast associate, Elizabeth Germino. Edited by Robert Zimet.
© 2021 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
BGI Group, the world’s largest genomics company, has worked with China’s military on research that ranges from mass testing for respiratory pathogens to brain science, a Reuters review of research, patent filings and other documents has found.
The review, of more than 40 publicly available documents and research papers in Chinese and English, shows BGI’s links to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) include research with China’s top military supercomputing experts.
Shares of BGI Genomics Co, the company’s subsidiary listed on the Shenzhen stock exchange, have doubled in price over the past 12 months, giving it a market value of about $9 billion.
BGI Group has supplied COVID-19 tests to nations worldwide including India.
According to Bill Evanina, America’s top counterintelligence officer, Chinese military is trying to collect DNA samples of foreign nations using BGI Group as a front.
“Foreign powers can collect, store and exploit biometric information from COVID tests,” reads the statement issued by Evanina.
A CBS News report said that the BGI Group made the offer to Washington state, California, New York, and at least two other states. The offer was made as soon as the first major coronavirus outbreak appeared in the U.S.
Evanina told CBS News that he believed the Chinese government was engaged in a concerted effort to collect DNA in order to gain an edge on medical advancements.
As reported by GreatGameIndia earlier, China’s national strategy of military-civil fusion has highlighted biology as a priority, and the People’s Liberation Army could be at the forefront of expanding and exploiting this knowledge.
The PLA is pursuing military applications for biology and looking into promising intersections with other disciplines, including brain science, supercomputing, and artificial intelligence.
Since 2016, the Central Military Commission has funded projects on military brain science, advanced biomimetic systems, biological and biomimetic materials, human performance enhancement, and “new concept” biotechnology.
Exclusive: China gene firm providing worldwide COVID tests worked with Chinese military
By Kirsty Needham - 30. January 2021
SYDNEY (Reuters) - BGI Group, the world’s largest genomics company, has worked with China’s military on research that ranges from mass testing for respiratory pathogens to brain science, a Reuters review of research, patent filings and other documents has found.A technician works at a genetic testing laboratory of BGI, formerly known as Beijing Genomics Institute, in Kunming, Yunnan province, China December 26, 2018. REUTERS/Stringer FILE PHOTO The review, of more than 40 publicly available documents and research papers in Chinese and English, shows BGI’s links to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) include research with China’s top military supercomputing experts. The extent of those links has not previously been reported.
BGI has sold millions of COVID-19 test kits outside China since the outbreak of the new coronavirus pandemic, including to Europe, Australia and the United States. Shares of BGI Genomics Co, the company’s subsidiary listed on the Shenzhen stock exchange, have doubled in price over the past 12 months, giving it a market value of about $9 billion.
But top U.S. security officials have warned American labs against using Chinese tests because of concern China was seeking to gather foreign genetic data for its own research. BGI has denied that.
The documents reviewed by Reuters neither contradict nor support that U.S. suspicion. Still, the material shows that the links between the Chinese military and BGI run deeper than previously understood, illustrating how China has moved to integrate private technology companies into military-related research under President Xi Jinping.
The U.S. government has recently been warned by an expert panel that adversary countries and non-state actors might find and target genetic weaknesses in the U.S. population and a competitor such as China could use genetics to augment the strength of its own military personnel.
BGI has worked on PLA projects seeking to make members of the ethnic Han Chinese majority less susceptible to altitude sickness, Reuters found, genetic research that would benefit soldiers in some border areas.
Elsa Kania, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security think tank, who has provided testimony to U.S. Congressional committees, told Reuters that China’s military has pushed research on brain science, gene editing and the creation of artificial genomes that could have an application in future bioweapons. She added that such weapons are not currently technically feasible.
BGI’s pattern of collaboration with the Chinese military was a “reasonable concern to raise” for U.S. officials, said Kania.
In response to Reuters’ questions, BGI said it adheres to international standards and Chinese laws related to open science, data sharing and genomic research. It said its collaboration with military researchers was for academic purposes only.
“BGI strongly rejects any accusations about links with the PLA, particularly in relation to our COVID-19 test kits,” it said in a statement.
China’s defence ministry did not respond to requests for comment.
‘ENHANCE’ SOLDIER STRENGTH
Chinese technology companies have come under increasing scrutiny by the United States and were subject to mounting restrictions under the administration of Donald Trump. In November, the Department of Commerce proposed a rule to add gene editing software to the U.S. export control list, saying it could be used to create biological weapons. Officials in the new administration of President Joe Biden have signalled a continued tough approach to what they see as a rising threat from Beijing.
A technology industry panel on artificial intelligence, appointed by the U.S. government and chaired by former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, raised the alarm in October about China’s financial support for its biotechnology sector, its advantages in collecting biological data, and the PLA’s interest in potential military applications.
The panel, which will deliver its final report in March, warned about adversaries using artificial intelligence to identify genetic weaknesses in a population and engineering pathogens to exploit them, and genetic research designed to enhance soldiers’ mental or physical strength.
The panel recommended that the U.S. government “take a more aggressive public posture regarding BGI,” citing national security risks posed by the company’s links to the Chinese government and its trove of genomic data.
The U.S. Department of State did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Reuters’ findings.
In response to Reuters’ questions, China’s foreign ministry said the U.S. government had “wantonly misinterpreted and smeared China’s military-civil fusion policy,” and was imposing unreasonable sanctions that would hamper research.
“China’s military-civil fusion policy is aimed at effectively mobilizing military and civilian resources, coordinating socio-economic growth and national defense development, and benefiting the public with scientific and technological progress. This policy is above board and beyond reproach,” the ministry said in a statement to Reuters.
It added that this was “customary international practice” and said the U.S. government had effectively pursued military-civil fusion for more than 100 years.
BGI Group, based in Shenzhen, has grown quickly by selling genetic sequencing services to universities and health systems around the world and amassing a large DNA databank. It created China’s first cloned pig in 2010.
One science paper authored by BGI founders Yang Huanming and Wang Jian along with the PLA’s Key Laboratory of High Altitude Medicine and the Third Military Medical University focused on experiments with the brains of monkeys suffering altitude sickness.
The study, published in January 2020, stated that it was funded as one of the “key projects of military science and technology” by the PLA. A decade ago, the military university’s research sought to identify genes related to altitude sickness so the PLA could screen for susceptible soldiers. The latest research focused on how drugs interacting with genes could potentially protect a person from brain injury.
An earlier 2017 study designed by BGI’s Wang and published in conjunction with a PLA research centre in Xinjiang looked at the effect of rapid mountain ascent on the bodies of “young, healthy men.”
China has the world’s longest highland border, which includes its border with India, where fighting broke out between the two countries’ troops in 2020. A 2018 paper by the same PLA laboratory stated that “high altitude disease is the main reason for reduced combat effectiveness and health damage to soldiers at high altitudes and influences the results of war.”
Reuters was unable to contact Yang and Wang. BGI said its research collaboration with the PLA lab and the Third Military Medical University, where Yang has been a professor for almost two decades, was “for academic purposes only.”
BGI jointly holds a dozen patents for tests that screen for genomes linked to disease with the military university, the PLA’s Academy of Military Medical Science, which is the top medical research institute of the PLA, and PLA hospitals.
One patent was granted in 2015 to BGI and the Academy of Military Medical Science for a low-cost test kit to detect respiratory pathogens, including SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and coronaviruses.
BGI’s current chief infectious disease scientist, Chen Weijun, is listed as an inventor on the patent documents. Chen was among the first scientists to sequence COVID-19, taking samples from a military hospital in Wuhan, according to sequence data later shared internationally.
Chen is listed as affiliated with the Academy of Military Medical Science in three science papers reviewed by Reuters.In response to Reuters’ questions, BGI said in a statement that Chen has not been affiliated with the PLA’s Academy of Military Medical Science since 2012. Chen did not respond to a request for comment.
BGI’s COVID-19 test kit did not use the method jointly patented with the PLA, the company said in the statement.
Four BGI researchers have also been jointly affiliated with another military institution, the National University of Defence Technology (NUDT), according to publicly available science and conference papers reviewed by Reuters. Hunan-based NUDT is under the direct leadership of China’s Central Military Commission, the top-level body that steers the Chinese military and is headed by Xi.
The NUDT is on a U.S. blacklist as a threat to national security because its Tianhe-2 supercomputer - one of the world’s most powerful - is used to simulate nuclear explosions, according to a Department of Commerce listing. That listing restricts U.S. companies from supplying NUDT with technology.
One researcher, Peng Shaoliang, was instrumental in developing software to speed up BGI’s sequencing of human genomes using supercomputing developed by NUDT.
Peng has won military awards for his work. He is a member of an expert group advising the Central Military Commission’s Science and Technology Commission, set up in 2016 when Xi began promoting a strategy to integrate China’s civilian and military research.
Patent applications in 2020 show Peng is also a member of the PLA’s Institute of Military Medicine. Liao Xiangke, the head of the NUDT’s supercomputer programme and a major general in the PLA, has published seven scientific papers either co-authored with BGI researchers or crediting them for providing data and source code.
BGI said in a statement to Reuters that Peng and Liao “were two collaborators of BGI for the project at the time for the purpose of academic exchange only. Since the project ended BGI has no more affiliation with them.”
Peng and Liao did not respond to requests for comment.
BGI said it uses Tianhe-2 on a commercial basis, as well as other supercomputing platforms, to speed up research. The papers it wrote with the NUDT were for academic purposes only, it said, and were open for public reference, while the programmes themselves have ended.
Tianhe-2 has also been used to solve pharmaceutical, cryptology, engineering and climate problems that have no military application, the company said.
Reporting by Kirsty Needham in Sydney; Additional reporting by Humeyra Pamuk and Alexandra Alper in Washington and Beijing newsroom; Editing by Kevin Krolicki and Bill Rigby
Proof PCR Test is a Psychological Operation [resource]
By Doreen A Agostino - 29. January 2021
The following evidence is for distribution in any country
This resource will be updated as required.
The more people who have access to fact based evidence of a world coup masked as a life threatening flu, and leverage the proof, the sooner chaos transforms into coherence.
1. PCR technique
Kary Mullis [1944-2019] was an American biochemist and inventor of the [PCR] polymerase chain reaction technique for which he won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 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. PCR is an indispensable technique with a broad variety of applications including biomedical research and criminal forensics.
Mullis himself said PCR should never be used as a tool in “the diagnosis of infectious diseases.”
2. RT-PCR test
Evidence the PCR is test unreliable and should not be used as a factor in political decisions. Researched, written, and narrated by Derrick Broze.
Ten Things You Should Know About PCR Test and covid
3. WHO Finally Admits COVID19 PCR Test Has a ‘Problem’ Dec 20
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 with way too many false positives. https://principia-scientific.com/who-finally-admits-covid19-pcr-test-has-a-problem/
4. WHO Releases guidance to labs globally to reduce cycle count in PCR test Jan 21
The World Health Organization released guidance to laboratories around the world to reduce the cycle count in PCR tests to get a more accurate representation of COVID cases. The current cycle was much too high and resulting in any particle being declared a positive case.
After all the fear porn, dehumanizing covid restrictions, bankruptcies, income losses, suicides, drug overdose, unhealthy masking, future PCR tests will run only 25-30 cycles instead of 40+. https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
5. COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless
Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose. https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/
6. Lawsuit filed in Germany – PCR test
Excerpts by Reiner Fuellmich international lawyer who filed a lawsuit in Germany.
“We know from listening to our witnesses, we know this particular so-called Drosten PCR test, which supposedly tells you something about infections, does not tell you anything about infections but rather it is being used as a tool to keep people in panic mode, and not ask any questions about what they are supposed to do, like mask wearing requirements, social distancing, the lockdowns.
There’s no scientists in this entire world who will claim that a PCR test can detect infections. PCR tests are not designed for diagnostic purposes, they’re not admitted for diagnostic purposes. I’ve seen all the videos by the inventor. The PCR test is a great tool, it makes things visible to the human eyes, which are otherwise not visible, by amplifying it, by making those molecules you take with these swabs larger, so that eventually you can see what this is all about but they are not in any way capable of telling you anything about infections, in particular not when these PCR tests are set at more than 25 cycles of amplification.” https://www.bitchute.com/video/4QbDaafj1ZFj/
7. Major concerns with the Corman-Drosten paper
Lawyer Reiner Fuellmich sued the 3 main promoters of the ‘Corona Panic’, the same people governments planet-wide rely on to enforce lockdowns and other unconstitutional restrictions.
Mr. Christian Drosten, virologist and Director of the Institute at Charité Hospital in Berlin. Drosten is the inventor of the PCR test not approved for diagnostic purposes,as is correctly noted on leaflets coming with these tests.
Mr. Tedros Adhanom, head of the World Health Organisation or WHO – Drosten used the PCR test in Wuhan China, it came positive, this was enough for the WHO to sound the pandemic alarm and recommend worldwide use the PCR test for the detection of infections.
Mr. Lothar Wieler, veterinarian and head of the German equivalent of the CDC, the RKI, wrote “the “panic paper” that was leaked, which was written by the German Department of the Interior. Its classified content shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that in fact the population was deliberately driven to panic by politicians and mainstream media. Wieler for fraud in regards to exaggerating the danger and contagion of corona (covid 19).
Here are ten fatal problems with the Corman-Drosten paper outlined and explained in great detail. https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
8. Portuguese court rules PCR tests unreliable
9. Government website reveals extensive covid ‘cases’ fraud
RT-PCR detects presence of viral genetic material in a sample but is not able to distinguish whether infectious virus is present.
10. NBC discloses the virus was never isolated
“THEY DIDN’T ISOLATE THE VIRUS. THAT’S THE PROBLEM. I DO NOT SUSPECT I’T IS COMING FROM WHAT WE ORIGINALLY THOUGHT.” Dr. Wu Zunyou, Chinese Center for Disease Control.
11. PCR ‘cases’ psyop
Since the PCR test cannot detect an infectious disease, and SARSCOV 2 has never been isolated to prove it causes an infectious disease called covid-19, what are they testing for and why?
The more cycles the more false positives or cases. Cycle thresholds up to 45 cycles over inflated case numbers projected non-stop by mainstream media, health departments, and governments to sustain fear, lessen resistance to unhealthy, dehumanizing restrictions, and increase acceptance of an experimental treatment without full disclosure of what’s in the syringe, known dangers, and transformation of the nature of man so that human DNA can be patented, bought, sold and traded.
Revisit #4 above then open this link. https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/cna-nursing-home-whistleblower-seniors-are-dying-like-flies-after-covid-injections-speak-out/
12. The new m-RNA treatment is ‘not’ a vaccine
Catherine Austin Fitts compares the new mRNA treatment to a computer operating system, stating that just like Windows, there would be a ‘back door’ where technocrats will be able to control our bodies through regular ‘updates.’ https://mypatriotsnetwork.com/patriot/video-catherine-austin-fitts-exposes-the-deep-state-plan/?utm_content=12108352&utm_medium=Email&utm_name=Id&utm_source=Actionetics&utm_term=Email
Dr. David Martin says they use the term “vaccine” to sneak this thing under public health exemptions. This is not a vaccine. This is mRNA packaged in a fat envelope that is delivered to a cell. It is a medical device designed to stimulate the human cell into becoming a pathogen creator. Vaccines actually are a legally defined term under public health law; they are a legally defined term under CDC and FDA standards. The vaccine specifically has to stimulate both the immunity within the person receiving it, and it also has to disrupt transmission. And that is not what this is. https://ourgreaterdestiny.org/2021/01/mrna-vaccine-injects-an-operating-system-into-your-body-called-the-software-of-life-this-is-not-a-vaccine/
End harm and attempts to alter the nature of man
The intent of this resource is to inform people so they choose wisely, which includes whether or not to consent to the m-RNA treatment for themselves and children.
Please share the evidence with people you know, governments at all levels, police, medical colleges, health departments, business owners, religious leaders, etc. Thank you.
Without Prejudice and Without Recourse
Doreen A Agostino
Via ethernet to safeguard life
IN EGYPT THIS WAS A PUNISHMENT FOR SLAVES. EXPOSED ! NANOTECHNOLOGY IN THE COVID-19 SWABS TEST !
Do not take the Covid 19 test. It can change your DNA and is one of the Marks of the Beast. The Beast has more than one Mark. The Covid swat test has nanobot technology on it that can change your DNA and harm you and give you a virus or worse.
A 5G whistleblower warned us that this was the psychopath’s plans all along. See link below.
THE COMING ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE – The Crowhouse
The Covid-19 test is another form of the Mark of the Beast as it can change and corrupt our DNA.
Find out why the Covid 19 test has to go all the way to your brainstem. Are you they checking to see if you have a brain? Find out now.
The 4IR is pushed wirh FEAR by Klaus Schwab and his cohorts - WE WILL OVERCOME THAT!
COVID: ‘Every Scary Thing You’re Being Told Depends on the Unreliable PCR Test’
By NW - 30 December 2020
Since the COVID-19 crisis began, all of the WHO and Government so-called ‘mitigation’ policies – lockdowns, social distancing, masks, shutting schools etc, have all been based on data of coronavirus “cases” gathered from the increasingly dubious PCR Test. Despite its many fundamental flaws – and even an warning by its inventor, Nobel Prize winner Kerry Mullis, who explicitly said not to use his test as a diagnostic for any virus – governments, the medical establishment, and even Dr Anthony Fauci himself, have chosen to base their entire COVID ‘pandemic’ narrative on this highly inaccurate testing regime.
The following video presentation is a summary of the pitfalls of the PCR Test and why no responsible medical professional or public health official should be treating it as a legitimate medical diagnostic tool, but rather only, as Mullis himself instructed, as an auxiliary ‘research aid’. Research links for this video have been provided below. Watch:
Kary Mullis criticising Fauci:
Dr Mike Yeadon: Cases, Admissions, Deaths, ALL Hang on the Unreliable PCR Test!
Prof. Carl Heneghan: PCR Test Positives Up to 78 Days After Having Had the Virus
Zoom conference with Fauci:
Dr Mike Yeadon Government are using a Covid-19 test with undeclared false positive rates:
EP 91 Emeritus Professor of Immunology Reveals Crucial Viral Immunity Reality:
Reveals Crucial Viral Immunity Reality:
NEW DETAILS IN COVID TESTING SCANDAL:
Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020:
Pathologist Claire Craig on the PCR test:
Kary Mullis 1993:
Interview with Prof. Stephen Bustin:
Carl Heneghan Giving Evidence to House of Commons Committee:
An essential problem that many PCR tests have is called the “cycle quantification” (Cq), also know as the “cycle threshold” (Ct), these two different terms are explained here:
The Cq/Ct value specifies how many cycles of DNA replication are required to detect a real signal from biological samples. As it says in the MIQE guidelines (https://bit.ly/2T5Wpm2) “Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported.”
MIQE stands for “Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments”, a set of guidelines that describe the minimum information necessary for evaluating publications on Real-Time PCR, also called quantitative PCR, or qPCR.
The inventor of the PCR test himself, Kary Banks Mullis, agreed, when he stated: “If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.” Source for the above quote: https://bit.ly/346XeRY
The MIQE guidelines have been developed under the guidance of Stephen A. Bustin, Professor of Molecular Medicine, a world-renowned expert on quantitative PCR and author of the book A-Z of Quantitative PCR which has been called “the bible of qPCR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Bustin). According to Bustin, a Cq in the 20s to 30s should be aimed at and there is concern regarding the reliability of the results for any Cq over 35. If the Cq value gets too high, it becomes difficult to distinguish real signal from background, for example due to reactions of primers and fluorescent probes, and hence there is a higher probability of false positives.
PCR Test unable to distinguish between signals from dead or live viruses: “Molecular techniques based on real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) allow the detection and quantification of DNA but are unable to distinguish between signals from dead or live cells.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4889745/ (archive: https://archive.is/x5gak)
Covid19 PCR Tests are scientifically meaningless:
https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/ (archive: https://archive.is/R4gPW)
The Trouble With PCR Tests:
https://swprs.org/the-trouble-with-pcr-tests/ (archive: https://archive.is/g1PKx)
PCR as “Useless Testing”:
https://eu-chronicle.eu/2020/08/useless-testing/ (archive: https://archive.is/IF4yS)
Was the Covid-19 test meant to detect a virus?
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/ (archive: https://archive.is)
Corona: creating the illusion of a pandemic through diagnostic tests:
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/04/08/corona-creating-illusion-of-pandemic-through-diagnostic-test/ (archive: https://archive.is/noPQz)
Are you infectious if you have a positive PCR test result for COVID-19?
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/infectious-positive-pcr-test-result-covid-19/ (archive: https://archive.is/sv06K)
BBC: Coronavirus: Tests ‘could be picking up dead virus’:
Bombshell: Fauci States COVID Test Has Fatal Flaw
By Jon Rappoport - 07. November 2020
OK, here we go. Smoking gun. Jackpot.
Right from the horse’s mouth. Right from the man we’re told is the number-one COVID expert in the nation. What Fauci says is golden truth.
Well, how about THIS?
July 16, 2020, podcast, “This Week in Virology”:
Tony Fauci makes a point of saying the PCR COVID test is useless and misleading when the test is run at “35 cycles or higher.” A positive result, indicating infection, cannot be accepted or believed.
Here, in techno-speak, is an excerpt from Fauci’s key quote (starting at about the 4-minute mark ):
“…If you get [perform the test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more… the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule… you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”
Each “cycle” of the test is a quantum leap in amplification and magnification of the test specimen taken from the patient.
Too many cycles, and the test will turn up all sorts of irrelevant material that will be wrongly interpreted as relevant.
That’s called a false positive.
What Fauci failed to say on the video is: the FDA, which authorizes the test for public use, recommends the test should be run up to 40 cycles. Not 35.
Therefore, all labs in the US that follow the FDA guideline are knowingly or unknowingly participating in fraud. Fraud on a monstrous level, because millions of Americans are being told they are infected with the virus on the basis of a false positive result, and the total number of COVID cases in America — which is based on the test — is a gross falsity.
The lockdowns and other restraining measures are based on these fraudulent case numbers.
Let me back up and run that by you again. Fauci says the test is useless when it’s run at 35 cycles or higher.
The FDA says run the test up to 40 cycles, in order to determine whether the virus is there. This is the crime in a nutshell.
If anyone in the White House has a few brain cells to rub together, pick up a giant bullhorn and start revealing the truth to the American people.
“Hello, America, you’ve been tricked, lied to, conned, and taken for a devastating ride. On the basis of fake science, the country was locked down.”
If anyone in the Congress has a few brain cells operating, pull Fauci into a televised hearing and, in ten minutes, make mincemeat out of the fake science that has driven this whole foul, stench-ridden assault on the US economy and its citizens.
All right, here are two chunks of evidence for what I’ve written above. First, we have a CDC quote on the FDA website, in a document titled : “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel For Emergency Use Only.” See page 35.
This document is marked, “Effective: 07/13/20.” That means, even though the virus is being referred to by its older name, the document is still relevant as of July 2020.
“For Emergency Use Only” refers to the fact that the FDA has certified the PCR test under a traditional category called “Emergency Use Authorization.”
FDA: “…a specimen is considered positive for 2019-nCoV [virus] if all 2019-nCoV marker (N1, N2) cycle threshold growth curves cross the threshold line within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct).”
Naturally, MANY testing labs reading this guideline would conclude, “Well, to see if the virus is there in a patient, we should run the test all the way to 40 cycles. That’s the official advice.”
Then we have a New York Times article (August 29/updated September 17) headlined: “Your coronavirus test is positive. Maybe it shouldn’t be.”  Here are money quotes:
“Most tests set the limit at 40 [cycles]. A few at 37.”
“Set the limit” would usually mean, “We’re going to look all the way to 40 cycles, to see if the virus is there.”
The Times: “This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients…”
Boom. That’s the capper, the grand finale. Labs don’t or won’t reveal their collusion in this crime.
Get the picture?
I hope so.
If a lawyer won’t go to court with all this, or if a judge won’t pay attention and see the light, they should be stripped of their jobs and sent to the Arctic to sell snow.
 Fauci on YouTube.com;
Published: October 2020
Already in mid-March, SPR explained that the highly sensitive PCR tests are prone to producing clinically false positive results and their individual predictive value may easily drop below 50%.
The issues with PCR tests are numerous:
- There can be large-scale test kit contamination, as both the US and the UK (and several African countries) discovered during the early phase of the pandemic.
- There can be testing site or lab contamination, which has led to countless false positive results, school closures, nursing home quarantines, canceled sports events, and more.
- The PCR test can react to other coronaviruses. According to lab examinations, this happens in about 1% to 3% of cases if only one target gene is tested, as is the case in many (but not all) labs and as the WHO itself has recommended to avoid ambiguous positive/negative test results.
- The PCR test can detect non-infectious virus fragments weeks after an active infection, or from an infection of a contact person, as the US CDC confirmed.
- The PCR test can detect viable virus in quantities too small to be infectious (see below).
If the virus is not widespread in a population, and there is no test kit or lab contamination, and labs test for at least two target genes, the risk of a false-positive result is low. This is why, for instance, New Zealand at times had no positive PCR tests for weeks despite frequent testing.
But if there is an ongoing infection wave, or if there has been a recent infection wave, or if labs test only for one gene sequence or struggle with contamination, things get more complicated.
A PCR test is amplifying samples through repetitive cycles. The lower the virus concentration in the sample, the more cycles are needed to achieve a positive result. Many US labs work with 35 to 45 cycles, while many European labs work with 30 to 40 cycles.
The research group of French professor Didier Raoult has recently shown that at a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, about 70% of samples remained positive in cell culture (i.e. were infectious); at a ct of 30, 20% of samples remained positive; at a ct of 35, 3% of samples remained positive; and at a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in cell culture (see diagram).
This means that if a person gets a “positive” PCR test result at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher (as applied in most US labs and many European labs), the chance that the person is infectious is less than 3%. The chance that the person received a “false positive” result is 97% or higher.
(Note that the exact figures depend on the test and lab in question, and that if a sample was already positive at a lower cycle threshold (e.g. 20), chances of infectiousness are much higher.)
Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside, explained to the New York Times: “Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive. I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive. A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35.” According to the New York Times, up to 90% of positive tests at a cycle threshold of 40 would be negative at a ct of 30.
Why do labs use such high ct values? From a lab perspective, it is safer to produce a “false positive” result that puts a healthy, non-infectious person into quarantine, than to produce a “false negative” result and be responsible if someone infects their grandmother.
However, a negative result at a cycle threshold above 35 still does not exclude a covid infection, as a false negative result may arise if the sample is taken improperly or too early. More recently, US researchers found that single-gene tests were false-negative due to new virus mutations.
The above considerations are valid at the individual level. At the aggregate level, if the adjusted number of positive PCR tests is suddenly increasing, this certainly indicates an infection wave. The problem then is that in many places, PCR testing has been catching at most 10% of all infections.
In conclusion, while PCR tests at high-risk places like hospitals, nursing homes and other sensitive locations are vital and undisputed, the benefit of mass PCR testing in the general population, which is costing mid-sized countries billions of dollars, may be somewhat more debatable.
See also: Are you infectious if you have a positive PCR test result for COVID-19? (Oxford CEBM)
Update: In January 2021, the WHO fully confirmed the above analysis: “WHO guidance ‘Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2’ states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed. The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology. WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases.” (WHO Information Notice for IVD Users 2020/05)
COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless
By Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter - 01. 07. 2020
Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose
Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “positive” patients, whereby “positive” is usually equated with “infected.”
But looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2.
UNFOUNDED “TEST, TEST, TEST,…” MANTRA
At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:
We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.”
Still on the 3 of May, the moderator of the heute journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television— was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words:
Test, test, test—that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.”
This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.
But it is well known that religions are about faith and not about scientific facts. And as Walter Lippmann, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th century said: “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”
So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.
Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection.
The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.
How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.
LACK OF A VALID GOLD STANDARD
Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.
This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity” and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available.
As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:
If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”
Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”
But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, “pragmatically” COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, “may be the best available ‘gold standard’.” But this is not scientifically sound.
Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us.
And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis — contrary to Watson’s statement — cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.
In addition, “experts” such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.
That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “may be the best available gold standard,” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn’t be the best available/possible gold standard. But she hasn’t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd: “I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.”
NO PROOF FOR THE RNA BEING OF VIRAL ORIGIN
Now the question is: What is required first for virus isolation/proof? We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.
As textbooks (e.g., White/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state, particle purification — i.e. the separation of an object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende — is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.
The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from. That has to be determined beforehand.
And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.
Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.
But not a single team could answer that question with “yes” — and NB., nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like “No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification” (see below).
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.”
For more read the article here.