And destroyed the world's economy based on a lie!
Article 1: Coronavirus: The Truth about PCR Test Kit from the Inventor and Other Experts
The scientist who invented the PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) test kit was Kary B. Mullis. This technology is what they use today to test for the so-called coronavirus, said to be the cause of a disease which the health authorities such as the World Health Organizations (WHO) vaguely and inconsistently defined or identified. Mullis is among the many scientists who bravely question the narrative of the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. Mullis did not believe what the mainstream, globalist elite-funded, science is claiming that the HIV retrovirus is causing the AIDS disease. He was an important member of the “Group for the Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, the 500-member protest organization pushing for a re-examination of the cause of AIDS”. According to him on his 1992 Spin interview, “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?’”
What is PCR?
“In the early 1990’s, PCR, came into popular use, and Kary Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize for it 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.”
According to Mullis himself, PCR cannot be totally and should never be used as a tool in “the diagnosis of infectious diseases.” This is the main reason why Mullis disagreed with the scientists who are behind the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. He defied the mainstream notion that “the disease-causing mechanisms of HIV are simply too “mysterious” to comprehend. According to him, “The mystery of that damn virus has been generated by the $2 billion a year they spend on it. You take any other virus, and you spend $2 billion, and you can make up some great mysteries about it too.” He also added that, “Human beings are full of retrovirus. We don’t know if it is hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands. We’ve only recently started to look for them. But they’ve never killed anybody before. People have always survived retroviruses.”
With regards to the current coronavirus crisis, which some believed to be deceptively manufactured and engineered, this situation of the HIV-AIDS phenomena that Kary Mullis decries about is not far or different. However, the reaction of the authorities today globally is more severe while also tragically preposterous as they put up policies and protocols that are obviously violating the citizen’s constitutional rights while also destroying the economy, making life miserable and harder for ordinary people that even several police officers across the US, for example, reacted and complained.
To learn more about why this crisis is ridiculously based on faulty “science”, let’s hear what other experts say about the coronavirus testing.
According to Jason Hommel, a prolific writer and researcher and also the author of the very important article regarding coronavirus testing entitled “Scientists Say the COVID19 Test Kits Do Not Work, Are Worthless, and Give Impossible Results”:
“PCR basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies any DNA to look for ‘viral sequences’, i.e. bits of non-human DNA that seem to match parts of a known viral genome. The problem is the test is known not to work. It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analysed. Obviously any minute contamination in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery. Additionally, it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues.The idea these kits can isolate a specific virus like COVID-19 is nonsense.”
Meanwhile, according to Celia Farber, the author of “Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS” and a researcher whose work about socialism, pharmaceutical industry, mass media manipulation, and most especially, the HIV-AIDS topic has made her gained an award fo investigative journalism. She is also the editor of The Truth Barrier, an investigative and literary website and co-hosts “The Whistleblower Newsroom” with Kristina Borjesson on PRN:
“One of the countless head-spinning mysteries of this whole Corona Situation has been the advent of famous people, from Tom Hanks and his wife, to Sophie Trudeau, to Prince Charles announcing they had “tested positive” for COVID-19 and were self-quarantining. In all these famous-powerful people cases, the symptoms were either non-existent or mild. Why, one wondered, did they make such hay about it? The British Royals, especially, seemed to contradict their ethos of secrecy in this case. So what did it mean? It signaled, if anything, that COVID-19 is not all that deadly. That the virus can be present without causing the disease. That host factors matter. And that being “positive” for COVID-19 is neither a PR death sentence nor an actual death sentence. Maybe in their elite and esoteric language, it means some kind of prestige, or sacrament to a Pagan Virus Deity. Who knows? In the case of the Trudeau, Sophie tested positive, and had symptoms, while her husband Justin, the Prime Minister, never got sick, and was never tested. (He didn’t want to appear privileged; Not everybody can get tested in Canada, you must have symptoms.)”
On the other hand, from an article also by Celia Farber, David Crowe, “a Canadian researcher with a degree in biology and mathematics and host of “The Infectious Myth” podcast, also the president of the think-tank Rethinking AIDS, also clearly explained the problems with the PCR based coronavirus testing, “revealing a world of unimaginable complexity, as well as trickery”:
“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary. In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative. What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.”
He continued:
“PCR is really a manufacturing technique. You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it. You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength. So, they measure the amount of light that comes back and that’s their surrogate for how much DNA there is. I’m using the word DNA. There’s a step in RT- PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So, the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It’s using DNA, but it’s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it’s the same thing, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there’s a certain number of cycles.”
Regarding Kary Mullis’ intention for the PCR, this is what he said:
“I’m sad that he isn’t here to defend his manufacturing technique. Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that.”
He went on to say:
“I don’t think they understand what they’re doing; I think it’s out of control. They don’t know how to end this. This is what I think what happened: They have built a pandemic machine over many years and, and as you know, there was a pandemic exercise not long before this whole thing started.”
Meanwhile, also from interview by Celia Farber, Dr. David Rasnick, bio-chemist, protease developer and former founder of an EM lab called Viral Forensics, stated:
“You have to have a whopping amount of any organism to cause symptoms. Huge amounts of it. You don’t start with testing; you start with listening to the lungs. I’m skeptical that a PRC test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine. 30% of your infected cells have been killed before you show symptoms. By the time you show symptoms…the dead cells are generating the symptoms”
Asked by Farber what his advice for people who want to be tested for COVID-19, he replied:
“Don’t do it, I say, when people ask me. No healthy person should be tested. It means nothing but it can destroy your life, make you absolutely miserable. Every time somebody takes a swab, a tissue sample of their DNA, it goes into a government database. It’s to track us. They’re not just looking for the virus. Please put that in your article.”
He added:
“PCR for diagnosis is a big problem. When you have to amplify it these huge numbers of time, it’s going to generate massive amounts of false positives. Again, I’m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true.”
To understand more about PCR, we suggest you read more of Celia Farber’s article here:
More references:
From Wikipedia on Covid19 Tests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_testing
Samples can obtained by various methods, including a nasopharyngeal swab, sputum (coughed up material),[26] throat swabs,[27] deep airway material collected via suction catheter[27] or saliva.[28][29]Drosten et al. remarked that for 2003 SARS, "from a diagnostic point of view, it is important to note that nasal and throat swabs seem less suitable for diagnosis, since these materials contain considerably less viral RNA than sputum, and the virus may escape detection if only these materials are tested."[30]
Article 2: Scientists Say the COVID19 Test Kits Do Not Work, Are Worthless, and Give Impossible Results
Original Source: https://revealingfraud.com/2020/03/health/test-kits-do-not-work
A pregnancy test is 99% accurate. The coronavirus spectrum test kit is 20% accurate or worse. If a test is only 20% accurate, is the better word “inaccurate”?
Please take about 1 minute to at least glance at the bold copy. My prior article got 30,000+ views and was criticized for my commentary. Here is my limited comments: The CDC and FDA both admit the COVID19 test kits suffer from false positives and false negatives. They just fail to tell you those rates. But others have revealed those rates. “the false-positive rate of positive results was 80.33%” and 85% false negative rate. The test kits don’t work. If the test kits don’t work, or are less reliable than a coin flip, then all the data on “who has it” is utterly meaningless and it’s all a total fraud and hoax. People are still dying, but from the same illness as always: the flu. So, what follows is only exact quotes from the articles, and links. Below are 15 sources giving commentary on the reliability of the COVID19 test kits in use.
From the maker of the test: “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit (CD019RT)
Regulatory status: For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures.” https://www.creative-diagnostics.com/sars-cov-2-coronavirus-multiplex-rt-qpcr-kit-277854-457.htm
“The New York SARS-CoV-2 Real-time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel has been designed to minimize the likelihood of false positive test results. However, in the event of a false positive result, risks to patients could include the following: a recommendation for isolation of the patient, monitoring of household or other close contacts for symptoms, patient isolation that might limit contact with family or friends and may increase contact with other potentially COVID-19 patients, limits in the ability to work…”
CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel For Emergency Use Only… “Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. ”
“Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection”
“Inadequate or inappropriate specimen collection, storage, and transport are likely to yield false test results.”
“The possibility of a false negative result should especially be considered if the patient’s recent exposures or clinical presentation suggest that 2019-nCoV infection is possible, and diagnostic tests for other causes of illness (e.g., other respiratory illness) are negative. If 2019-nCoV infection is still suspected, re-testing should be considered in consultation with public health authorities. “
” Positive and negative predictive values are highly dependent on prevalence. False negative test results are more likely when prevalence of disease is high. False positive test results are more likely when prevalence is moderate to low. “
“Should I be testing all patients for COVID-19?
Clinicians should base their decisions on whether a patient should be tested for COVID-19 on:
Signs and symptoms,
Local epidemiology, and
If the patient has had close contact with a confirmed COVID-19 patient or a history of travel from an area with sustained transmission within 14 days of symptom onset.”
[Potential False-Positive Rate Among the ‘Asymptomatic Infected Individuals’ in Close Contacts of COVID-19 Patients]
“Results: When the infection rate of the close contacts and the sensitivity and specificity of reported results were taken as the point estimates, the positive predictive value of the active screening was only 19.67%, in contrast, the false-positive rate of positive results was 80.33%. The multivariate-probabilistic sensitivity analysis results supported the base-case findings, with a 75% probability for the false-positive rate of positive results over 47%. Conclusions: In the close contacts of COVID-19 patients, nearly half or even more of the ‘asymptomatic infected individuals’ reported in the active nucleic acid test screening might be false positives. “
[Potential false-positive rate among the ‘asymptomatic infected individuals‘ in close contacts of COVID-19 patients].
—–
“Nearly 10 percent of the human genome is made of bits of virus DNA. For the most part, this viral DNA is not harmful. In some cases, scientists are finding, it actually has a beneficial impact.”
—–
“For context, Goodman says a “really good” r-squared, in terms of public health data, would be a 0.7. “Anything like 0.99,” she said, “would make me think that someone is simulating data. It would mean you already know what is going to happen.”” https://www.barrons.com/articles/chinas-economic-data-have-always-raised-questions-its-coronavirus-numbers-do-too-51581622840
—–
” There’s no evidence the PCR test is even being used at all! “
“PCR basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies any DNA to look for ‘viral sequences’, i.e. bits of non-human DNA that seem to match parts of a known viral genome.
The problem is the test is known not to work.
It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analysed. Obviously any minute contamination in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery.
Additionally, it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues.
The idea these kits can isolate a specific virus like COVID-19 is nonsense.”
“The Test is Not Binary
Tests for infections are usually reported as positive or negative (sometimes ‘reactive’ and ‘unreactive’. One of the reasons for this is that, in many cases, multiple tests are required, and it is common to conclude that someone is infected with some negative tests and that someone is uninfected with some positive tests. The results of a complex multi-test algorithm are also usually reported as positive or negative, but interpreted by doctors and patients as infected or uninfected.
” But, in reality even individual tests are not binary, not positive or negative, but a range of numbers that are arbitrarily divided into positive on one side and negative on the other. Possibly there is a grey area that allows other factors, including the bias of the doctor or laboratory, to enter into the interpretation, or that will require further testing. “
“Positive to Negative and Back Again
The majority of the 18 patients had a positive test, followed by a negative test, followed by a positive test. Some had this several times.
If a negative test means uninfected, then this is impossible. You cannot rid yourself of the virus, and then be reinfected the next day, and then infected the day after and uninfected again.
The simplest answer to this conundrum is that negative tests do not mean uninfected. But the corollary is that positive tests do not mean infected. Which would make the test worthless.”
Stanford epidemiologist warns that coronavirus crackdown is based on bad data
“If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR [virus] tests, the number of total deaths due to ‘influenza-like illness’ would not seem unusual this year.“
“Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19] are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes.” [That’s ascertainment bias, confirmed above where the CDC says to only test sick people.]
I am an epidemiologist and health services researcher, one with particular expertise and experience in public health emergency preparedness. I have been saying the same thing as John – I spoke for about 45 minutes last week with a reporter from ProPublica, trying to explain the concept of ascertainment bias and why the case fatality rates being tossed about were horribly exaggerated. Frankly, the real impact from a health standpoint in the US was likely to be no worse than the 1956 or 1968 influenza epidemics, even without the extreme measures. In fact, we are reaching a point where the long-term damage from the panic-driven response may well be worse than the impact of the disease.
Epidemiology is the study and analysis of the distribution (who, when, and where), patterns and determinants of health and disease conditions in defined populations.
VirusGuy:
Some notes on those test kits I saw you asking about on Twitter yesterday. They don’t do antibody tests. They do a thing called PCR testing, which basically takes a sample of your cells and amplifies any DNA to look for ‘viral sequences’, i.e. bits of non-human DNA that seem to match parts of a known viral genome. The problem is the test is known to be bullshit. It uses ‘amplification’ which means taking a very very tiny amount of DNA and growing it exponentially until it can be analysed. Obviously any minute contamination in the sample will also be amplified leading to potentially gross errors of discovery. Secondly, it’s only looking for partial viral sequences, not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues. All these Mickey Mouse test kits being sent out to hospitals do at best is tell the analysts you have some viral DNA in your cells. Which most of us do, most of the time. It may tell you the viral sequence is related to a specific type of virus – say the huge family of coronavirus. But that’s all. The idea these kits can isolate a specific virus like covi-19 is utter bullshit. And that’s not even getting into the other issue – viral load. If you remember the PCR works by amplifying minute amounts of DNA. It therefore is useless at telling you how much virus you may have. And that’s the only question that really matters when it comes to diagnosing illness. Like I said, everyone will have a few virus kicking round in their system at any time, and most will not cause illness because their quantities are too small. For a virus to sicken you you need a lot of it, a massive amount of it. But PCR does not test viral load and therefore can’t determine if an osteogenesis is present in sufficient quantities to sicken you. If you feel sick and get a PCR test, any random virus DNA might be identified even if they aren’t at all involved in your sickness, leading to false diagnosis. And coronaviruses are incredibly common. A large percentage of the world human population will have covi DNA in them in small quantities even if they are perfectly well or sick with some other pathogen. Do you see where this is going yet? If you want to create a totally false panic about a totally false pandemic – pick a coronavirus. They are incredibly common and there’s tons of them. A very high percentage of people sick by other means (flu, bacterial pneumonia, anything) will have a positive PCR test for covi even if you’re doing them properly and ruling out contamination, simply because covis are so common. There are hundreds of thousands of flu and pneumonia victims in hospitals throughout the world at any one time. All you need to do is select the sickest of these in a single location – say Wuhan – administer PCR tests to them and claim anyone showing viral sequences similar to a corona virus (which will inevitably be quite a few) is suffering from a ‘new’ disease. Since you already selected the sickest flu cases, a fairly high proportion of your sample will go on to die. You can then say this ‘new’ virus has a CFR (case fatality rate) higher than the flu and use this to infuse more concern and do more tests which will of course produce more ‘cases’, which expands the testing, which produces yet more ‘cases’ and so on and so on. Before long you have your ‘pandemic’, and all you have done is use a simple test kit trick to convert the worst flu and pneumonia cases into something new that doesn’t actually exist. Now just run the same scam in other countries. Making sure to keep the fear message running high so that people will feel panicky and less able to think critically. Your only problem is going to be that – due to the fact there is no actual new deadly pathogen, but just regular sick people you are mislabelling – your case numbers, and especially your deaths, are going to be way too low for a real new deadly virus pandemic. But you can stop people pointing this out in several ways:
You can claim this is just the beginning and more deaths are imminent. Use this as an excuse to quarantine everyone and then claim the quarantine prevented the expected millions of dead.
You can tell people that ‘minimising’ the dangers is irresponsible and bully them into not talking about numbers.
You can talk bullshittery about r0 numbers hoping to blind people with pseudoscience
You can start testing well people (who of course will also likely have shreds of coronavirus DNA in them) and thus inflate your ‘case figures’ with ‘asymptomatic carriers’ (you will of course have to spin that to sound deadly even though any virologist knows the more symptomless cases you have the less deadly is your pathogen
Take these simple steps and you can have your own entirely manufactured pandemic up and running in weeks. But why are you doing this people may ask? Lots of reasons. Fear is useful. And a population frightened into demanding protection will accept anything you do to ‘protect’ them, up to and including nailing them into their own houses. It can be a trial run for social control methods. To see how gullible populations are. To enforce more rigorous censorship. To inure people to shortage and uncertainty. All these things and others are reasons. But getting hung up on possible motive misses the point – that all the evidence points to this being the case. Everything I am seeing points at a fake manufactured pandemic. The low numbers and attempts to inflate them with scary anecdotes and bad science, the crazy overreaction in world governments, as if the reaction itself is the point. The ridiculous numbers of famous people ‘testing positive’. It could easily be done and it looks as if it is. In my view. But you must make up your own mind. I think many in the virology and epidemiology line would agree, but no one is going to risk their career right now saying so in public. They might as well jump off of a bridge. You can verify everything I have said about the PCR test.
Reported case fatality rates, like the official 3.4% rate from the World Health Organization, cause horror — and are meaningless. Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes.
“The accuracy of the current COVID-19 tests is not precisely known.” The accuracy of COVID-19 tests RICHARD L. HUTCHISON, MD | CONDITIONS | MARCH 12, 2020 https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2020/03/the-accuracy-of-covid-19-tests.html
” As a physician, I treat the results of lab tests like I treat movie recommendations from a friend – I am always skeptical. “
“My friend’s movie judgments are occasionally biased and off-kilter. In the same way, medical diagnostic test results are not perfect. There is always the chance that they provide incorrect information.
Medical professionals, policymakers, and members of the general public may overestimate the accuracy of diagnostic tests. The usefulness of any test depends on how likely the patient has the disease, the ability of the test to correctly identify the disease, and the capability of the test to correctly confirm the condition is not present. Unfortunately, test results will be negative for some people that actually have the disease, and some people without the disease will have positive tests.”
“ The accuracy of the current COVID-19 tests is not precisely known. Reasonable estimates, based on test performance in China and the performance of the influenza tests, are that the tests will correctly identify around 60 percent of the patients with the disease and correctly identify 90 percent of the patients that are disease-free.“
”Assume that the physician thinks there is a 50 percent chance of the patient having COVID-19. Given the above numbers, if the patient has the disease, the test will be positive 85 percent of the time. Fifteen percent of the infected patients will incorrectly be diagnosed as not having the disease. If the patient does not have the disease, only 70 percent of the patients will have a negative test. It would take four consecutive negative tests to conclusively prove the patient did not have the disease. “
“There has been the worry of how effective the tests for the coronavirus has been as of late.
There are numerous talks in several countries that suggest people are having over six negative results before finally being diagnosed as positive for the virus.
The question of the effectiveness of the tests because the officials in Hubei province, China, have started to COUNT people with symptoms rather than using the tests to confirm that they indeed have the coronavirus.”
“First, the prevailing diagnostic test for COVID-19 may be only 30 to 40 percent accurate.” https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/lew-olowski-coronavirus-worse-than-reported-heres-how-china-is-making-the-situation-worse
—–
Please share this article with the White House:
*******
Should this video or content get censored and removed from YouTube or the web, which is very likely to happen as it becomes a threat to the system, you can download a hard copy from our OneDrive link by clicking on the Downloads tab and registering for free as a site member. Don't worry though, we aren't looking to send you a lot of emails but rather to mitigate who can access our online folder. You may receive automated notices whenever we post a new article, once we set up that notification feature. While you are here, please consider supporting our work financially to keep this valuable research going. Click on the Memberships tab and choose a support plan that works for you.
Watch our growing library of embedded videos, audios, podcasts, and slideshows, and read the extensive database of research articles on this independent free press news site at www.cv19news.ca.
Comments