UPDATE
1: Trump flown to Walter Reed Hospital. Watch out for toxic antiviral
drugs; e.g, remdesivir. And ventilators (lethal). This is a field day
for Biden, and also for promoters of the pandemic and all the
regulations. For example---“everyone must get tested.” Trump is made
into the poster boy for COVID-19 propaganda. “The PRESIDENT has it.” No
matter what happens to Trump, this is another step in the ongoing coup.
UPDATE
2: CNN reports--- “Trump had a fever Friday, a source said. He has
received the unapproved experimental Regeneron treatment as well as the
drug remdesivir, according to the President’s physician.” NOT GOOD NEWS.
Regeneron
is an experimental antibody cocktail. Typically, when the news reports
use of these drugs, no mention is made of negative effects or toxicity.
The
Daily Mail reports: “[In an ongoing clinical trial of Regeneron] Two
patients who got the antibody cocktail drug had side effects. One of
them was 'serious,' though it's not clear what exactly happened to that
person.”
In tests of antibody drugs, serious problems have occurred. These are characterized as “increased infection.”
Drugs[dot]com
discusses remdesivir: “[the drug] has not been approved to treat
coronavirus or COVID-19. It is not yet known if remdesivir is an
effective treatment for any condition. The FDA has authorized emergency
use of remdesivir only in people with COVID-19 who are in a hospital.
You must remain under the care of a doctor while receiving remdesivir.”
Adverse
effects, according to Drugs[dot]com: “Get emergency medical help if you
have signs of an allergic reaction: hives; difficult breathing;
swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat…”
More
adverse effects: “…chills, nausea, vomiting…increased sweating…a
light-headed feeling, like you might pass out…abnormal liver function
tests…anemia or decreased hemoglobin concentrations…acute kidney
injury…”
And
then we have this: “[remdesivir] is being investigated for and is
currently available under an FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) for
the treatment of severe COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.”
Trump
doesn’t have “severe COVID-19.” So why is he being given remdesivir at
all---especially given all the adverse effects of the drug?
Plus:
NO ONE HAS EVER STUDIED THE EFFECTS OF COMBINING REGENERON AND
REMDESIVIR---THE TWO DRUGS TRUMP IS TAKING. The doctors are playing god
with the president’s life.
And now we come to the diagnostic test---Big question: how many cycles was Trump’s COVID test set for? I’ll explain.
Each
cycle of the PCR test is a quantum leap in magnification of the test
sample Trump provided. As every PCR tech knows, different labs use a
different number of cycles when they perform the test. There is no
uniform standard.
That
is a giant scandal, because when you do the test using more than, say,
30 cycles, all sorts of irrelevant and inconsequential material shows up
that can be counted as “positive for the coronavirus”---when that is
NOT the case.
This is exactly what is happening all over the world every day. Too many cycles; absurd and wrong diagnosis.
Could
Trump’s COVID test have been rigged in this fashion? It’s as easy as
pie. Just increase the number of cycles. Doesn’t matter how many times
the test was repeated for “confirmation.” It’ll read positive if there
are too many cycles. Of course, no one will admit that Trump’s test was
set for 40 cycles, if it was.
And
guess what? The “cycle problem” is just one of many fatal flaws in the
PCR test. I’ve covered this subject many times. Here it is again:
COVID diagnostic test: worst test ever devised?
The
need for the COVID test is being hyped to the skies. More tests
automatically create more case numbers. This allows heads of state and
national governments to whipsaw the public:
“We were re-opening the economy, but now, with the escalating case numbers, we’ll have to impose lockdowns again…”
This wreaks more havoc and economic destruction, which is the true goal of the COVID operation. Its cruelty is boundless.
In this article, I present quotes from official sources about their own diagnostic test for the coronavirus, the PCR.
Spoiler alert: the admitted holes and shortcomings of the test are devastating.
From “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel”:
“Detection
of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that
2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”
Translation:
A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing
infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID
virus might not be in the patient’s body at all, either.
From
the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans”:
“Several
assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under
development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only
the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g.
SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”
Translation: Some
PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing
to do with COVID---including plain old coronas that cause nothing more
than a cold.
The
WHO document adds this little piece: “Protocol use limitations:
Optional clinical specimens for testing has [have] not yet been
validated.”
Translation: We’re not sure which tissue samples to take from the patient, in order for the test to have any validity.
From
the FDA: “LabCorpCOVID-19RT-PCR test EUASummary1 ACCELERATED EMERGENCY
USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) SUMMARYCOVID-19 RT-PCR TEST (LABORATORY
CORPORATION OF AMERICA)”:
“…The
SARS-CoV-2RNA [COVID virus fragments] is generally detectable in
respiratory specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive
results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical
correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is
necessary to determine patient infection status…THE AGENT DETECTED MAY
NOT BE THE DEFINITE CAUSE OF DISEASE (CAPS are mine). Laboratories
within the United States and its territories are required to report all
positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.”
Translation:
On the one hand, we claim the test can “generally” detect the presence
of the COVID virus in a patient. But we admit that “the agent detected”
on the test, by which we mean COVID virus, “may not be the definite
cause of disease.” We also admit that, unless the patient has an acute
infection, we can’t find COVID. Therefore, the idea of “asymptomatic
patients” confirmed by the test is nonsense. And even though a positive
test for COVID may not indicate the actual cause of disease, all
positive tests must be reported---and they will be counted as “COVID
cases.” Regardless.
Here
are several quotes from a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements,
Creative Diagnostics; “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit”:
“Regulatory status: For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures.”
Translation: Don’t use the test result alone to diagnose infection or disease. Oops.
“…non-specific
interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata),
Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3,
type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia
Pneumoniae, etc.”
Translation:
Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states
the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of
other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving,
then? Who knows? Flip a coin.
“Application Qualitative”
Translation:
This clearly means the test is not suited to detect how much virus is
in the patient’s body. I’ll cover how important this admission is in a
minute.
“The
detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it
should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and
treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in
combination with their symptoms/signs, history, other laboratory tests
and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly
used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis, and are only for the
reference of clinicians.”
Translation:
Don’t use the test as the exclusive basis for diagnosing a person with
COVID. And yet, this is exactly what health authorities are doing all
over the world. All positive tests must be reported to government
agencies, and they are counted as COVID cases.
Those quotes, from official government and testing sources, torpedo the whole “scientific” basis of the test.
And
now, I’ll add another lethal blow: the test has never been validated
properly as an instrument to detect disease. Even if we blindly assumed
it can detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient, it doesn’t
show HOW MUCH virus is in the body. And that is key, because in order to
even begin talking about actual illness in the real world, not in a
lab, the patient would need to have millions and millions of the virus
actively replicating in his body.
Proponents of the test assert that it CAN measure how much virus is in the body. To which I reply: prove it.
Prove it in a way it should have been proved decades ago---but never was.
Take
five hundred people and remove tissue samples from them. The people who
take the samples do NOT do the test. The testers will never know who
the patients are and what condition they’re in.
The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and HOW MUCH of it they found.
“All right, in patients 24, 46, 65, 76, 87, and 93 we found a great deal of virus.”
Now
we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have
so much virus replicating in their bodies. Are they sick? Are they
running marathons? Let’s find out.
This
OBVIOUS vetting of the test has never been done. That is an enormous
scandal. Where are the controlled test results in 500 patients, a
thousand patients? Nowhere.
The PCR is an unproven fraud.
“But…but…what about all the sick and dying people…why are they sick?”
I’ve
written thousands of words answering that question, in past articles. A
NUMBER of conditions---none involving COVID, and most involving old
traditional diseases---are making people sick.
There
are other large-scale studies of the PCR test that have never been
done. I’ve covered them in detail, in prior articles. To summarize: a
study using a thousand patients, in which their tissue samples are sent
to 30 different labs for analysis and verdicts, to see whether the
results are uniform from lab to lab; and a study of 1000 patients, in
which the results are compared with the results of analysis by electron
microcopy. These large studies---never done.
In other words, the PCR test has never been adequately tested; it has never been properly validated as a diagnostic tool.
Here,
from Canadian researcher David Crowe’s bombshell paper, FLAWS IN
CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC THEORY, is a key quote about the PCR test:
“A
review of 33 RT-PCR tests for COVID-19 approved under US FDA Emergency
Use Authorizations showed a wide range of differences in what the tests
were looking for and how they decided whether they had found it. The
tests look for a variety of different segments (‘genes’) of the presumed
COVID-19 genome, that only amounts to about 1% or less of the total
genome, which is about 30,000 bases. Perhaps the worst feature of the
tests is how they decide whether the sample is positive if more than one
[‘gene’] segment is being looked for. Some tests look for only one, so
it must be present for a positive. But tests that look for two segments
are split between those that require both to be present and those that
require either one for a positive. Some tests look for three segments
but only require any two to be present, while one test insisted on all
three. Tests that allow a segment to be undetected raise the question of
how it can be said that a virus was detected when an important part of
it was missing.”
If the PCR is a uniform standardized test, a rabbit is a spaceship.
Speaking
of lack of uniformity in test results, here is a quote from Stephen
Bustin, who is considered one of the foremost experts on PCR in the
world. The excerpt is from his 2017 article, “Talking the talk, but not
walking the walk: RT-qPCR as a paradigm for the lack of reproducibility
in molecular research”:
“Awareness
of variability problems associated with PCR has been long-standing,
with the first report describing inconsistencies with replicate and
serial specimens evaluated within and between laboratories as early as
1992. The lack of a theoretical understanding of the dynamic processes
involved in PCR, especially with respect to the amplification of
nonreproducible and/or unexpected amplification products, was also
highlighted decades ago. These observations and the resulting
implications are largely disregarded.”
Here
is the story of an epic failure of the PCR, right out in the open, for
all to see. The reference is the NY Times, January 22, 2007, “Faith in
Quick Tests Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.”
“Dr.
Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center,
could not stop coughing…By late April, other health care workers at the
hospital were coughing…”
“For
months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a
huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000
health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a
preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in;
142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the
disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for
protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some
in intensive care.”
“Then,
about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to
receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing
them that the whole thing was a false alarm.”
“Now,
as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious
disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith
in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test [PCR] that led them
astray.”
“There
are no national data on pseudo-epidemics caused by an overreliance on
such molecular tests, said Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns
Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care
Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all
the time. The Dartmouth case may have been one of the largest, but it
was by no means an exception, she said.”
“Many
of the new molecular [PCR] tests are quick but technically demanding,
and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called
‘home brews,’ are not commercially available, and there are no good
estimates of their error rates. But their very sensitivity makes false
positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested,
as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is
an epidemic.”
“’You’re
in a little bit of no man’s land,’ with the new molecular [PCR] tests,
said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief
scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a
nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
‘All bets are off on exact performance’.”
“With
pertussis, she [Dr. Kretsinger, CDC] said, ‘there are probably 100
different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the
country,’ and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. ‘We have
had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of
P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,’ Dr. Kretsinger
added.”
“Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.”
“’The
big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,’
Dr. Petti said. ‘No single test result is absolute and that is even
more important with a test result based on P.C.R’.”
There
is more to report about the PCR test, and I have, but I’ll make this
final point for now: I’ve presented, over the last several months,
compelling evidence that no one proved the existence of the COVID virus,
by proper scientific procedures, in the first place. So the PCR test
would be looking for…what? A virus that isn’t there?
And on the back of this test, governments are wrecking economies all over the world, and untold numbers of human lives.
~~~
(The link to this article posted on my blog is here.) 
No comments:
Post a Comment