It is obvious if one were to look at this situation critically and logically that there has never been a “viral” pandemic. This has been and always will be a TESTING pandemic. So how does one create a testing pandemic without a “virus?”
1. Claim the same old detox symptoms which people go through each and every year are somehow new.
2. Create an unpurified toxic cell culture mixture of animal/human DNA along with various chemicals/additives and claim a novel “virus” is present.
3. Create a genome stitched together in a computer database from this unpurified soup which is made up from the framework of other “virus” genomes created in the same way.
4. Create a PCR test that detects tiny fragments said to belong only to this genome and claim it accurately detects the “virus.”
5. Claim that due to this new threat, the normal FDA approval process needs to be bypassed in favor of the Emergency Use Authorization thus never needing to validate the tests by the more stringent approval process.
6. Spread FEAR with unverifiable stories from China and CDC/WHO/MSM propaganda.
7. Test anyone and everyone using PCR with high 40+ cycles and claim they have the “virus” regardless of whether they are sick or not.
8. After generating enough “cases”/FEAR using a faulty test, abandon the only-out-on-EUA PCR test before the FDA approval process is completed and use other faulty non-FDA-approved EUA PCR Tests to generate more “cases” in order to generate more FEAR.
9. Claim a new more infectious “variant” of the same “virus” is running around and TEST, TEST, TEST.
10. Rinse and repeat.
This is exactly what the CDC just proved by stating they are abandoning the EUA for their own PCR Test and never seeking FDA approval:
CDC PCR Test:
“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.”
“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.”
Keep in mind that the CDC PCR test was created without any “virus” isolate ever available, was shown to be contaminated and generated numerous false-positives, and along with the Drosten PCR test, was one of the two most widely used tests in the world and both of these tests were shown to have detected “SARS-COV-2” in control samples containing WATER.
Granted, none of this seems to matter as the damage is already done. The meaningless case numbers generated by faulty, inaccurate not-to-be-used-for-diagnosis PCR tests has done it’s job and created enough FEAR to drive people to rushed, experimental, toxic gene therapies masquerading as vaccines. This has in turn created the dichotomy of vaccinated against unvaccinated, masked against unmasked, believers against “deniers,” etc.
While the CDC test is the most widely used test in America, it isn’t the first test nor is it the one that is used mostly throughout the world. That distinction belongs to the Drosten PCR test which is the standard that all other tests were held to and created from. The Drosten test has been consistently shown to be faulty and the methods used for its creation has been challenged by numerous scientists yet it is still in use today.
Drosten PCR Test
This mini review from February 2021 offers a nice insight into how the rest of the world is being conned with the Drosten PCR test in the same way the CDC used its own test based on it to con everyone here in America:
40-Cycle RT-PCR Test for Covid 19: A Weapon of Mass Destruction?
“On December 31, 2019, the Chinese health authorities notified the World Health Organization (WHO) of the appearance of cases of pneumonia of unknown etiology in the city of Wuhan, Hubei-China. On January 7, 2020, they officially announced that the causative agent was a new coronavirus, whose genomic sequence
was published on January 10, 2020 (www.virological.org) [1]. The new coronavirus has been named SARS-CoV-2 by the Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses and it has been stated that it is the cause of “Covid-19” [2,3]. On January 23, 2020 Corman, et al. [4] published online “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” in the magazine Eurosurveillance. From that moment on, all international organizations including the WHO, the CDC, scientists from various universities, pharmaceutical companies and the ministries of health of almost all world governments accepted that article as the standard diagnostic protocol for SARS-nCoV2.
Interestingly, the article was sent to the magazine on January 21, 2020 and accepted for publication the next day. So, it is virtually impossible for this article to have been peer-reviewed in such a way that it was not evaluated by independent scientists who determined whether the information, the methods used, and the conclusions obtained were correct. Prof. Drosten and Dr. Reusken belong to the editorial board of Eurosurveillance (https://www.eurosurveillance.org/board) and they bypassed all the usual controls for this type of publication. In addition, several of the authors who signed the article have serious conflicts of interest. Olfert Landt and Marco Kaiser are respectively Managing Director and Scientific Advisor of TIB Molbiol, which was the first company to manufacture the accepted PCR kits for Covid-19 (Light Mix). Similarly, Victor Corman and prof. Drosten hid their work at Labor Berlin Charité Vivantes GmbH, charged with conducting PCR tests for Covid-19 in Germany.
Finally, this protocol was sent to WHO (Geneva) on January 17, 2020, where it was immediately approved, and where its use worldwide as a diagnostic standard was immediately recommended, almost a week before its publication. At that time, there was no health crisis since no case was known outside of China, so its urgent approval was unjustified and irresponsible. Shortly after, Tedros Adhanom himself, WHO director general, declared on March 16, 2020 that he had “a simple message for all countries: Test, Test, Test” [5] and almost all countries began a massive evaluation of the asymptomatic population with null epidemiological bases for its realization. In November 2020, 22 internationally renowned scientists conducted an external peer review of Corman’s paper to
independently assess its quality and accuracy. In this publication, Borger, et al. [6] concluded that the article published without guarantees in Eurosurveillance contains nine serious scientific errors and three minor inaccuracies.
The detailed explanation of these scientific errors exceeds the remit of this editorial, which is why they are only listed below.
1) Extremely high concentrations of primers, DNA polymerase and magnesium sulfate. This leads to an increase in nonspecific binding, amplification, and lack of specificity to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
2) Non-specific primers (oscillating letters) that could give rise to various sequences of forward primers and as many inverse ones that are not related at all to SARS-CoV-2, so the test is not a specific tool for its diagnosis.
3) The test cannot discriminate between the complete virus (infectious) and the viral fragments.
4) A difference of 10 °C with respect to the annealing temperature of the first pair of RdRp primers (direct and reverse) when it should be 2 °C.
5) The genes chosen were wrong because:
a) They did not represent the entire length of the virus.
b) The E gene is nonspecific and is present in all coronaviruses.
c) The N gene that at least ensured that it was a SARS-1 or SARs-CoV2 was removed by the WHO from the protocol due to lack of sensitivity.
6) The RdPd gene proposed by Corman, et al. [4] contains too
many oscillating letters so that 2 forward primers, 4 different reverse primers and 8 different probes could be synthesized,
which provides excessive variability from the point of view of commercial tests to ensure its specificity.
7) The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level.
8) The PCR test does not contain a single positive control to evaluate its specificity for SARS-CoV-2 or a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses, which makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify SARS-CoV-2. Virus
9) The number of cycles is not specified for a test to be positive. Later, the WHO recommended between 40 and 45 cycles, which is totally wrong from a scientific point of view.
Recently, Bruno, et al. [7]. conducted another critical review of the article by Corman, et al. [4] focused on the “Non-specificity of the Real Time RT-PCR test to detect COVID-19” in which to show the inability of the RT-PCR test to discriminate between different coronavirus strains and to confirm the molecular diagnosis of infection with the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus. The Corman, et al. [4] protocol is based on the detection of 3 viral genes: N, E and RdRp. Theoretically, the first two do not detect common human coronaviruses, but betacoronoaviruses associated with bats; however, their studies demonstrated their inability to detect them. Alone, the test for the RdRp gene would be specific to detect SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. However, the results showed that the detection of the RdRp gene is not specific for SARS-CoV-2 because it shares homologies with sequences from other human coronaviruses, animals and genomic sequences present on human chromosomes (similarities between 97-100%) that can be cross-reactive with other viruses and genomic sequences present in human chromosomes. Therefore, this test has a high risk of non-specificity associated with false positive results.
In fact, some of the PCR tests for Covid-19 openly recognize the possible interference by Influenza A (H1N1) virus, Influenza B virus (Yamagata), type B respiratory syncytial virus, respiratory adenovirus (types 3 and 7), parainfluenza virus (type B), mycoplasma pneumoniae and chlamydia pneumoniae. But if there
is one unanimous criticism worldwide, it is the total incorrectness in the number of cycles used worldwide to diagnose Covid-19. As early as February 2020, Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, admitted that “PCR tests are only 30 to 50% accurate” [8]. However, inexplicably, the PCR test has continued to be performed worldwide with 40, or even 45 amplification cycles. In April 2020, La Scola, et al. [9] verified that the percentage of positive viral cultures obtained from nasopharyngeal samples (theoretically SARS-CoV2) and the number of cycles at which the infection was detected were inversely correlated. Thus, while with 17 cycles the test was totally accurate, from that number it progressively decreased, reaching an error level of 100% from cycle 34.
In August 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci himself, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, publicly admitted to the media that “it was extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample (above threshold of 33 cycles)” [10]. However, it took almost a year since the start of this health crisis for the WHO [11] to officially accept that “As the positivity rate for SARS-CoV-2 decreases, the positive predictive value also decreases. This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as the positivity rate decreases, irrespective of the assay specificity. Therefore, healthcare providers are encouraged to take into consideration testing results along with clinical signs and symptoms, confirmed status of any contacts, etc. adding this to that increased number of amplifications “the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain”. In fact, there is complete consensus that PCR tests performed with 40 amplification cycles cannot distinguish between
“live” viruses and inactive (non-infectious) virus particles and therefore cannot be used as a diagnostic tool.
They also cannot confirm that SARS-CoV2 is the causative agent of clinical symptoms, as the test cannot rule out diseases caused by other microorganisms or even our own genes. Another important
aspect for the possible cancellation of this test as a diagnostic method for Covid-19 is the absolute lack of a gold standard with which to compare the test results [12]. In his article Watson states that “only a virus, tested by isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, only virus isolation, that is, an unequivocal virus test, can be the gold standard”. But such a comparison of the test versus the isolated and purified culture has never been made. In addition, this crop does not seem to exist (or not be available), as has been recognized by the governments of several countries and the document of the Center of Disease Control and Prevention. In a document entitled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel” [13] and published on July 13, 2020, it recognizes in the section “Performance characteristics” (page 39) that “Given that currently no quantified virus isolates of 2019-nCoV are available, the assays [diagnostic tests] designed for the detection of 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized strains of full-length RNA transcribed in vitro… “.
Yesterday, January 16, 2021, the very manufacturer of the PCR test promoted by Corman-Drosten [4] (and blessed by WHO) estimates false positive rate at 50%. This literally means that half of the 95 million cases of “infected” and of the 2 million deaths are false and that almost all the decisions made have been totally wrong and counterproductive [14]. Since the beginning of the health crisis, the belief in the validity of these PCR tests has been so strong that it resembles a fanaticism that does not tolerate contradiction on the part of official doctors and scientists when there is already talk of 95% false positives, especially when it is performed on asymptomatic patients. One of the basic principles of medicine
has been to correlate clinical symptoms, physical examination and complementary tests to arrive at any diagnosis of disease. To assume that a totally asymptomatic person is sick with Covid-19 because a PCR test with 40 amplification cycles has been positive is simply a scientific falsehood. If there were few cases, such probably wrong diagnoses would not matter much, but when that error probably involves 2/3 of the almost 95 million people diagnosed with Covid-19 to date, it is an error of monstrous proportions with enormous global social, health and economic repercussions.”
https://biomedres.us/pdfs/BJSTR.MS.ID.005420.pdf
In Summary:
- The CDC is withdrawing the EUA for its own “SARS-COV-2” PCR and telling laboratories to transition to other non-FDA-approved PCR tests
- On January 23, 2020 Corman, et al. published online “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” in the magazine Eurosurveillance
- From that moment on, all international organizations including the WHO, the CDC, scientists from various universities, pharmaceutical companies and the ministries of health of almost all world governments accepted that article as the standard diagnostic protocol for “SARS-COV-2”
- The Drosten PCR protocol, regarded as the standard PCR protocol all over the world and by the WHO/CDC, was sent to the Eurosurveillance magazine on January 21, 2020 and accepted for publication the next day
- It is virtually impossible for this article to have been peer-reviewed in such a way that it was not evaluated by independent scientists who determined whether the information, the methods used, and the conclusions obtained were correct
- Prof. Drosten and Dr. Reusken belong to the editorial board of Eurosurveillance and they bypassed all the usual controls for this type of publication
- Olfert Landt and Marco Kaiser are respectively Managing Director and Scientific Advisor of TIB Molbiol, which was the first company to manufacture the accepted PCR kits for “Covid-19” (Light Mix)
- This protocol was sent to WHO (Geneva) on January 17, 2020, where it was immediately approved, and where its use worldwide as a diagnostic standard was immediately recommended, almost a week before its publication
- In November 2020, 22 internationally renowned scientists conducted an external peer review of Corman’s paper to independently assess its quality and accuracy
- In this publication, Borger, et al. concluded that the article published without guarantees in Eurosurveillance contains nine serious scientific errors and three minor inaccuracies
- Extremely high concentrations of primers, DNA polymerase and magnesium sulfate. This leads to an increase in nonspecific binding, amplification, and lack of specificity to identify the “SARS-CoV-2 virus“
- Non-specific primers (oscillating letters) that could give rise to various sequences of forward primers and as many inverse ones that are not related at all to “SARS-CoV-2,” so the test is not a specific tool for its diagnosis
- The test cannot discriminate between the complete “virus” (infectious) and the “viral” fragments
- A difference of 10 °C with respect to the annealing temperature of the first pair of RdRp primers (direct and reverse) when it should be 2 °C
- The genes chosen were wrong because:
- They did not represent the entire length of the “virus“
- The E gene is nonspecific and is present in all “coronaviruses”
- The N gene that at least ensured that it was a “SARS-1” or “SARs-CoV2” was removed by the WHO from the protocol due to lack of sensitivity
- The RdPd gene proposed by Corman, et al. contains toomany oscillating letters so that 2 forward primers, 4 different reverse primers and 8 different probes could be synthesized, which provides excessive variability from the point of view of commercial tests to ensure its specificity
- The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level
- The PCR test does not contain a single positive control to evaluate its specificity for “SARS-CoV-2” or a negative control to exclude the presence of other “coronaviruses,” which makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify “SARS-CoV-2”
- The number of cycles is not specified for a test to be positive. Later, the WHO recommended between 40 and 45 cycles, which is totally wrong from a scientific point of view
- Bruno, et al. conducted another critical review in which to show the inability of the RT-PCR test to discriminate between different “coronavirus” strains and to confirm the molecular diagnosis of infection with the novel “SARS-CoV-2 virus”
- The Corman, et al. protocol is based on the detection of 3 “viral” genes: N, E and RdRp
- The first two do not detect common human “coronaviruses,” but “betacoronoaviruses” associated with bats
- However, their studies demonstrated their inability to detect the bat “viruses”
- Alone, the test for the RdRp gene would be specific to detect “SARS-CoV-2” yet the results showed that the detection of the RdRp gene is not specific for SARS-CoV-2 because it shares homologies with sequences from other human “coronaviruses,” animals and genomic sequences present on human chromosomes (similarities between 97-100%) that can be cross-reactive with other “viruses” and genomic sequences present in human chromosomes
- This test has a high risk of non-specificity associated with false positive results
- Some of the PCR tests for “Covid-19” openly recognize the possible interference by:
- Influenza A (H1N1) “virus”
- Influenza B “virus” (Yamagata)
- Type B respiratory syncytial “virus”
- Respiratory “adenovirus” (types 3 and 7)
- Parainfluenza “virus” (type B)
- Mycoplasma pneumoniae
- Chlamydia pneumoniae
- Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, admitted that “PCR tests are only 30 to 50% accurate”
- The PCR test has continued to be performed worldwide with 40, or even 45 amplification cycles with studies showing an error level of 100% from cycle 34
- In August 2020, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, publicly admitted to the media that “it was extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample (above threshold of 33 cycles)”
- There is complete consensus that PCR tests performed with 40 amplification cycles cannot distinguish between “live viruses” and “inactive (non-infectious) virus” particles and therefore cannot be used as a diagnostic tool
- PCR also cannot confirm that “SARS-CoV2” is the causative agent of clinical symptoms, as the test cannot rule out diseases caused by other microorganisms or even our own genes
- In his article Watson states that “only a virus, tested by isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, only virus isolation, that is, an unequivocal virus test, can be the gold standard”.
- Such a comparison of the test versus the isolated and purified culture (or “virus”) has never been made
- According to the CDC, “Given that currently no quantified virus isolates of 2019-nCoV are available, the assays [diagnostic tests] designed for the detection of 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized strains of full-length RNA transcribed in vitro… “
- On January 16, 2021, the very manufacturer of the PCR test promoted by Corman-Drosten (and blessed by WHO) estimated false positive rate at 50%
- This literally means that half of the 95 million cases of “infected” and of the 2 million deaths are false and that almost all the decisions made have been totally wrong and counterproductive
- There is talk of 95% false positives, especially when it is performed on asymptomatic patients
- To assume that a totally asymptomatic person is sick with “Covid-19” because a PCR test with 40 amplification cycles has been positive is simply a scientific falsehood
Understand when you see headlines claiming rising “cases” that these are absolutely meaningless. They admit “Covid-19” can not be diagnosed based on symptoms alone as the symptoms overlap with too many other diseases thus they use inaccurate PCR tests never meant for diagnosis to generate cases. However, PCR is only “accurate” if disease prevalence is high. Disease prevalence is determined by clinical diagnosis. However, as previously stated, determination by clinical diagnosis alone can not be done with “Covid-19.” Hence they use the PCR test to diagnose and generate cases to claim high disease prevalence in order to validate the PCR test itself. They will keep this TESTING PANDEMIC going for as long as people continue to allow them to get away with this fraud.
ViroLIEgy 
3 comments