I tend to stay away from acknowledging variants much as it should be clear since “SARS-COV-2” was never properly purified/isolated directly from a sick host and therefore never proven to exist, that the variants of this non-existent “virus” also do not exist. The hysteria is akin to being terrified of a Word document containing random A,C,T,G’s written all over it. Even Stephen King himself can not make this scenario terrifying. However, even though the absurdity of it all is obvious to any one willing to look at the evidence critically and logically, people continue to be fooled and swept up in this recycled variant drama over and over again. They fail to see past their own fears in order to question how these variants pop up at the perfect times in order to push along the over-arching agenda. Let’s see if we can break down this repetitive pattern and provide some clarity.
The latest “variant of concern” Omicron (a.k.a. Moronic) was discovered by Dr Angelique Coetzee in South Africa early November 2021. She must have noticed some terrifying new symptoms alarming her enough to send samples in for genetic sequencing in a country with an extremely low 0.3% sequencing rate. Let’s see what she had to say on the matter:
The doctor who discovered omicron described her patients’ symptoms
“The South African doctor who first identified the omicron variant that is spreading in the country and abroad has described the symptoms as she observed them in her patients, stating that the strain is so far producing “very, very mild” effects in them.
Dr Angelique Coetzee told BBC News that she had first noticed the symptoms in a young, male patient around the age of 30 whom she normally knew to be very healthy. He was “extremely tired” as well as having “body aches and pains with a bit of a headache,” a “scratchy” rather than sore throat, and no cough or loss of taste or smell, she said. The doctor was speaking about her experience of a small group of patients, and not making general comments about how all patients will experience it.
What are the symptoms of the omicron variant?
Coetzee tested the man for Covid-19 and found him to be positive, then tested his family and found them all to have the virus, despite showing only “very, very mild symptoms,” she said. For the rest of the day, people kept presenting at her surgery with similar symptoms, and all tested positive. Noticing that the symptoms seemed to differ from the delta variant, which had hitherto been the most prevalent form of covid globally, she alerted the country’s vaccines committee, of which she is a member. They announced their resultant discovery of the omicron variant a few days later.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/2095354/what-are-the-symptoms-of-the-omicron-variant/amp/
According to Dr. Coetzee, her patient was extremely tired with body pains, a headache, and a scratchy throat. These symptoms of the common cold, along with a positive “Covid-19” test, alarmed her enough to alert the Vaccine Committee (which she is a member of) to the possibility of a new strain of “SARS-COV-2.” Lo and behold, with the magic of computer algorithms, they pulled together a new variant out of thin air and tested the family with PCR tests (which are unable to detect a “virus,” let alone variants of one) in order to claim that this new variant had spread.
Of course, these “very, very mild symptoms” led to the announcement by Borswana that they now had a variant to call their own. However, this announcement threw in a tiny curveball left out of the above narrative by Dr. Coetzee:
Botswana confirms four cases of new COVID-19 variant
“Health authorities in Botswana announced Thursday that four cases of a new COVID-19 variant now known as B.1.1.529 were reported and recorded on Nov. 22 this year.
The four cases were detected among travelers who tested SARS-COV-2 positive on routine pre-travel testing, the Coordinator of Botswana’s Presidential COVID-19 Task Force Kereng Masupu said in a statement.
“The variant tests were carried out as part of the routine genomic surveillance of SARS-COV-2, as prescribed in our COVID-19 response plan,” said Masupu, adding that the preliminary report revealed that all of the four persons had been fully vaccinated for COVID-19.”
http://www.news.cn/english/2021-11/26/c_1310333106.htm
All four people Dr. Coetzee saw were fully vaccinated against “Covid-19.” Now the story is getting interesting. These very common symptoms of the common cold were found in fully vaccinated individuals during routine screening for travel. I’m not positive why this would alarm Dr. Coetzee as she noted these were “very, very mild symptoms” which only seemed to differ from Delta (which was no different symtomatically from any of the “variants” but I digress). Given that the vaccines are supposed to “prevent” serious but not mild disease, this would seem to fall right in line with the narrative on breakthrough cases which are supposedly just mild cases of the disease.
Whatever the reasoning, this led to the WHO getting involved and hitting the red alert panic button on these “very, very mild symptoms” linked to random letters in a database. Within this announcement, you will see the trick that is used to increase the amount of cases for this new variant:
Classification of Omicron (B.1.1.529): SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern
“The B.1.1.529 variant was first reported to WHO from South Africa on 24 November 2021. The epidemiological situation in South Africa has been characterized by three distinct peaks in reported cases, the latest of which was predominantly the Delta variant. In recent weeks, infections have increased steeply, coinciding with the detection of B.1.1.529 variant. The first known confirmed B.1.1.529 infection was from a specimen collected on 9 November 2021.
This variant has a large number of mutations, some of which are concerning. Preliminary evidence suggests an increased risk of reinfection with this variant, as compared to other VOCs. The number of cases of this variant appears to be increasing in almost all provinces in South Africa. Current SARS-CoV-2 PCR diagnostics continue to detect this variant. Several labs have indicated that for one widely used PCR test, one of the three target genes is not detected (called S gene dropout or S gene target failure) and this test can therefore be used as marker for this variant, pending sequencing confirmation. Using this approach, this variant has been detected at faster rates than previous surges in infection, suggesting that this variant may have a growth advantage.”
Did you catch the trick? As luck would have it, researchers alerted the WHO to a PCR defect where the S gene (one of three targets in the TaqPath PCR test) will drop out or fail. According to the WHO, this fortunate coincidence means that this S gene dropout can be used as a proxy for determining Omicron cases without full sequencing or designing new tests. Pretty nifty trick, right? If this S gene dropout sounds rather familiar, it should as this is not the first variant to claim this defect:
New coronavirus variant may have been in US since October
“Re-analysis of 2m Covid tests raises fresh questions about origin of B117 ‘UK strain’ and suggests it may already be widespread
It wouldn’t be at all surprising if at least some of the cases were B117,” said Eric Topol, head of Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, California, who was not involved in the research, but whose team confirmed a Californian case of the B117 variant on Wednesday.
“It has probably been here for a while at low levels – but you don’t see it until you look for it.”
The existence of a new and highly transmissible Sars CoV-2 variant was announced by the UK’s health secretary on 14 December, after Covid-testing laboratories reported that a growing number of their positive samples were missing a signal from one of the three genes their PCR tests use to confirm the presence of the virus.
Further sequencing revealed that such “S gene dropout” was the result of mutations in the gene encoding the spike protein which the virus uses to gain entry to human cells. The variant is thought to have been circulating in the UK since September.”
“To investigate, scientists at the California-based DNA testing company Helix examined the prevalence of S gene dropout among 2 million of the Covid tests the company has processed in recent months. They observed an increase in S gene dropout among positive samples since early October, when 0.25% of positive tests exhibited this pattern.
This has since grown, hitting 0.5% on average last week – although in Massachusetts, which has the highest number of such samples, it currently stands at 1.85%, although no cases of the B117 variant have been announced in that state yet.
Further analysis revealed mutations in some of the same regions of the S gene which are also present in the B117 variant – although full sequencing of the viral genome is needed to confirm whether this is indeed the same variant, or something else.”
Remember the B117, or UK, variant that just happened to pop up in December 2020 right as the vaccination campaign came into full swing? It’s rather interesting how a new boogeyman appeared exactly when they needed to convince the hesitant to take the plunge (er…jab) on experimental, safety-data-lacking mRNA gene therapies masquerading as vaccines. They couldn’t be doing this same song-and-dance in order to get those hesitant about the newly approved boosters/youth vaccinations to roll up their sleeves once again, now could they? Let’s see if we can gain some further insight by looking to the OG variant for more information.
It’s vital we act now to suppress the new coronavirus variant
“On Friday 11 December I was alerted to the fact that a large number of the samples showing positive in our Covid-19 testing laboratory in Birmingham were unusual. Like the other Lighthouse laboratories, dedicated to testing samples from the wider public, we are on the lookout for the presence of three particular genes, with a positive Covid-19 result requiring clean detection of two of the three.
That Friday around 25% of all our positives were completely missing one of those genes – the S gene, which encodes the spike protein of the virus and is essential for viral attachment and entry into cells. It is not unusual to see some S gene drop-outs in positive samples, but usually in around 1-2% of them, not in 25%. At the same time this phenomenon was also observed in the Lighthouse lab in Milton Keynes, and communication was instigated with the Covid-19 Genomics UK (CoG) consortium, and our observation was reported to the national testing programme.
In under a week it had been confirmed through the CoG genome sequencing data that the observed S gene drop-out was being driven by the emergence of a new variant of Sars-CoV-2, named B117. By Friday 18 December the rapid emergence of this new variant was alarming enough for government to convene an emergency cabinet meeting, announcing on 19 December tier 4 restrictions for the whole of the south-east of England and tougher restrictions on Christmas plans nationally. News of the new variant has led to multiple nations banning travel from the UK, and the closing of our Channel borders. The main question I am being asked now is: is this all commensurate with the threat posed?
The B117 lineage is not a new strain of Sars-CoV-2. It is a new variant that has emerged from the virus that has been circulating in the UK. This new variant contains a surprising number of mutations in its genome – mutations arise constantly in viruses as they replicate and move from host to host. Most of these mutations are “silent”, causing no change to the virus structures and proteins they encode, or are damaging to the virus and die quickly. However some mutations result in a slight change to the structures on the virus, possibly making them marginally more efficient at transmitting, or replicating, or attaching to cells.”
“The mutation implicated in virus binding also affects the ability of the fluorescently labelled probe used in our PCR Covid test to detect the S gene, meaning there is zero S-gene signal in tests positive for B117 variants.”
“It is now clear that the B117 lineage is spreading quickly across the south-east of England, mirroring a stark rise in hospitalisations in the region. There is no evidence to suggest the new lineage causes any more aggressive a type of coronavirus infection, or is even more deadly, but it would seem to be transmitting very efficiently, with modelling suggesting a 65-70% increase in its transmissibility. Once we were clear that our S-gene drop-out test positives were being driven by the new lineage we were able to go back through our entire archive of test data and measure the rise of the new lineage. The resulting graph is worrying, showing an increase from the standard 2% of all positives, to almost 70% within the space of two weeks. This clearly suggests that the new lineage of Covid-19 appears to be able to spread very quickly, though it is not necessarily more deadly.”
B117 was determined by the S gene dropout, a PCR test failure that was known to occur prior to the B117 “discovery.” Instead of checking to see whether it was a fault in the test or not, this dropout was determined to be caused by a mutation in the spike protein based on genomic data. This led to the use of computer modeling to determine that this computer database-generated variant was more transmissable. In other words, B117 is nothing but computer-driven data. Like the original Wuhan strain, there was nothing physical to back up and prove the existence nor the assumptions made about this variant.
So how do they get away with this variant scam using the PCR test? Let’s see if taking a little closer look at the Applied Biosystems ™ TaqPath ™ COVID-19 Combo Kit being used to “detect” the B117 (and now Omicron) variant helps to shed light on this testing pandemic we have found ourselves in:
Impact of the 69-70del mutation in the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 on the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit
“Recent reports of a deletion mutation in the S gene of the SARS-CoV-2 genome have emerged in the scientific community. The 6-nucleotide deletion (21765–21770) of the S gene results in a deletion of two amino acids at sites 69 (histidine) and (70 valine) in the spike protein commonly referred to as 69-70del. The 69-70del mutation
is predominantly observed in B.1.1, B.1.258, and the cluster 5 variant lineages of the SARS-CoV-2. Of these, the B.1.1.7 variant is named by Public Health England as VOC-202012/01 (the first “Variant of Concern” in December 2020), which has 17 mutations including 69-70del [1]. While there are several mutations beyond 69-70del observed in other regions of the S gene as well as mutations in other regions of the SARS-CoV-2 genome, such as in the orf1-ab, orf8, and the N gene, these mutations do not impact our Applied Biosystems™ TaqPath™ COVID-19 Combo Kit.”
“Using the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit as per our Instructions for Use (IFU) and Applied Biosystems™ COVID-19 Interpretive Software program, a positive result is called if at least two of the three SARS-CoV-2 targets are detected. The test results are dictated via our COVID-19 Interpretive Software algorithms that utilize the results from all three targets to generate a final call.”
“What are the recommendations for those who are currently using the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit? Since three SARS-CoV-2 targets are used in our TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit and a positive result is called when only two of the three targets are detected (per our IFU and software algorithm), no adaptations to the test or changes in use are necessary at this time. To date, the 69-70del S gene mutation has not been found to impact test results obtained using the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit and the probability of a mutation in the S gene impacting the accuracy of test results is low.”
“What is the potential impact of the 69-70del mutation on SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics? The European CDC does not recommend relying only on the S gene for primary detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection [3]. Instead, the European CDC recommends that multi-target RT-PCR assays that include an S gene target affected by the deletions (S gene “drop out”) can be used as a signal for the presence of the 69-70del mutation for further investigation, especially if sequencing capacity is limited. If available, the European CDC recommends confirmation of the 69-70del mutation using sequencing [2]. Additionally, the US FDA notes that due to our multi-target test design, our overall test sensitivity should not be impacted, and the pattern of detection when certain mutations are present may help with early identification of new variants in patients to reduce further spread of infection [4].”
“What impact might the 69-70del have for labs that use the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit? The 69-70del in the spike protein results in an S gene “drop out” in RT-PCR assays that use the S gene as one of the targets. An S gene “drop out” does not mean a result is negative; it only indicates that the S gene could not be detected by the assay. Due to the multi-target (N gene, S gene and orf1-ab) approach of the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit, the risk of a false negative is low. So far, there are no documented cases of false negative COVID-19 results. While the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit is not intended for use for the detection of the 69-70del mutation in SARS-CoV-2 variant strains, the European CDC recommends that an S gene “drop out” can be used as a signal for the presence of the 69-70del mutant for further investigation, especially if sequencing capacity is limited [2]. Multi-target RT-PCR tests that utilize S gene regions impacted by the 69-70del are quicker and cheaper than sequencing the entire virus and can help keep track of these mutant strains [3].”
According to Thermo Fisher, the TaqPath is not to be used to determine variants, yet the European CDC said any result with an S gene dropout from the test can be used as a proxy for the variant instead of doing full genome sequencing. This is how they can get around using the “test” in a way it was not designed for. But this shouldn’t be a problem for this “highly accurate” test, right?
When judging PCR as well as the trustworthiness of these S gene dropout results, it is helpful to keep in mind that positive results for TaqPath are run up to a Ct value of 40 cycles. Why is this important? The cycle threshold value is the number of PCR cycles required for the fluorescent signal to exceed background levels. As PCR inventor Kary Mullis stated, it is a way to make a whole lot of something out of something. The cycles double the amount of that something with each cycle but it also amplifies anything else potentially within the sample. The higher the cycle, the less accurate the results and the greater the risk for testing failure and false-positive results. PCR experts such a Stephen Bustin have called for no more than 35 cycles while others have stated anything over 30 is too high. Even Antohny Fauci chimed in on the debate by stating anything over a Ct value of 35 was just “dead nucleotides:”
“Even though Dr. Anthony Fauci has said that any positive test result obtained at more than 35 cycles is “just dead nucleotides” and likely not infectious, many states use PCR tests that do not max out until 40 cycles or more. The predominant diagnostic test for coronavirus in Maine runs to 45 cycles.”
According to a fact sheet for healthcare providers by the FDA in October 2021, false-positive results (in reality, all of them) are possible for this test leading to negative consequences for the patient. The performance of the TaqPath was established on a limited sample size and was not evaluated for variants although they anticipated the test is still accurate in detecting them:
FACT SHEET FOR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS
“The TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit and TaqPath COVID‑19 Combo Kit Advanced have been designed to minimize the likelihood of false positive test results. However, it is still possible that this test can give a false positive result, even when used in locations where the prevalence is below 5%. 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, delayed diagnosis and treatment for the true infection causing the symptoms, unnecessary prescription of a treatment or therapy, or other unintended adverse effects.”
“The performance of this test was established based on the evaluation of a limited number of clinical specimens. The clinical performance has not been established in all circulating variants but is anticipated to be reflective of the prevalent variants in circulation at the time and location of the clinical evaluation. Performance at the time of testing may vary depending on the variants circulating, including newly emerging strains of SARS-CoV-2 and their prevalence, which change over time.”
However, the high Ct values generating the risk of false-positives is not the only problem for this “test.” The FDA also issued a warning in August 2020 about the TaqPath giving inaccurate results due to their software:
Risk of Inaccurate Results with Thermo Fisher Scientific TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit – Letter to Clinical Laboratory Staff and Health Care Providers
“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is alerting clinical laboratory staff and health care providers of a risk of false results with Thermo Fisher Scientific TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit based on two issues related to the test kit and the associated Applied Biosystems COVID-19 Interpretive Software. The test is a molecular assay for the detection of COVID-19 from respiratory specimens.”
So here we are faced with the problem of an inaccurate test being used in ways it was not intended to be used to determine the prevalence of a variant that only exists as random letters in computer database. We have the pharmaceutically-controlled WHO/FDA/CDC/MSM making claims about a scary new variant that may be “more deadly and transmissable” even though there is absolutely nothing to back these claims up. Does this feel like deja vu yet? If not, here’s a refresher from the European CDC about the current situation with Omicron. See if you can spot the similarities to B117:
Implications of the emergence and spread of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1. 529 variant of concern (Omicron) for the EU/EEA
“A SARS-CoV-2 variant belonging to Pango lineage B.1.1.529, with a high number of S-gene mutations compared to the original virus was detected at the beginning of November 2021. On 26 November 2021 the variant was designated a variant of concern (VOC) and assigned the label Omicron by the World Health Organization (WHO). The variant is characterised by 30 changes, three small deletions and one small insertion in the spike protein, of these, 15 are in the receptor binding domain. This variant was first detected in samples collected on 11 November 2021 in Botswana and on 14 November 2021 in South Africa.”
“Investigations in South Africa using S-gene target failure (SGTF) of the PCR assays as a proxy for the variant have shown that there is a very sharp increase in incidence across most provinces since mid-November, with the most pronounced increase in the Gauteng province, where SGTF is observed for more than 50% of all tested specimens in the last few days. Sequencing of 77 selected SGTF samples from Gauteng collected between 12 and 20 November 2021 confirmed all of them as Omicron. These findings presented in a press conference held by the South African Ministry of Health on 25 November 2021 suggest that the Omicron variant is already dominant in Gauteng and is present in significant proportions in most parts of South Africa. Overall, COVID-19 case numbers are rapidly increasing in Gauteng, albeit from low levels, and it is likely that this increase is driven by the presence of Omicron.”
“The presence of the deletion Δ69-70 means that S-gene target failure (SGTF) for the Thermo Fischer TaqPath assay can be used as a screening method for Omicron. In a setting with the Delta variant dominating, this can be used as a proxy for Omicron after confirmation of a subset of samples by sequencing. Currently there is no further information available on any effect on sensitivity for other RT-PCR assays or for rapid antigen tests.”
Limitations and knowledge gaps
“This assessment is undertaken based on the evidence known to ECDC at the time of publication. There remain many scientific uncertainties and knowledge gaps. At a high level, these include:
- Virological characterisation, including in-vitro infectivity studies and neutralisation studies evaluating both vaccinee and convalescent sera
- Epidemiological analyses to estimate growth rates and secondary attack rates
- Assessment of the severity of this strain (impact on hospitalisation and deaths)
- Analyses of the vaccine effectiveness for different vaccines against Omicron (direct and indirect effects)
- Cross-protection of natural immunity from other SARS-CoV-2 variants
- Lack of sequencing and screening using S-gene target failure in many of the likely affected countries means that the true prevalence of this variant is likely underestimated.
It is worth mentioning that S gene dropout did not apply to the Delta variant (the one you were supposed to be scared of before Omicron). This is why the ECDC stated the S gene can be used as a proxy for Omicron in areas where Delta is considered prevalent. All you need is a positive test to be considered a member of the Delta club:
Is there a delta variant test? What we know about COVID-19 as cases continue to rise
“There is not a specific test for the delta variant.
However, since the vast majority of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. are the delta variant, it’s likely a positive test result indicates you could be infected with the delta variant, according to Human and Health Services of Texas.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.tennessean.com/amp/5467009001
As can be seen, since it is considered that the vast majority of “Covid” cases are Delta, that means all positives are Delta, minus those with the S gene dropout. How did the CDC determine this? By sequencing a small sample set and then estimating the number of cases from that small subset:
Yes, there is a test for the Delta variant, but it’s only available to labs
“The CDC tests a percentage of samples from new, positive COVID-19 cases. Dr. Hoffman says it’s a matter of sampling.
“You have a representative sample from positive tests that are collected from various locations, you know, statewide, in every state. Then those are sequenced to see if they are the Delta variant or if they aren’t, but that is not testing that is available to the average consumer. It’s not testing that is done on every patient. It’s done on a small number of samples,” said Hoffman.
So, the answer is yes, there is a delta variant test. But it’s a lab test run by the CDC, not a walk-in test.
“There is no way to get a quick turnaround of, ‘Oh, I went into so-and-so pharmacy, took a rapid test, and now I know this entire variant screen,” said Hokanson.
So you might be wondering whether or not the CDC’s numbers are accurate.
“As long as you’re getting samples, at random, from all sorts of different locations around the states. It’s the same as surveys. You don’t survey every single person in the country to decide what the public opinion is, you survey a representative group. It’s the same idea,” said Hoffman.
The CDC uses those lab tests to estimate the number of variant cases in different areas. So, again, the answer is yes. Those are only estimates, but they’re based on lab tests.”
In Summary:
- Dr. Angelique Coetzee in South Africa, who “discovered” Omicron, described the symptoms as she observed them in her patients, stating that the strain is so far producing “very, very mild” effects
- She had first noticed the symptoms in a young, male patient around the age of 30 whom she normally knew to be very healthy
- He was “extremely tired” as well as having “body aches and pains with a bit of a headache,” a “scratchy” rather than sore throat, and no cough or loss of taste or smell
- Coetzee tested the man for “Covid-19” and found him to be positive, then tested his family and found them all to have the “virus,” despite showing only “very, very mild symptoms,” she said
- For the rest of the day, people kept presenting at her surgery with similar symptoms, and all tested positive
- She alerted the country’s vaccines committee, of which she is a member, and they announced their resultant discovery of the omicron variant a few days later
- The four cases were detected among travelers who tested “SARS-COV-2” positive on routine pre-travel testing
- All of the four persons had been fully vaccinated for “COVID-19”
- According to the WHO, in recent weeks, infections increased steeply in South Africa, coinciding with the detection of B.1.1.529 variant
- This variant has a large number of “mutations,” some of which they feel are concerning
- Preliminary evidence suggests an increased risk of reinfection with this variant, as compared to other VOCs
- Several labs indicated that for one widely used PCR test, one of the three target genes is not detected (called S gene dropout or S gene target failure) and this test can therefore be used as marker for this variant, pending sequencing confirmation
- Using this approach, this variant has been detected at faster rates than previous surges in infection, suggesting that this variant may have a growth advantage
- This same S gene dropout approach was used for B.1.1.7 back in January 2021 (and earlier) after “Covid-testing” laboratories reported that a growing number of their positive samples were missing a signal from one of the three genes their PCR tests use to confirm the presence of the “virus”
- Further sequencing revealed that such “S gene dropout” was the result of mutations in the gene encoding the spike protein which the “virus” uses to gain entry to human cells
- Further analysis revealed mutations in some of the same regions of the S gene which are also present in the B117 variant – although full sequencing of the “viral” genome was needed to confirm whether this is indeed the same variant, or something else
- One of the researchers involved in the detection of B117 stated that they were on the lookout for the presence of three particular genes, with a positive “Covid-19” result requiring clean detection of two of the three
- Around 25% of all of their positives were completely missing one of those genes – the S gene, which encodes the spike protein of the “virus” and is essential for “viral” attachment and entry into cells
- It is not unusual to see some S gene drop-outs in positive samples, but usually in around 1-2% of them, not in 25%
- In under a week, it had been confirmed through the CoG genome sequencing data that the observed S gene drop-out was being driven by the emergence of a new variant of “SARS-COV-2,” named B117
- This led to the announcement on December 19th of tier 4 restrictions for the whole of the south-east of England and tougher restrictions on Christmas plans nationally
- News of the new variant led to multiple nations banning travel from the UK, and the closing of Channel borders (sound familiar?)
- The B117 variant contained a surprising number of mutations in its genome – yet she admits mutations arise constantly in “viruses” as they replicate and move from host to host (perhaps because they can not sequence the same thing twice?)
- She claims some mutations result in a slight change to the structures on the “virus,” possibly making them marginally more efficient at transmitting, or replicating, or attaching to cells
- The mutation implicated in “virus” binding also affects the ability of the fluorescently labelled probe used in the PCR “Covid” test to detect the S gene, meaning there is zero S-gene signal in tests positive for B117 variants
- There was no evidence to suggest the new lineage causes any more aggressive a type of “coronavirus” infection, or was even more deadly, but it seemed to be transmitting very efficiently, with modelling suggesting a 65-70% increase in its transmissibility
- Once they were clear that the S-gene drop-out test positives were being driven by the new lineage, they were able to go back through their entire archive of test data and measure the rise of the new lineage (i.e. they assumed any S gene dropout was B117)
- The 6-nucleotide deletion (21765–21770) of the S gene results in a deletion of two amino acids at sites 69 (histidine) and (70 valine) in the spike protein commonly referred to as 69-70del
- The 69-70del mutation is predominantly observed in B.1.1, B.1.258, and the cluster 5 variant lineages of the “SARS-CoV-2”
- Using the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit as per the Instructions for Use (IFU) and Applied Biosystems™ COVID-19 Interpretive Software program, a positive result is called if at least two of the three “SARS-CoV-2” targets are detected
- The test results are dictated via the COVID-19 Interpretive Software algorithms that utilize the results from all three targets to generate a final call
- A positive result is called when only two of the three targets are detected per the IFU and software algorithm
- The European CDC does not recommend relying only on the S gene for primary detection of “SARS-CoV-2” infection
- Instead, the European CDC recommends that multi-target RT-PCR assays that include an S gene target affected by the deletions (S gene “drop out”) can be used as a signal for the presence of the 69-70del mutation for further investigation, especially if sequencing capacity is limited
- An S gene “drop out” does not mean a result is negative; it only indicates that the S gene could not be detected by the assay
- While the TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit is not intended for use for the detection of the 69-70del mutation in “SARS-CoV-2” variant strains, the European CDC recommends that an S gene “drop out” can be used as a signal for the presence of the 69-70del mutant for further investigation, especially if sequencing capacity is limited
- Multi-target RT-PCR tests that utilize S gene regions impacted by the 69-70del are quicker and cheaper than sequencing the entire “virus” and can help keep track of these mutant strains
- In other words, instead of sequencing every sample, they will assume any test result with an S gene dropout is their variant of choice
- The TaqPath test runs at a high PCR Ct of 40 to determine positive results
- Anthony Fauci has said that any positive test result obtained at more than 35 cycles is “just dead nucleotides” and likely not infectious
- Many states use PCR tests that do not max out until 40 cycles or more
- The predominant diagnostic test for “coronavirus” in Maine runs to 45 cycles
- In August 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) alerted clinical laboratory staff and health care providers of a risk of false results with Thermo Fisher Scientific TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit based on two issues related to the test kit and the associated Applied Biosystems COVID-19 Interpretive Software
- The TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit and TaqPath COVID‑19 Combo Kit Advanced have been designed to minimize the likelihood of false positive test results
- However, it is still possible that this test can give a false positive result, even when used in locations where the prevalence is below 5%
- False-positive results (which they all are) can lead to negative events such as delayed diagnosis and treatment for the true infection causing the symptoms as well as unnecessary prescription of a treatment or therapy and/or other unintended adverse effects
- The performance of this test was established based on the evaluation of a limited number of clinical specimens
- The clinical performance has not been established in all circulating variants but is anticipated to be reflective of the prevalent variants in circulation at the time and location of the clinical evaluation
- According to the European CDC regarding Omicron, it is a “SARS-CoV-2” variant belonging to Pango lineage B.1.1.529, with a high number of S-gene mutations compared to the original “virus”
- Investigations in South Africa using S-gene target failure (SGTF) of the PCR assays as a proxy for the variant have shown that there is a very sharp increase in incidence across most provinces since mid-November, with the most pronounced increase in the Gauteng province, where SGTF is observed for more than 50% of all tested specimens in the last few days
- The presence of the deletion Δ69-70 means that S-gene target failure (SGTF) for the Thermo Fischer TaqPath assay can be used as a screening method for Omicron
- In a setting with the Delta variant dominating, this can be used as a proxy for Omicron after confirmation of a subset of samples by sequencing
- In other words, if the S gene drops out, it is assumed to be Omicron yet if the dropout does not occur, it is assumed to be Delta
- There remain many scientific uncertainties and knowledge gaps
- “Virological” characterisation is included as a limitation which is obvious as purified/isolated “SARS-COV-2” has never been characterized
- Lack of sequencing and screening using S-gene target failure in many of the likely affected countries means that the true prevalence of this variant is likely underestimated
- As for the Delta variant, while there is no test to determine if one is infected with it, since the vast majority of “COVID-19” cases in the U.S. are the delta variant, it’s likely (i.e. assumed) a positive test result indicates one could be infected with the delta variant, according to Human and Health Services of Texas
- The CDC tests a percentage of samples from new, positive “COVID-19” cases
- They do this by getting representative samples from each state
- It’s not testing that is done on every patient, it’s done on a small number of samples
- Representative samples are considered the same as surveys where they don’t survey every single person in the country to decide what the public opinion is, they just survey a representative group
- The CDC uses those lab tests to estimate the number of variant cases in different areas
- Those are only estimates, but they’re based on lab tests
If you understand that “SARS-COV-2” was never properly purified/isolated from a sick patient and thus never proven to exist, it becomes easier to be able to see the “virus” variant scam for what it truly is: random letters in a computer database being given life by associating them with varying symptoms presented in differing orders. The variants just happen to come at a time when the hesitant public needs an extra push in order to line themselves and their children up for toxic experimental injections. If people get too complacent by taking off the masks, gathering in large groups, and travelling, a new variant will appear to instill the necessary fear to keep the populace corralled and in check.
These variants also offer the added excuse to cover for the S gene failure in PCR tests. Instead of the tests being rightfully labelled inaccurate by not detecting the dominate Delta variant, their failures are now being said to detect the Omicron variant (just as they were with B117 before it). Nevermind that the test is not detecting the vital part of the “virus” which encodes the spike protein of the “virus” and is essential for “viral” attachment and entry into cells. It doesn’t matter that Thermo Fisher admits that when this S gene dropout occurs, it indicates that this absolutely essential S gene could not be detected by the assay. They want you to believe that these PCR failures are driven by evolutionary mutations on the S protein making it invisible to detection thus being a sign of terrifying new variants. The potential for greater transmission and fatalities must be blasted across the headlines in order for this hamster wheel of fear to keep on turning so that this cycle of hysteria never ends. Whenever there is a moment of reprieve and the populace starts to regain a sense of normalcy, the next “Nu” variant will be there to ramp things up once again. As of this writing, they only have nearly 6 million variants to choose from:
If the fear dies down and the state of emergency is lifted, every test, drug, and vaccine under EUA will be pulled from the market and this testing pandemic all goes away. They won’t allow that to happen. The variant game will continue until we all say “Enough!”
ViroLIEgy 
Hello from the UK
Thank you for this post. I especially like the ‘Covid 19 Public Manipulation Model’, says it all!
I have written a lot about Covid 19. what it is and who is behind it (apart from the WHO!). You might like my latest post. It might amuse you.
https://alphaandomegacloud.wordpress.com/2021/12/02/various-variants-covid-19/
Kind regards
Baldmichael Theresoluteprotector’sson
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the kind words and support! I will definitely check your article out. It’s nice to see others helping to raise awareness. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
My pleasure. I hope you don’t find it too long. I get carried away with the words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No worries. My posts can get rather long as well. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mike, I really appreciate your research and your compilations of articles with the appropriate analysis. I have some trouble, however, knowing which passages are from the articles you link and which are your own comments. I would like to suggest that you use a different color text for your words, or maybe a different font, size, or even just italics– to clearly delineate what is a quote from another author, and what is Mike’s wisdom.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thsnks! That is a great suggestion 🙂 Are you referring to my comments in the article, in the summary, or both? In the summary I iitalicize them as it won’t let me change the color…only in the article can I change it.
LikeLike