Astonishing COVID-19 Testing Fraud Revealed

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• PCR tests cannot distinguish between “live” viruses and inactive (noninfectious) viral particles and therefore cannot be used as a diagnostic tool. The false appearance of a lethal pandemic has been manufactured using cycle thresholds (CTs) that are too high
• The higher the CT — i.e., the number of amplification cycles used to detect RNA particles — the greater the chance of a false positive. Research shows that to get 100% confirmed real positives, the PCR test must be run at 17 cycles. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically
• The SARS-CoV-2 PCR test was developed based on a genetic sequence published by Chinese scientists, not the viral isolate. Missing genetic code was simply made up
• November 30, 2020, 22 international scientists published a review challenging the scientific paper on PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 that was adopted as the standard across the world. The scientists are calling for the so-called Corman-Drosten paper to be retracted due to its numerous errors
• The flaws of PCR testing have been capitalized upon to incite fear in order to benefit the Great Reset agenda developed by a technocratic elite

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought us many harsh lessons. Importantly, it has shown us how easy it is to manufacture panic and control entire populations through deceptive means. Topping the list of deceptive strategies is the use of a test that falsely labels healthy individuals as sick and infectious. This allows mass testing to drive the narrative that we’re in a lethal pandemic.

Of course, I’m talking about the now infamous reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. The fact is, the PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones.¹

This is a crucial point, since inactive and reproductive viruses are not interchangeable in terms of infectivity. If you have a nonreproductive virus in your body, you will not get sick and you cannot spread it to others. Secondly, many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive.”

The Crucial Detail That Nullifies Most PCR Test Results

The video above explains how the PCR test works and how we are interpreting results incorrectly. In summary, the PCR swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. Due to its tiny size, it must be amplified to become discernible. Each round of amplification is called a cycle, and the number of amplification cycles used by any given test or lab is called a cycle threshold (CT).

The higher the CT, the greater the risk that insignificant sequences of viral DNA end up being magnified to the point that the test reads positive even if your viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat to you or anyone else.

Many scientists have noted that anything over 35 cycles is scientifically indefensible.^2,3,4 A September 28, 2020, study⁵ in Clinical Infectious Diseases revealed that when you run a PCR test at a CT of 35 or higher, the accuracy drops to 3%, resulting in a 97% false positive rate.

Yet, a test known as the Corman-Drosten paper and tests recommended by the World Health Organization are set to 45 cycles,^6,7,8 and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend running PCR tests at a CT of 40.⁹

The question is why, considering the consensus is that CTs over 35 render the test useless. When labs use these excessive cycle thresholds, you clearly end up with a grossly overestimated number of positive tests, so what we’re really dealing with is a “casedemic”^10,11 — an epidemic of false positives.

Many are now questioning whether this was done on purpose to crash the global economy and provide cover for the implementation of what’s known as the Great Reset, which is nothing less than a global totalitarian takeover by unelected technocrats who seek to gobble up all the world’s assets.

Indeed, it seems quite clear we’re not dealing with a lethal pandemic in any real sense. Mortality statistics further prove this is the case, as overall mortality statistics have remained stable in 2020 and in line with previous years.^12,13,14

In other words, people are dying from COVID-19, yes, but the illness is not killing an excess number of people. The same number of people would have died anyway, from something. Indeed, CDC data¹⁵ released August 26, 2020, showed only 6% of so-called COVID-19 deaths had COVID-19 listed as the sole cause on the death certificate.

“For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death,” the CDC stated, and any one of those comorbidities could have killed those people even if COVID-19 was nonexistent.

For Accuracy, Much Lower CTs Must Be Used

Now, if CTs above 35 are scientifically unjustified, just how low of a CT should be used? Quite a few studies have investigated this, so there’s no shortage of data at this point. The fact that the WHO, FDA and CDC still have not changed their CTs downward in light of all these data tells us they’re not interested in getting an accurate picture of the infection rate.

For example, an April 2020 study¹⁶ in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases showed that to get 100% confirmed real positives, the PCR test must be run at 17 cycles. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically.

By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives. Beyond 34 cycles, your chance of a positive PCR test being a true positive shrinks to zero.

More recently, a December 3, 2020, systematic review¹⁷ published in the journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases assessed the findings of 29 different studies — all of which were published in 2020 — comparing evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection with the CTs used in testing.

As reported by the authors, “12 studies reported that CT values were significantly lower … in specimens producing live virus culture.” In other words, the higher the CT, the lower the chance of a positive test actually being due to the presence of live (and infectious) virus.

“Two studies reported the odds of live virus culture reduced by approximately 33% for every one unit increase in CT,” the authors noted. Importantly, five of the studies included were unable to identify any live viruses in cases where a positive PCR test had used a CT above 24. What’s more, in order to produce live virus culture, a patient whose PCR test used a CT at or above 35 had to be symptomatic.

So, to summarize, if you have symptoms of COVID-19 and test positive using a PCR test that was run at 35 amplification cycles or higher, then you are likely to be infected and infectious.

However, if you do not have symptoms, yet test positive using a PCR test run at 35 CTs or higher, then it is likely a false positive and you pose no risk to others as you’re unlikely to carry any live virus. In fact, provided you’re asymptomatic, you’re unlikely to be infectious even if you test positive with a test run at 24 CTs or higher.

Fearmongering Success Hinges on Incorrect Use of PCR Test

The video above includes several interviews with experts who have openly criticized the use of PCR testing to diagnose infections such as COVID-19. These include:

The inventor of the PCR test, the late Kary Mullis (he has spoken about the test for other infections, such as HIV, but died in August 2019, a few months before the COVID-19 pandemic broke out)

Michael Yeadon, Ph.D., a former vice-president and chief scientific adviser of the drug company Pfizer

Professor Carl Heneghan, director of the Oxford University Center for Evidence-Based Medicine

Emeritus professor of immunology Beda M. Stadler, former head of the Bern Institute of Immunology

Clare Craig, a consultant pathologist

Stephen A. Bustin, professor of molecular medicine and a world-renowned expert on the PCR test

Fatal Errors Found in Paper on Which PCR Testing Is Based

November 30, 2020, a team of 22 international scientists published a review¹⁸ challenging the scientific paper¹⁹ on PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 written by Christian Drosten, Ph.D., and Victor Corman. The Corman-Drosten paper was quickly accepted by the WHO and the workflow described therein was adopted as the standard across the world.

According to Reiner Fuellmich,²⁰ founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss,²¹ or ACU),^22,23 Drosten is a key culprit in the COVID-19 pandemic hoax.

The scientists demand the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted due to “fatal errors,”²⁴ one of which is the fact that it was written (and the test itself developed) before any viral isolate was available. All they used was the genetic sequence published online by Chinese scientists in January 2020.

The fact that the paper was published a mere 24 hours after it was submitted also suggests it didn’t even undergo peer review. In an Undercover DC interview, Kevin Corbett, Ph.D., one of the 22 scientists who are now demanding the paper’s retraction, stated:²⁵

“Every scientific rationale for the development of that test has been totally destroyed by this paper. It’s like Hiroshima/Nagasaki to the COVID test.

When Drosten developed the test, China hadn’t given them a viral isolate. They developed the test from a sequence in a gene bank. Do you see? China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate. They had a code, but no body for the code. No viral morphology.

In the fish market, it’s like giving you a few bones and saying ‘that’s your fish.’ It could be any fish … Listen, the Corman-Drosten paper, there’s nothing from a patient in it. It’s all from gene banks. And the bits of the virus sequence that weren’t there they made up.

They synthetically created them to fill in the blanks. That’s what genetics is; it’s a code. So, its ABBBCCDDD and you’re missing some, what you think is EEE, so you put it in … This is basically a computer virus.

There are 10 fatal errors in this Drosten test paper … But here is the bottom line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they were doing. The PCR products of the amplification didn’t correspond to any viral isolate at that time. I call it ‘donut ring science.’ There is nothing at the center of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality …

There have since been papers saying they’ve produced viral isolates. But there are no controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July … where they said: ‘Here’s the viral isolate.’ Do you know what they did? They swabbed one person. One person, who’d been to China and had cold symptoms. One person. And they assumed he had [COVID-19] to begin with. So, it’s all full of holes, the whole thing.”

From this point I suggest you click on this link to view the remainder of the source article and the related links they’ve posted. Truly a great website in my opinion: https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/astonishing-covid-19-testing-fraud-revealed?utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter%3A%20Astonishing%20COVID-19%20Testing%20Fraud%20Revealed%20(VTyHuV)&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Daily%20Newsletter&_ke=eyJrbF9jb21wYW55X2lkIjogIksydlhBeSIsICJrbF9lbWFpbCI6ICJnZ3JvbkBjaGFydGVyLm5ldCJ9&fbclid=IwAR0Y7rwu0-jy9REXA6sbhEVw9A6CEpZ9Xg_K1ox-4xrYVndbWiyhqUtYRBs