principiascientificinternational--2020-07-24--Lying BBC’s ‘Fact Checker’ Mask Claims Are So Full of Holes

Lying BBC ’ s ‘ Fact Checker ’ Mask Claims Are So Full of Holes Friday 24th July was England ’ s official Mask Day as face coverings in public are made compulsory across the nation .
But as we saw earlier this year in China , they have more symbolic than medical impact .
But why now ?
The data shows the death rate plummeting and we have “ flattened the curve ” ( see euromomo.eu graph below ) yet politicians belatedly mandate their use .
This irrational new measure – after the event – is being exposed as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind the scam .
Dissenters from this Orwellian nightmare who dare reveal the dangers of mask wearing are ridiculed .
Below we dissect the BBC ’ s ‘ Coronavirus : ‘ Deadly masks ’ claims debunked ’ ( Jack Goodman and Flora Carmichael ) who present a case based on bait and switch , anecdote and bias [ 1 ] As self-styled ‘ fact checkers ’ the authors , Goodman and Carmichael , cite no peer-reviewed evidence and rely exclusively on the claims of a single medical ‘ expert ’ in the employ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire BBC article revolves around not trying to convince you masks are good , but that no harm will befall you when wearing one .
NOWHERE is there made a scientific case based on any benefits of mask wearing by healthy citizens .
These ‘ journalists ’ don ’ t touch that subject because the World Health Organisation ( WHO ) – among numerous other authorities – has publicly advised against healthy people masking up .
[ 2 ] This ‘ verdict ’ is not only unscientific , it becomes ethically reprehensible when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follows : Professor Neal knows full well that UK surgeons operating on patients believed to be infected with a dangerous virus are required to wear SCBA ( hazmat ) equipment .
( see photo ) The thin paper masks Professor Neal refers to are NEVER relied on during surgery for protection from infection by virus .
So , who is Professor Keith Neal , infectious disease expert ?
He appears to be the same kind of clown as Professor ‘ lockdown ’ Neil Ferguson , the UK government ’ s top COVID-19 expert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prof Lockdown then acknowledged that the Swedish authorities had “ got a long way to the same effect ” without a full lockdown or mandating mask wearing .
Like Professor Lockdown Professor Clown is both wrong and right .
Yes , of course , thin paper or cloth as a barrier will do little to nothing to impede airflow , just like it does little to nothing to block a virus .
Ask yourself this : if the mask isn ’ t impeding air flow , then how is it giving you any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to wearing these insane muzzles there is solid scientific evidence that they do impair judgment and cause drowsiness/headaches .
Police reported exactly that after one car crash caused by wearing a higher grade N95 mask : If you like seeing real world evidence before forming an opinion then just watch this very practical demonstration by an Argentinian Firefighter with a can of deodorant spray .
His simple experiment proves official claims – like the masks – are full of holes : Good ol ’ Professor Neal omits to mention a crucial fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paper or cloth masks ” are worn ONLY to help reduce bacterial infection that may be transmitted from the saliva of the wearer to the patient .
Paper masks do NOTHING to defend against viruses .
How do we know this ?
How about the Centers for Disease Control ( CDC ) CDC : Masks Offer ‘ No Significant Reduction ’ In Flu Transmission [ 3 ] Like Prof Lockdown Prof Clown is very much an Establishment Man .
He is a frequent contributor in BBC media and works at the University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ experience controlling infectious diseases , such as SARS , MERS , swine flu and Ebola in the UK public health system.
” Just like Feguson , Neal is also another government-sanctioned expert on SARS , MERS , swine flu and Ebola !
Do you recall how wrong these experts all were about the extreme dangers of that quartet of failed pandemic scares ?
Already you can sense the nonsense to be spewed forth by this establishment ‘ expert.
’ But first , ask yourself this : why would an expert in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical journals ?
Probably because he knows it says the opposite of what he claims .
I would hazard a guess that the real reason Neal is economical with the truth is because he has a vested interest in the vaccine industry .
We know this because he was involved in vaccine trials for HPV and meningitis .
Should we really be looking for impartial advice about virus safety from a man who stands to profit from vaccinations ?
If the BBC was populated by honest and professional journalists they would probably want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look to uncover how much professors Neal and Ferguson stand to make from Big Pharma when their mandatory COVID vaccines roll out .
Wouldn ’ t you ?
But don ’ t hold your breath .
We know all too well that our intrepid BBC reporters – Goodman and F Carmichael – won ’ t want to upset their employer ’ s handy moneystream from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation .
These ‘ journalists ’ would rather you didn ’ t know billionaire COVID vaccine pusher Bill Gates is a massive donor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revealed April 2020 .
The BEEB got a windfall of “ tens of millions in funding ” from Uncle Bill ’ s pocket .
[ 4 ] So the UK ’ s flagship broadcaster is now well primed to go soft on Big Pharma assets like Professor Neal .
Next the BBC anti-disinformation team tells us : Oh , silly professor !
Take a good look at the real world evidence from the police ( read here ) .
Or , maybe try reading some government literature on safety levels for environmental CO2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administration , OSHA .
It has determined the optimal breathing range to be between 19.5 and 23.5 percent oxygen .
Serious side effects will occur if the oxygen levels are outside of the safe zone .
At levels 17 percent or below , your mental abilities become impaired .
Contradicting the assertions above that masks don ’ t cause or exacerbate hypoxia/hypercapnia are no fewer than 17 peer-reviewed studies affirming that wearing masks from long periods induces headaches , according to research by Russell Blaylock MD .
[ 5 ] The BBC propagandists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence to support this claim Our intrepid BBC ‘ fact checkers ’ then conclude with a revealing caveat which undermines their claims that wearing masks do not pose a health risk .
They admit : • children under two whose lungs haven ’ t fully developed • people with respiratory conditions who may struggle to breathe • people should not wear masks when exercising ” Doesn ’ t that admission discredit the entire thesis ?
We will let you make your mind up on that .
But if that doesn ’ t convince @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then just remember only a month or so ago “ experts ” were telling us masks are useless .
Even the most prominent expert in America , Dr Anthony Fauci , the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases admitted : Fauci ’ s comment were made in a ‘ 60 Minutes ’ interview at the height of the pandemic ( March 8 , 2020 ) [ 6 ] Around the same time the US Surgeon General was also decrying the wearing of masks ( he also later changes his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General and the Head of the NIAID know that surgical masks are primarily designed to protect the environment from the wearer , whereas the respirators are supposed to protect the wearer from the environment .
( Balazy , et al ) .
Nowhere in the BBC propaganda piece is any medical literature cited .
This is because the literature doesn ’ t support their case because coronavirus are < 0.125 microns in size .
Masks and respirators filter particles 0.30 to 0.80 microns in size .
Masks can not possibly work .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ This product is an ear loop mask .
This product is not a respirator and will not provide any protection against COVID-19 ( coronavirus ) or any other viruses or contaminants , ” [ 7 ] No bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application .
Denis G Rancourt PhD covers the facts of this in detail .
[ 8 ] Dr Tenpenny and her independent ( non-biased ) medical colleagues are gaining traction in exposing this nonsense : Allison Pearson in comment piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BBC ( and our political leaders ) care not a jot for proof masks don ’ t work or that they are proven to give you headaches .
They care even less that you may be under 60 with virtually no chance of dying from COVID-19 .
They believe you all forgot what the ‘ lockdown ’ measures were intended to do – “ flatten the curve.
” But we are long past that now .
But here ’ s the unspoken elephant in the room – eye protection.Virologist Joseph Fair , PhD @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research by Instead of giving you the full facts the BBC is preoccupied trying to fool you into mindless mask compliance because ‘ experts ’ ( paid shills ) say masks don ’ t do [ much ] harm .
Wear them anyway , even if the crisis is passed .
If you disobey Big Brother will hit you with the £100 fine .
Either way , your government is going to give you a headache !
Is deliberately maintaining a high state of unwarranted fear – harming commerce and social interaction – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps nefarious purpose ?
Absent good reason to wear a mask ( but no eye protection ) may lead a reasonable person to infer the real purpose is all about appearance to imbue submission to authority .
It will be our mass surrender to a nonsensical diktat ; a precipitous societal acceptance of institutionalized fear .
It may even be a planned de-humanizing of all citizens .
[ 5 ] Zhu JH et al .
Effects of long-duration wearing of N95 respirator and surgical facemask : a pilot study .
J Lung Pulm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : John O ’ Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder ( with Dr Tim Ball ) of Principia Scientific International ( PSI ) .
John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert , Michael ‘ hockey stick ’ Mann in the ‘ science trial of the century ‘ .
O ’ Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘ Slayers ’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world ’ s first full-volume debunk of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ follow-up book .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Lying BBC’s ‘Fact Checker’ Mask Claims Are So Full of Holes
Written by John O'Sullivan
Friday 24th July was England’s official Mask Day as face coverings in public are made compulsory across the nation. But as we saw earlier this year in China, they have more symbolic than medical impact.
But why now? The data shows the death rate plummeting and we have “flattened the curve” (see euromomo.eu graph below) yet politicians belatedly mandate their use. This irrational new measure – after the event – is being exposed as purely political and the BBC are right behind the scam.
Dissenters from this Orwellian nightmare who dare reveal the dangers of mask wearing are ridiculed. Below we dissect the BBC’s ‘Coronavirus: ‘Deadly masks’ claims debunked’ (Jack Goodman and Flora Carmichael) who present a case based on bait and switch, anecdote and bias [1]
As self-styled ‘fact checkers’ the authors, Goodman and Carmichael, cite no peer-reviewed evidence and rely exclusively on the claims of a single medical ‘expert’ in the employ of vaccine promoters.
Moreover, the entire BBC article revolves around not trying to convince you masks are good, but that no harm will befall you when wearing one. NOWHERE is there made a scientific case based on any benefits of mask wearing by healthy citizens.
These ‘journalists’ don’t touch that subject because the World Health Organisation (WHO) – among numerous other authorities – has publicly advised against healthy people masking up. [2]
Goodman and Flora Carmichael start thus:
“The BBC’s anti-disinformation team has been investigating false and misleading claims about the health risks of face masks and coverings being shared on social media.”
In bold type the brainwashing begins:
“Claim: Masks deprive your body of oxygen Verdict: False claim”
This ‘verdict’ is not only unscientific, it becomes ethically reprehensible when examining their reasoning, which goes as follows:
“Thin paper or cloth masks will not lead to hypoxia. Surgeons operate for hours wearing them. They don’t get these problems,” says Prof Keith Neal, an infectious disease expert.”
“Thin paper?” “Cloth?”
Professor Neal knows full well that UK surgeons operating on patients believed to be infected with a dangerous virus are required to wear SCBA (hazmat) equipment. (see photo)
The thin paper masks Professor Neal refers to are NEVER relied on during surgery for protection from infection by virus.
So, who is Professor Keith Neal, infectious disease expert? He appears to be the same kind of clown as Professor ‘lockdown’ Neil Ferguson, the UK government’s top COVID-19 expert who resigned in disgrace recently admitting:
“They [Swedish scientists] came to a different policy conclusion based really on quite similar science. I don’t agree with it but scientifically they’re not far from scientists in any part of the world.”
Prof Lockdown then acknowledged that the Swedish authorities had “got a long way to the same effect” without a full lockdown or mandating mask wearing.
Like Professor Lockdown Professor Clown is both wrong and right.
Yes, of course, thin paper or cloth as a barrier will do little to nothing to impede airflow, just like it does little to nothing to block a virus. Ask yourself this: if the mask isn’t impeding air flow, then how is it giving you any protection?
For sheeple who meekly surrender to wearing these insane muzzles there is solid scientific evidence that they do impair judgment and cause drowsiness/headaches. Police reported exactly that after one car crash caused by wearing a higher grade N95 mask:
“The driver, who was not severely injured, was the only person in the car and passed out due to ‘insufficient oxygen intake/excessive carbon dioxide intake,’” police said in a Facebook post.
If you like seeing real world evidence before forming an opinion then just watch this very practical demonstration by an Argentinian Firefighter with a can of deodorant spray. His simple experiment proves official claims – like the masks – are full of holes:
Good ol’ Professor Neal omits to mention a crucial fact that in a surgical setting these “Thin paper or cloth masks” are worn ONLY to help reduce bacterial infection that may be transmitted from the saliva of the wearer to the patient. Paper masks do NOTHING to defend against viruses.
How do we know this?
How about the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) CDC: Masks Offer ‘No Significant Reduction’ In Flu Transmission [3]
The CDC study was emphatic declaring:
“We found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks.”
Surgical masks, say the CDC:
“were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids.”
Kind of blows a hole in Neal’s claims.
Like Prof Lockdown Prof Clown is very much an Establishment Man. He is a frequent contributor in BBC media and works at the University of Nottingham. He has “30 years’ experience controlling infectious diseases, such as SARS, MERS, swine flu and Ebola in the UK public health system.”
Just like Feguson, Neal is also another government-sanctioned expert on SARS, MERS, swine flu and Ebola! Do you recall how wrong these experts all were about the extreme dangers of that quartet of failed pandemic scares? Already you can sense the nonsense to be spewed forth by this establishment ‘expert.’
But first, ask yourself this: why would an expert in this field fail to cite any evidence from medical journals? Probably because he knows it says the opposite of what he claims.
Professional Conflict of Interest?
I would hazard a guess that the real reason Neal is economical with the truth is because he has a vested interest in the vaccine industry. We know this because he was involved in vaccine trials for HPV and meningitis.
Should we really be looking for impartial advice about virus safety from a man who stands to profit from vaccinations?
If the BBC was populated by honest and professional journalists they would probably want to “follow the money” and look to uncover how much professors Neal and Ferguson stand to make from Big Pharma when their mandatory COVID vaccines roll out. Wouldn’t you?
But don’t hold your breath. We know all too well that our intrepid BBC reporters – Goodman and F Carmichael – won’t want to upset their employer’s handy moneystream from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
These ‘journalists’ would rather you didn’t know billionaire COVID vaccine pusher Bill Gates is a massive donor to the BBC ‘charity’ as revealed April 2020. Secret payments to the broadcaster from the billionaire are believed to have been made at least since 2011. It is claimed the BEEB got “tens of millions in funding” from Uncle Bill’s pocket. [4]
So the UK’s flagship broadcaster is now well primed to go soft on Big Pharma assets like Professor Neal.
Next the BBC anti-disinformation team tells us:
“Claim: Masks can cause carbon dioxide poisoning Verdict: No evidence to support this claim”
Our ‘fact checkers’ then add:
“We’ve seen lots of posts alerting people to something called hypercapnia – where there’s too much carbon dioxide in the blood.”
Cue the shill professor:
“This simply won’t happen unless there is an air-tight fit and you rebreathe your air,” says Prof Neal.
Oh, silly professor! Take a good look at the real world evidence from the police (read here). Or, maybe bone up on some government literature about safety levels for environmental CO2 such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA.
It has determined the optimal breathing range to be between 19.5 and 23.5 percent oxygen. Serious side effects will occur if the oxygen levels are outside of the safe zone. At levels 17 percent or below, your mental abilities become impaired.
Contradicting the insane assertions that masks don’t cause or exacerbate hypoxia/hypercapnia are no fewer than 17 peer-reviewed studies proving that wearing masks for any length of time will induce headaches (tell-tale symptom of low oxygen/high CO2), according to research by Russell Blaylock MD. [5]
The BBC fact checkers propagandists then tell us:
Claim: Masks harm the immune system
Verdict: No evidence to support this claim
The WHO acknowledge that if a person wears the same mask for a long time, microorganisms may grow on the fabric. A 2017 study involving 16 healthcare professionals showed that self-contamination was common when the volunteers were putting on and removing medical-grade personal protective equipment. Unclean, damp and bacterial-loaded masks certainly can harm the immune system. The WHO admits this:
“All masks should be changed if wet or visibly soiled; a wet mask should not be worn for an extended period of time. […] Either discard the mask or place it in a sealable bag where it is kept until it can be washed and cleaned,” the WHO advise.
Our intrepid BBC ‘fact checkers’ then more or less prove the point at the end of their article. They conclude with a revealing caveat:
“It’s worth pointing out that there are some situations in which face masks might not be advised:
children under two whose lungs haven’t fully developed
people with respiratory conditions who may struggle to breathe
people should not wear masks when exercising”
Doesn’t that admission discredit the entire thesis? We will let you make your mind up on that.
But if that doesn’t convince you the BBC is full of BS then just remember only a month or so ago “experts” were telling us that, on balance, masks are not a good option. Even the most prominent expert in America, Dr Anthony Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases admitted:
“People should not be walking around wearing masks…. they might make you feel a little bit better.. often there are unintended consequences… people fiddle with them touching their face.” — Dr Fauci, NIAID
Those ‘unintended consequences‘ include the bacterial build up in the sodden, unclean cloth held against the mouth. Fauci’s comment were made in a ‘60 Minutes’ interview at the height of the pandemic (March 8, 2020). [6]
Around the same time the US Surgeon General was also decrying the wearing of masks (he too later changes his opinion):
Both the US Surgeon General and the Head of the NIAID know that surgical masks are primarily designed to protect the environment from the wearer, whereas the respirators are supposed to protect the wearer from the environment. (Balazy, et al).
Nowhere in the BBC propaganda piece is any medical literature cited. This is because the science doesn’t support their case because coronavirus are <0.125 microns in size. Masks and respirators filter particles 0.30 to 0.80 microns in size. Masks cannot possibly work. Even the manufacturers are telling us that:
“This product is an ear loop mask. This product is not a respirator and will not provide any protection against COVID-19 (coronavirus) or any other viruses or contaminants,” [7]
No bias-free study has ever found a benefit from wearing a mask or respirator in this application. Denis G Rancourt PhD gives facts in detail. [8]
While Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO, AOBNMM, ABIHM writes:
“There are NO randomized, controlled trials (RCT) with verified outcomes that show a benefit to healthcare workers or community members for wearing a mask or a respirator. There is no such definitive study. Likewise, no study exists that shows a benefit from a broad policy to wear masks in public.” [9]
Dr Tenpenny and her independent (non-biased) medical colleagues are gaining traction in exposing the mask nonsense:
“Apart from everything else, the only coverings the Government is insisting on are cloth ones, which every man and his dog knows are COMPLETELY USELESS,” writes Toby Young.
Allison Pearson in comment piece in the Telegraph adds:
“Anything other than tight-fitting, surgical-grade masks are utterly pointless – like trying to stop a bullet with a chain-link fence”. I mean, the evidence that the gold-standard N95 masks are effective in non-healthcare settings is threadbare at best – and they have to be disposed of after a single use.”
But the BBC (and our political leaders) care not a jot for proof masks don’t work or that they are proven to give you headaches, spread infection, etc. They care even less that you may be in the vast majority who are under 60 years of age with virtually no chance of catching and dying from COVID-19.
Our glorious leaders and media puppets truly believe you have all forgotten by now precisely what the ‘lockdown’ measures were intended to do – “flatten the curve.” But we are long past that now. ICU admissions in the UK peaked on 1st April, just 8 days after all the interventions were imposed.
“It is clear that the pandemic is over in Britain by looking at case rates, numbers and ICU admissions, supported by information regarding lower adaptive herd immunity thresholds, resulting in mortality akin to the “do nothing” scenario.” (Joel Smalley MBA) [11]
This is no longer about the virus. If you still doubt that, then here’s the unspoken elephant in the room – eye protection. Virologist Joseph Fair, PhD, an NBC News contributor reports:
“All of this evidence together seems to suggest that there’s a good likelihood that the ocular surface cells [eyes] are susceptible to infection by coronavirus.” according to Professor Lia Duh MD from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore.
Is the maintaining of a high state of fear based on junk science – harming commerce and social interaction – now serving the people or an ulterior, perhaps nefarious purpose?
Instead of giving you the full facts the BBC is preoccupied trying to fool you into mindless mask compliance because ‘experts’ (paid shills) say masks don’t do [much] harm.
Absent good reason, this is more a test of the depths of our submission to authority. It will be our mass surrender to a nonsensical diktat; a precipitous societal acceptance of institutionalized fear. In fact, it may yet be revealed this is a planned de-humanization of all citizens.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/53108405
[2] https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-emergencies-coronavirus-press-conference-full-30mar2020.pdf?sfvrsn=6b68bc4a_2
[3] https://principia-scientific.com/cdc-masks-offer-no-significant-reduction-in-flu-transmission/
[4] https://unitynewsnetwork.co.uk/revealed-bbc-charity-receives-millions-in-funding-from-gates-foundation/
[5] Zhu JH et al. Effects of long-duration wearing of N95 respirator and surgical facemask: a pilot study. J Lung Pulm Resp Res 2014:4:97-100.
[6] https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-fauci-in-march-masks-make-you-feel-a-little-bit-better-but-unnecessary-for-general-population-warns-of-unintended-consequences
[7] https://principia-scientific.com/manufacturer-our-face-masks-mandated-by-uk-govt-useless-for-cv19/
[8] https://principia-scientific.com/masks-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covid-19-social-policy/
[9] https://principia-scientific.com/manufacturer-our-face-masks-mandated-by-uk-govt-useless-for-cv19/
[10] https://vaxxter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Masks-Final.pdf
[1] https://principia-scientific.com/the-false-premise-of-covid-19/
About the author: John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-07-24--New England Journal of Medicine Commits Ethical Suicide

Robert Steele exposes how the New England Journal of Medicine sells out to Big Pharma and jumps on the mandatory vaccines band wagon with a shabby study by “ intelligent idiots.
” As we are increasingly being made aware , Bill Gates , Dr Anthony Fauci and cronies in Big Pharma are hard at work spreading fear porn over COVID-19 which is proven to be non-fatal to 99.9 % of the population .
The three doctors selling their souls to the devil are : Their journal paper can be found here : Read full article .
Why , oh why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , rushed-through vaccine ( with the usual attendant side effects ) when the vast majority of us have more chance of dying from being struck by lightning or killed in a car crash than from this over-blown scamdemic ?
As we have reported an naseum on our site , there are very many medical experts against mandatory vaccines because of the attendant side effects .
On balance , the risk of death from COVID-19 are so small any sane person would pass on the Big Gates jab .
These eugenicists , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real reason they want their needle in you .
It ’ s as much about mass surveillance and population control .
No wonder even the sheeple are skeptical .
So , money-grabbing haters of humanity are going to pursue the one option for increasing vaccine uptake – making it compulsory or else you remain forever in your own personal ‘ lockdown ’ .
Mandatory vaccination has proven effective in ensuring high childhood immunization rates in many high-income countries .
However , except for influenza vaccination of health care workers , mandates have not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ STEELE : These “ intelligent idiots ” as Nassim Nicholas Taleb likes to label those with credentials lacking in integrity , are not stupid — they are simply corrupt .
I am reminded of earlier statements by editors of this journal to the effect that half of their articles are written by the pharmaceutical industry and then signs by paid doctors and others .
It would be interesting to examine the total provenance of this article from these three individuals who are willfully ignoring : 01 COVID-19 is a strong variation of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for COVID-19 03 The nano-particles leading to blood coagulation triggered by 5G will not be addressed by a vaccine even if one were possible 04 All death statistics associated weith COVID-19 have been fabricated — in my view many — many — doctors should lose their medical licences starting with Fauci for having lied to the public and violated their Hippocratic Oath 05 No vaccine has ever been validated through testing 06 All vaccines — and masks — are in violation of the Nuremberg protcols on experimental medicines 07 All authorities mandating masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Constitution .
Yoda : The Nuremberg Code of 1947 – Enough to Bury NIH and CDC Yoda : Rev Chris Okotie vs. Bill Gates on the COVID-19 Conspiracy to Harm Humanity in Violation of the Nuremberg Protocols Rebecca Campbell : US Government Loses Vaccine Lawsuit — Has Lied to the Public for Decades … About the author : John O ’ Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder ( with Dr Tim Ball ) of Principia Scientific International ( PSI ) .
John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Michael ‘ hockey stick ’ Mann in the ‘ science trial of the century ‘ .
O ’ Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘ Slayers ’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world ’ s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scientific Method .

New England Journal of Medicine Commits Ethical Suicide
Written by John O'Sullivan
Robert Steele exposes how the New England Journal of Medicine sells out to Big Pharma and jumps on the mandatory vaccines band wagon with a shabby study by “intelligent idiots.”
As we are increasingly being made aware, Bill Gates, Dr Anthony Fauci and cronies in Big Pharma are hard at work spreading fear porn over COVID-19 which is proven to be non-fatal to 99.9% of the population. The three doctors selling their souls to the devil are:
Michelle M. Mello, J.D., Ph.D.,
Ross D. Silverman, J.D., M.P.H.,
and Saad B. Omer, M.B., B.S., M.P.H., Ph.D.
Their journal paper can be found here: Read full article.
Why, oh why, does the world need an expensive, rushed-through vaccine (with the usual attendant side effects) when the vast majority of us have more chance of dying from being struck by lightning or killed in a car crash than from this over-blown pandemic scamdemic?
As we have reported an naseum on our site, there are very many medical experts against mandatory vaccines because of the attendant side effects. On balance, the risk of death from COVID-19 are so small any sane person would pass on the Big Gates jab.
These eugenicists, of course, aren’t telling you the real reason they want their needle in you. It’s as much about mass surveillance and population control. No wonder even the sheeple are skeptical.
So, money-grabbing haters of humanity are going to pursue the one option for increasing vaccine uptake – making it compulsory or else you remain forever in your own personal ‘lockdown’.
Mandatory vaccination has proven effective in ensuring high childhood immunization rates in many high-income countries. However, except for influenza vaccination of health care workers, mandates have not been widely used for adults.
ROBERT STEELE: These “intelligent idiots” as Nassim Nicholas Taleb likes to label those with credentials lacking in integrity, are not stupid — they are simply corrupt. I am reminded of earlier statements by editors of this journal to the effect that half of their articles are written by the pharmaceutical industry and then signs by paid doctors and others. It would be interesting to examine the total provenance of this article from these three individuals who are willfully ignoring:
01 COVID-19 is a strong variation of the flu
02 There is no vaccine possible for COVID-19
03 The nano-particles leading to blood coagulation triggered by 5G will not be addressed by a vaccine even if one were possible
04 All death statistics associated weith COVID-19 have been fabricated — in my view many — many — doctors should lose their medical licences starting with Fauci for having lied to the public and violated their Hippocratic Oath
05 No vaccine has ever been validated through testing
06 All vaccines — and masks — are in violation of the Nuremberg protcols on experimental medicines
07 All authorities mandating masks or vaccines are in violation of the Constitution.
See Also:
Yoda: The Nuremberg Code of 1947 – Enough to Bury NIH and CDC
Yoda: Rev Chris Okotie vs. Bill Gates on the COVID-19 Conspiracy to Harm Humanity in Violation of the Nuremberg Protocols
Jeffrey Jaxin: #HearThisWell CDC Nuremberg Trials
Rebecca Campbell: US Government Loses Vaccine Lawsuit — Has Lied to the Public for Decades …
Read more at phibetaiota.net
About the author: John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-07-24--This is how we fix things –  reciprocity

This is how we fix things –  reciprocity

This is how we fix things – reciprocity Without even having to go into the pseudoscientific basis of it , @ @ @ @ @ be defeated by reciprocity simply because it can not satisfy the definitions .
Of course @ @ @ @ @ parasites want to con everybody into it well before anything like legal reciprocity ever becomes @ @ @ @ @ that trading weather credits forms part of the equation of balancing reciprocity…but it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ to internally skim off of the productivity generated by reciprocity .
In fact , reciprocity @ @ @ @ @ swathes of useless and irrelevant science , much to the benefit of humanity .
Any @ @ @ @ @ post to : climateofsophistry.com PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a @ @ @ @ @ .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE @ @ @ @ @ Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

This is how we fix things – reciprocity
Written by Joseph E Postma
Without even having to go into the pseudoscientific basis of it, climate alarm science politics would be defeated by reciprocity simply because it cannot satisfy the definitions.
Of course, this is why the parasites want to con everybody into it well before anything like legal reciprocity ever becomes prevalent…they want us to believe that trading weather credits forms part of the equation of balancing reciprocity…but it’s really just a parasitical scheme to internally skim off of the productivity generated by reciprocity.
In fact, reciprocity would simply wipe out huge swathes of useless and irrelevant science, much to the benefit of humanity.
Any comments for Joe Postma please post to: climateofsophistry.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print


principiascientificinternational--2020-07-27--Capitol Hill ‘White Coat Summit’ Doctors Trash COVID19 Hype

Dr. Dan Erickson , owner of Accelerated Urgent Care , spoke at Monday ’ s “ White Coat Summit ” on Capitol Hill as part of a greater effort to extinguish fears surrounding the Chinese coronavirus and reminded the public that “ 99.8 percent of people get through this with little to no progressive or significant disease.
” Erickson addressed the dominant narrative of rising cases of the virus within the U.S. and pointed out that it is causing undue fear .
“ A case is a person , healthy , that tested positive .
The vast majority .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Oh my goodness .
These are sick people !
’ No the vast majority — 99.8 percent of people get through this with little to no progressive or significant disease , ” Erickson said .
The focus should not center on cases , he continued .
Rather , the narrative should focus on hospitalizations and deaths that “ are appropriately coded on a death certificate , ” he said , stressing “ appropriately coded.
” “ This is the first time I ’ ve seen quarantining healthy , ” he continued .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you guys think that ’ s normal .
I find that very strange.
” While he said it was good that the U.S. prepared for the worse , Erickson said we must be “ realistic with the response.
” “ Who showed up ?
Most of the patients that were showing up for me were very mild illness , ” he said , adding that he wanted to come out and “ give reality to the situation on the ground and sort of help dispel some fear that people have had.
” Erickson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country , explaining that they were “ very successful , ” but in all the wrong metrics .

Capitol Hill ‘White Coat Summit’ Doctors Trash COVID19 Hype
Written by Hannah Bleau
Dr. Dan Erickson, owner of Accelerated Urgent Care, spoke at Monday’s “White Coat Summit” on Capitol Hill as part of a greater effort to extinguish fears surrounding the Chinese coronavirus and reminded the public that “99.8 percent of people get through this with little to no progressive or significant disease.”
Erickson addressed the dominant narrative of rising cases of the virus within the U.S. and pointed out that it is causing undue fear.
“A case is a person, healthy, that tested positive. The vast majority. But the public hears cases and thinks, ‘Oh my goodness. These are sick people!’ No the vast majority — 99.8 percent of people get through this with little to no progressive or significant disease,” Erickson said.
The focus should not center on cases, he continued. Rather, the narrative should focus on hospitalizations and deaths that “are appropriately coded on a death certificate,” he said, stressing “appropriately coded.”
“This is the first time I’ve seen quarantining healthy,” he continued. “I don’t know if you guys think that’s normal. I find that very strange.”
While he said it was good that the U.S. prepared for the worse, Erickson said we must be “realistic with the response.”
“Who showed up? Most of the patients that were showing up for me were very mild illness,” he said, adding that he wanted to come out and “give reality to the situation on the ground and sort of help dispel some fear that people have had.”
Erickson also addressed the mass lockdowns across the country, explaining that they were “very successful,” but in all the wrong metrics.
He said: Was the lockdown successful? I say yes very successful. Successful in things like this. Anxiety hotline calls up 1000 percent. Child abuse both sexual and non up. Financially, emotional distress, Suicide. Alcohol. 150,000 Americans a month not receiving cancer screening. It’s been effective alright, in all the wrong metrics — in all the areas we didn’t want it to be effective. Delay in medical care. We talked about that. Orthopedics, nonessential. Suicide calls up 600 percent. Suicide calls. We heard other doctors mention this. So was the lockdown effective? If that’s the effect you were going for, then yes but it was trying to flatten the curve but it had these secondary consequences that I think are devastating. People staying indoors. No exercising as you mentioned. No Vitamin D. “I’m watching people in their Prius by themselves driving with a mask on. There’s no sense to it,” he added. “It’s fear.” Read more at www.breitbart.com **** PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-07-27--Health company sorry for 600,000 COVID false positive notices

A healthcare insurance company for members of the U.S. military had to apologize for accidentally telling over 600,000 people that they were infected with the virus when they were not .
Tricare apologized for alarming several hundred thousand people because of a poorly worded email that implied the recipient was a coronavirus survivor .
The email went out from Humana Military , a regional manager for Tricare .
“ As a survivor of COVID-19 , it ’ s safe to donate whole blood or blood plasma , and your donation could help other COVID-19 patients .
Your plasma likely has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might help fight the coronavirus infection , ” read the email .
“ Currently , there is no cure for COVID-19 .
However , there is information that suggests plasma from COVID-19 survivors , like you , might help some patients recover more quickly from COVID-19 , ” the email continued .
Six hours later , Humana sent out a correction and an apology over the confusing and erroneous emails .
– READ MORE PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Health company sorry for 600,000 COVID false positive notices
Written by Carlos Garcia
A healthcare insurance company for members of the U.S. military had to apologize for accidentally telling over 600,000 people that they were infected with the virus when they were not.
Tricare apologized for alarming several hundred thousand people because of a poorly worded email that implied the recipient was a coronavirus survivor. The email went out from Humana Military, a regional manager for Tricare.
“As a survivor of COVID-19, it’s safe to donate whole blood or blood plasma, and your donation could help other COVID-19 patients. Your plasma likely has antibodies (or proteins) present that might help fight the coronavirus infection,” read the email. “Currently, there is no cure for COVID-19. However, there is information that suggests plasma from COVID-19 survivors, like you, might help some patients recover more quickly from COVID-19,” the email continued.
Six hours later, Humana sent out a correction and an apology over the confusing and erroneous emails. – READ MORE
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print


principiascientificinternational--2020-07-27--COVID19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless

Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “ diagnose ” Sars-Cov-2 infection , the science is clear : they are not fit for purpose .
Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “ positive ” patients , whereby “ positive ” is usually equated with “ infected.
” But looking closely at the facts , the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on March 16 , 2020 , the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said : The message was spread through headlines around the world , for instance by Reuters and the BBC .
Still on the 3 of May , the moderator of the Heute journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television— was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words : This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But it is well known that religions are about faith and not about scientific facts .
And as Walter Lippmann , the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th centurysaid : “ Where all think alike , no one thinks very much.
” So to start , it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself , the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction ( PCR ) technology , did not think alike .
His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993 .
Unfortunately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the age of 74 , but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection .
The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was , and still is , to apply it as a manufacturing technique , being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times , and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses .
How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Epidemic That Wasn ’ t .
Moreover , it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with .
This is a fundamental point .
Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “ sensitivity ” [ 1 ] and “ specificity ” — by comparison with a “ gold standard , ” meaning the most accurate method available .
As an example , for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pregnancy itself .
But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake , for example , stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “ How accurate is the [ COVID-19 ] testing ?
” : Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this .
In her paper “ Interpreting a COVID-19 test result ” , published recently in The British Medical Journal , she writes that there is a “ lack of such a clear-cut ‘ gold-standard ’ for COVID-19 testing.
” But instead of classifying the tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diagnosis , or instead of pointing out that only a virus , proven through isolation and purification , can be a solid gold standard , Watson claims in all seriousness that , “ pragmatically ” COVID-19 diagnosis itself , remarkably including PCR testing itself , “ may be the best available ‘ gold standard ’ .
” But this is not scientifically sound .
Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test , there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as even people such as Thomas Löscher , former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists , conceded to us [ 2 ] .
And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19 , COVID-19 diagnosis — contrary to Watson ’ s statement — can not be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard .
In addition , “ experts ” such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation , i.e .
an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gold standard .
That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “ may be the best available gold standard , ” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19 , and also whether the virus itself , that is virus isolation , wouldn ’ t be the best available/possible gold standard .
But she hasn ’ t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests .
And she has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points , either , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.
” No proof for the RNA being of viral origin Now the question is : What is required first for virus isolation/proof ?
We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from .
As textbooks ( e.g.
, White/Fenner .
Medical Virology , 1986 , p. 9 ) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state , particle purification — i.e .
the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is not that object , as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende — is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus , and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus .
The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive , which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it can not determine where these particles came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beforehand .
And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences ( in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus ) , we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus .
And to know that , correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed .
Hence , we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a single team could answer that question with “ yes ” — and NB.
, nobody said purification was not a necessary step .
We only got answers like “ No , we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification ” ( see below ) .
We asked several study authors “ Do your electron micrographs show the purified virus ?
” , they gave the following responses : Regarding the mentioned papers it is clear that what is shown in the electron micrographs ( EMs ) is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning there is no other result that they could have made EMs from .
That is to say , if the authors of these studies concede that their published EMs do not show purified particles , then they definitely do not possess purified particles claimed to be viral .
( In this context , it has to be remarked that some researchers use the term “ isolation ” in their papers , but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation ( purification ) process .
Consequently , in this context @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
Thus , the authors of four of the principal , early 2020 papers claiming discovery of a new coronavirus concede they had no proof that the origin of the virus genome was viral-like particles or cellular debris , pure or impure , or particles of any kind .
In other words , the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith , not fact .
We have also contacted Dr Charles Calisher , who is a seasoned virologist .
In 2001 , Science published an “ impassioned plea…to the younger generation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them Calisher , saying that : And that ’ s why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified .
His answer : This actually means that one can not conclude that the RNA gene sequences , which the scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for which the PCR tests are finally being “ calibrated , ” belong to a specific virus — in this case SARS-CoV-2 .
In addition , there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19 .
In order to establish a causal connection , one way or the other , i.e .
beyond virus isolation and purification , it would have been absolutely necessary to carry out an experiment that satisfies the four Koch ’ s postulates .
But there is no such experiment , as Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei recently revealed for OffGuardian .
The necessity to fulfill these postulates regarding SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated not least by the fact that attempts have been made to fulfill them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done it , in reality , did not succeed .
One example is a study published in Nature on May 7 .
This trial , besides other procedures which render the study invalid , did not meet any of the postulates .
For instance , the alleged “ infected ” laboratory mice did not show any relevant clinical symptoms clearly attributable to pneumonia , which according to the third postulate should actually occur if a dangerous and potentially deadly virus was really at work there .
And the slight bristles and weight loss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ animals are negligible , not only because they could have been caused by the procedure itself , but also because the weight went back to normal again .
Also , no animal died except those they killed to perform the autopsies .
And let ’ s not forget : These experiments should have been done beforedeveloping a test , which is not the case .
Revealingly , none of the leading German representatives of the official theory about SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 — the Robert Koch-Institute ( RKI ) , Alexander S. Kekulé ( University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bartenschlager ( German Society for Virology ) , the aforementioned Thomas Löscher , Ulrich Dirnagl ( Charité Berlin ) or Georg Bornkamm ( virologist and professor emeritus at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Munich ) — could answer the following question I have sent them : It should not go unmentioned that we finally got the Charité – the employer of Christian Drosten , Germany ’ s most influential virologist in respect of COVID-19 , advisor to the German government and co-developer of the PCR test which was the first to be “ accepted ” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worldwide – to answer questions on the topic .
But we didn ’ t get answers until June 18 , 2020 , after months of non-response .
In the end , we achieved it only with the help of Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer .
Regarding our question “ Has the Charité convinced itself that appropriate particle purification was carried out ?
, ” the Charité concedes that they didn ’ t use purified particles .
And although they claim “ virologists at the Charité are sure that they are testing for the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ et al . )
they state : Which means they just assumed the RNA was viral .
Incidentally , the Corman et al .
paper , published on January 23 , 2020 didn ’ t even go through a proper peer review process , nor were the procedures outlined therein accompanied by controls — although it is only through these two things that scientific work becomes really solid .
It is also certain that we can not know the false positive rate of the PCR tests without widespread testing of people who certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by a method which is independent of the test ( having a solid gold standard ) .
Therefore , it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test results .
For example , already in February the health authority in China ’ s Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19 , started to test “ negative , ” and then tested “ positive ” again .
A month later , a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between “ negative ” , “ positive ” and “ dubious ” .
A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients and the majority went from “ positive ” to “ negative ” back to “ positive ” at least once , and up to five times in one patient .
Even Wang Chen , president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences , conceded in February that the PCR tests are “ only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the WHO ’ s coronavirus response team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22 , 2020 , saying that : In other words , even if we theoretically assume that these PCR tests can really detect a viral infection , the tests would be practically worthless , and would only cause an unfounded scare among the “ positive ” people tested .
This becomes also evident considering the positive predictive value ( PPV ) .
The PPV @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a positive test result is truly “ positive ” ( ie .
has the supposed virus ) , and it depends on two factors : the prevalence of the virus in the general population and the specificity of the test , that is the percentage of people without disease in whom the test is correctly “ negative ” ( a test with a specificity of 95 % incorrectly gives a positive result in 5 out of 100 non-infected people ) .
With the same specificity , the higher the prevalence , the higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on June 12 2020 , the journal Deutsches Ärzteblattpublished an article in which the PPV has been calculated with three different prevalence scenarios .
The results must , of course , be viewed very critically , first because it is not possible to calculate the specificity without a solid gold standard , as outlined , and second because the calculations in the article are based on the specificity determined in the study by Jessica Watson , which is potentially worthless , as also mentioned .
But if you abstract from it , assuming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is correct and that we know the prevalence , even the mainstream medical journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt reports that the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests may have “ a shockingly low ” PPV .
In one of the three scenarios , figuring with an assumed prevalence of 3 % , the PPV was only 30 percent , which means that 70 percent of the people tested “ positive ” are not “ positive ” at all .
Yet “ they are prescribed quarantine , ” as even the Ärzteblatt notes critically .
In a second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a prevalence of rate of 20 percent is assumed .
In this case they generate a PPV of 78 percent , meaning that 22 percent of the “ positive ” tests are false “ positives.
” That would mean : If we take the around 9 million people who are currently considered “ positive ” worldwide — supposing that the true “ positives ” really have a viral infection — we would get almost 2 million false “ positives.
” All this fits with the fact that the CDC and the FDA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ files that the so-called “ SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests ” are not suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis .
In the “ CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus ( 2019-nCoV ) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel “ file from March 30 , 2020 , for example , it says : And the FDA admits that : Remarkably , in the instruction manuals of PCR tests we can also read that they are not intended as a diagnostic test , as for instance in those by Altona Diagnostics and Creative Diagnostics [ 5 ] .
To quote another one , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assays produced by TIB Molbiol — which were developed using the Corman et al .
protocol — and distributed by Roche we can read : Where is the evidence that the tests can measure the “ viral load ” ?
There is also reason to conclude that the PCR test from Roche and others can not even detect the targeted genes .
Moreover , in the product descriptions of the RT-qPCR tests for SARS-COV-2 it says they are “ qualitative ” tests , contrary to the fact that the “ q ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” And if these tests are not “ quantitative ” tests , they don ’ t show how many viral particles are in the body .
That is crucial because , in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world not only in a laboratory , the patient would need to have millions and millions of viral particles actively replicating in their body .
That is to say , the CDC , the WHO , the FDA or the RKI may assert that the tests can measure the so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how many viral particles are in the body .
“ But this has never been proven .
That is an enormous scandal , ” as the journalist Jon Rappoport points out .
This is not only because the term “ viral load ” is deception .
If you put the question “ what is viral load ?
” at a dinner party , people take it to mean viruses circulating in the bloodstream .
They ’ re surprised to learn it ’ s actually RNA molecules .
Also , to prove beyond any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much a person is “ burdened ” with a disease-causing virus , the following experiment would have had to be carried out ( which has not yet happened ) : You take , let ’ s say , a few hundred or even thousand people and remove tissue samples from them .
Make sure the people who take the samples do not perform 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found and how much of it they found .
Then , for example , in patients 29 , 86 , 199 , 272 , and 293 they found a great deal of what they claim is a virus .
Now we un-blind those patients .
They should all be sick , because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies .
But are they really sick — or are they fit as a fiddle ?
With the help of the aforementioned lawyer Viviane Fischer , I finally got the Charité to also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developed by Corman et al .
— the so-called “ Drosten PCR test ” — is a quantitative test .
But the Charité was not willing to answer this question “ yes ” .
Instead , the Charité wrote : Furthermore , the “ Drosten PCR test ” uses the unspecific E-gene assay as preliminary assay , while the Institut Pasteur uses the same assay as confirmatory assay .
According to Corman et al.
, the E-gene assay is likely to detect all Asian viruses , while the other assays in both tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sequences labelled “ SARS-CoV-2 ” .
Besides the questionable purpose of having either a preliminary or a confirmatory test that is likely to detect all Asian viruses , at the beginning of April the WHO changed the algorithm , recommending that from then on a test can be regarded as “ positive ” even if just the E-gene assay ( which is likely to detect all Asian viruses ! )
gives a “ positive ” result .
This means that a confirmed unspecific test result is officially sold as specific .
That change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers .
Tests using the E-gene assay are produced for example by Roche , TIB Molbiol and R-Biopharm .
High CQ values make the test results even more meaningless Another essential problem is that many PCR tests have a “ cycle quantification ” ( Cq ) value of over 35 , and some , including the “ Drosten PCR test ” , even have a Cq of 45 .
The Cq value specifies how many cycles of DNA replication are required to detect a real signal from biological samples .
“ Cq values @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported , ” as it says in the MIQE guidelines .
MIQE stands for “ Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments ” , a set of guidelines that describe the minimum information necessary for evaluating publications on Real-Time PCR , also called quantitative PCR , or qPCR .
The inventor himself , Kary Mullis , agreed , when he stated : The MIQE guidelines have been developed under the aegis of Stephen A. Bustin , Professor of Molecular Medicine , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the book A-Z of Quantitative PCR which has been called “ the bible of qPCR.
” In a recent podcast interview Bustin points out that “ the use of such arbitrary Cq cut-offs is not ideal , because they may be either too low ( eliminating valid results ) or too high ( increasing false “ positive ” results ) .
” And , according to him , a Cq of 20 to 30 should be aimed at , and there is concern regarding the reliability of the results for any Cq @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets too high , it becomes difficult to distinguish real signal from background , for example due to reactions of primers and fluorescent probes , and hence there is a higher probability of false positives .
Moreover , among other factors that can alter the result , before starting with the actual PCR , in case you are looking for presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 , the RNA must be converted to complementary DNA ( cDNA ) with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase—hence the “ RT ” at the beginning of “ PCR @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transformation process is “ widely recognized as inefficient and variable , ” as Jessica Schwaber from the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine in Toronto and two research colleagues pointed out in a 2019 paper .
Stephen A. Bustin acknowledges problems with PCR in a comparable way .
For example , he pointed to the problem that in the course of the conversion process ( RNA to cDNA ) the amount of DNA obtained with the same RNA base material can vary widely , even by a factor of 10 ( see above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sequences get doubled at every cycle , even a slight variation becomes magnified and can thus alter the result , annihilating the test ’ s reliable informative value .
So how can it be that those who claim the PCR tests are highly meaningful for so-called COVID-19 diagnosis blind out the fundamental inadequacies of these tests—even if they are confronted with questions regarding their validity ?
Certainly , the apologists of the novel coronavirus hypothesis should have dealt with these questions before throwing the tests on the market and putting basically the whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these are questions that come to mind immediately for anyone with even a spark of scientific understanding .
Thus , the thought inevitably emerges that financial and political interests play a decisive role for this ignorance about scientific obligations .
NB , the WHO , for example has financial ties with drug companies , as the British Medical Journal showed in 2010 .
And experts criticize “ that the notorious corruption and conflicts of interest at WHO have continued , even grown “ since then .
The CDC as well , to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better off .
Finally , the reasons and possible motives remain speculative , and many involved surely act in good faith ; but the science is clear : The numbers generated by these RT-PCR tests do not in the least justify frightening people who have been tested “ positive ” and imposing lockdown measures that plunge countless people into poverty and despair or even drive them to suicide .
And a “ positive ” result may have serious consequences for the patients as well , because then all non-viral factors are excluded from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with highly toxic drugs and invasive intubations .
Especially for elderly people and patients with pre-existing conditions such a treatment can be fatal , as we have outlined in the article “ Fatal Therapie.
” Without doubt eventual excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the lockdown measures , while the “ COVID-19 ” death statistics comprise also patients who died of a variety of diseases , redefined as COVID-19 only because of a “ positive ” test result whose value could not be more doubtful .
Addendum : We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular who made valuable contributions to the realization of this article .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
Torsten Engelbrecht is an award-winning journalist and author from Hamburg , Germany .
In 2006 he co-authored Virus-Mania with Dr Klaus Kohnlein , and in 2009 he won the German Alternate Media Award .
He has also written for Rubikon , Süddeutsche Zeitung , Financial Times Deutschland and many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photographer and an independent researcher .
Together with the journalist Torsten Engelbrecht he has published articles on the “ COVID-19 ” crisis in the online magazine Rubikon , as well as contributions on the monetary system , geopolitics , and the media in Swiss Italian newspapers .
[ 1 ] Sensitivity is defined as the proportion of patients with disease in whom the test is positive ; and specificity is defined as the proportion of patients without disease in whom the test is negative .
[ 3 ] Martin Enserink .
Virology .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to basics , Science , July 6 , 2001 , p. 24 [ 4 ] E-mail from Charles Calisher from May 10 , 2020

COVID19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless
Written by Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter
Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose.
Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “positive” patients, whereby “positive” is usually equated with “infected.”
But looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2.
Unfounded “Test, Test, Test, …” mantra
At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:
We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.”
The message was spread through headlines around the world, for instance by Reuters and the BBC.
Still on the 3 of May, the moderator of the Heute journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television— was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words:
Test, test, test—that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.”
This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.
But it is well known that religions are about faith and not about scientific facts. And as Walter Lippmann, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th centurysaid: “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”
So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.
Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection.
The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.
How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.
Lack of a valid gold standard
Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.
This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity”[1] and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available.
As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:
If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”
Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”
But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, “pragmatically” COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, “may be the best available ‘gold standard’.” But this is not scientifically sound.
Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us[2].
And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis — contrary to Watson’s statement — cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.
In addition, “experts” such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.
That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “may be the best available gold standard,” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn’t be the best available/possible gold standard. But she hasn’t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd: “I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.”
No proof for the RNA being of viral origin
Now the question is: What is required first for virus isolation/proof? We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.
As textbooks (e.g., White/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state, particle purification — i.e. the separation of an object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende — is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.
The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from. That has to be determined beforehand.
And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.
Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.
But not a single team could answer that question with “yes” — and NB., nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like “No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification” (see below).
We asked several study authors “Do your electron micrographs show the purified virus?”, they gave the following responses:
Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health” Nature Medicine, March 2020
Replying Author: Malik Peiris
Date: May 12, 2020
Answer: “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.” Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020
Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han
Date: May 6, 2020
Answer: “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.” Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020
Replying Author: Wan Beom Park
Date: March 19, 2020
Answer: “We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.” Study 4: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020
Replying Author: Wenjie Tan
Date: March 18, 2020
Answer: “[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”
Regarding the mentioned papers it is clear that what is shown in the electron micrographs (EMs) is the end result of the experiment, meaning there is no other result that they could have made EMs from.
That is to say, if the authors of these studies concede that their published EMs do not show purified particles, then they definitely do not possess purified particles claimed to be viral. (In this context, it has to be remarked that some researchers use the term “isolation” in their papers, but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation (purification) process. Consequently, in this context the term “isolation” is misused).
Thus, the authors of four of the principal, early 2020 papers claiming discovery of a new coronavirus concede they had no proof that the origin of the virus genome was viral-like particles or cellular debris, pure or impure, or particles of any kind. In other words, the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.
We have also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea…to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:
[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction […] tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”[3]
And that’s why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified. His answer:
I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”[4]
This actually means that one cannot conclude that the RNA gene sequences, which the scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for which the PCR tests are finally being “calibrated,” belong to a specific virus — in this case SARS-CoV-2.
In addition, there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.
In order to establish a causal connection, one way or the other, i.e. beyond virus isolation and purification, it would have been absolutely necessary to carry out an experiment that satisfies the four Koch’s postulates. But there is no such experiment, as Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei recently revealed for OffGuardian.
The necessity to fulfill these postulates regarding SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated not least by the fact that attempts have been made to fulfill them. But even researchers claiming they have done it, in reality, did not succeed.
One example is a study published in Nature on May 7. This trial, besides other procedures which render the study invalid, did not meet any of the postulates.
For instance, the alleged “infected” laboratory mice did not show any relevant clinical symptoms clearly attributable to pneumonia, which according to the third postulate should actually occur if a dangerous and potentially deadly virus was really at work there. And the slight bristles and weight loss, which were observed temporarily in the animals are negligible, not only because they could have been caused by the procedure itself, but also because the weight went back to normal again.
Also, no animal died except those they killed to perform the autopsies. And let’s not forget: These experiments should have been done beforedeveloping a test, which is not the case.
Revealingly, none of the leading German representatives of the official theory about SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 — the Robert Koch-Institute (RKI), Alexander S. Kekulé (University of Halle), Hartmut Hengel and Ralf Bartenschlager (German Society for Virology), the aforementioned Thomas Löscher, Ulrich Dirnagl (Charité Berlin) or Georg Bornkamm (virologist and professor emeritus at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Munich) — could answer the following question I have sent them:
If the particles that are claimed to be to be SARS-CoV-2 have not been purified, how do you want to be sure that the RNA gene sequences of these particles belong to a specific new virus? Particularly, if there are studies showing that substances such as antibiotics that are added to the test tubes in the in vitro experiments carried out for virus detection can “stress” the cell culture in a way that new gene sequences are being formed that were not previously detectable — an aspect that Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock already drew attention to in her Nobel Lecture back in 1983.
It should not go unmentioned that we finally got the Charité – the employer of Christian Drosten, Germany’s most influential virologist in respect of COVID-19, advisor to the German government and co-developer of the PCR test which was the first to be “accepted” (not validated!) by the WHO worldwide – to answer questions on the topic.
But we didn’t get answers until June 18, 2020, after months of non-response. In the end, we achieved it only with the help of Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer.
Regarding our question “Has the Charité convinced itself that appropriate particle purification was carried out?,” the Charité concedes that they didn’t use purified particles.
And although they claim “virologists at the Charité are sure that they are testing for the virus,” in their paper (Corman et al.) they state:
RNA was extracted from clinical samples with the MagNA Pure 96 system (Roche, Penzberg, Germany) and from cell culture supernatants with the viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany),”
Which means they just assumed the RNA was viral.
Incidentally, the Corman et al. paper, published on January 23, 2020 didn’t even go through a proper peer review process, nor were the procedures outlined therein accompanied by controls — although it is only through these two things that scientific work becomes really solid.
Irrational rest results
It is also certain that we cannot know the false positive rate of the PCR tests without widespread testing of people who certainly do not have the virus, proven by a method which is independent of the test (having a solid gold standard).
Therefore, it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test results.
For example, already in February the health authority in China’s Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test “negative,” and then tested “positive” again.
A month later, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between “negative”, “positive” and “dubious”.
A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients and the majority went from “positive” to “negative” back to “positive” at least once, and up to five times in one patient.
Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February that the PCR tests are “only 30 to 50 per cent accurate”; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the WHO’s coronavirus response team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that:
It has been widely reported in the social media that the RT-qPCR [Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases.”
In other words, even if we theoretically assume that these PCR tests can really detect a viral infection, the tests would be practically worthless, and would only cause an unfounded scare among the “positive” people tested.
This becomes also evident considering the positive predictive value (PPV).
The PPV indicates the probability that a person with a positive test result is truly “positive” (ie. has the supposed virus), and it depends on two factors: the prevalence of the virus in the general population and the specificity of the test, that is the percentage of people without disease in whom the test is correctly “negative” (a test with a specificity of 95% incorrectly gives a positive result in 5 out of 100 non-infected people).
With the same specificity, the higher the prevalence, the higher the PPV.
In this context, on June 12 2020, the journal Deutsches Ärzteblattpublished an article in which the PPV has been calculated with three different prevalence scenarios.
The results must, of course, be viewed very critically, first because it is not possible to calculate the specificity without a solid gold standard, as outlined, and second because the calculations in the article are based on the specificity determined in the study by Jessica Watson, which is potentially worthless, as also mentioned.
But if you abstract from it, assuming that the underlying specificity of 95% is correct and that we know the prevalence, even the mainstream medical journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt reports that the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests may have “a shockingly low” PPV.
In one of the three scenarios, figuring with an assumed prevalence of 3%, the PPV was only 30 percent, which means that 70 percent of the people tested “positive” are not “positive” at all. Yet “they are prescribed quarantine,” as even the Ärzteblatt notes critically.
In a second scenario of the journal’s article, a prevalence of rate of 20 percent is assumed. In this case they generate a PPV of 78 percent, meaning that 22 percent of the “positive” tests are false “positives.”
That would mean: If we take the around 9 million people who are currently considered “positive” worldwide — supposing that the true “positives” really have a viral infection — we would get almost 2 million false “positives.”
All this fits with the fact that the CDC and the FDA, for instance, concede in their files that the so-called “SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests” are not suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.
In the “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel“ file from March 30, 2020, for example, it says:
Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms”
And:
This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”
And the FDA admits that:
positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”
Remarkably, in the instruction manuals of PCR tests we can also read that they are not intended as a diagnostic test, as for instance in those by Altona Diagnostics and Creative Diagnostics[5].
To quote another one, in the product announcement of the LightMix Modular Assays produced by TIB Molbiol — which were developed using the Corman et al. protocol — and distributed by Roche we can read:
These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection”
And:
For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.”
Where is the evidence that the tests can measure the “viral load”?
There is also reason to conclude that the PCR test from Roche and others cannot even detect the targeted genes.
Moreover, in the product descriptions of the RT-qPCR tests for SARS-COV-2 it says they are “qualitative” tests, contrary to the fact that the “q” in “qPCR” stands for “quantitative.” And if these tests are not “quantitative” tests, they don’t show how many viral particles are in the body.
That is crucial because, in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world not only in a laboratory, the patient would need to have millions and millions of viral particles actively replicating in their body.
That is to say, the CDC, the WHO, the FDA or the RKI may assert that the tests can measure the so-called “viral load,” i.e. how many viral particles are in the body. “But this has never been proven. That is an enormous scandal,” as the journalist Jon Rappoport points out.
This is not only because the term “viral load” is deception. If you put the question “what is viral load?” at a dinner party, people take it to mean viruses circulating in the bloodstream. They’re surprised to learn it’s actually RNA molecules.
Also, to prove beyond any doubt that the PCR can measure how much a person is “burdened” with a disease-causing virus, the following experiment would have had to be carried out (which has not yet happened):
You take, let’s say, a few hundred or even thousand people and remove tissue samples from them. Make sure the people who take the samples do not perform 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. Then, for example, in patients 29, 86, 199, 272, and 293 they found a great deal of what they claim is a virus. Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. But are they really sick — or are they fit as a fiddle?
With the help of the aforementioned lawyer Viviane Fischer, I finally got the Charité to also answer the question of whether the test developed by Corman et al. — the so-called “Drosten PCR test” — is a quantitative test.
But the Charité was not willing to answer this question “yes”. Instead, the Charité wrote:
If real-time RT-PCR is involved, to the knowledge of the Charité in most cases these are […] limited to qualitative detection.”
Furthermore, the “Drosten PCR test” uses the unspecific E-gene assay as preliminary assay, while the Institut Pasteur uses the same assay as confirmatory assay.
According to Corman et al., the E-gene assay is likely to detect all Asian viruses, while the other assays in both tests are supposed to be more specific for sequences labelled “SARS-CoV-2”.
Besides the questionable purpose of having either a preliminary or a confirmatory test that is likely to detect all Asian viruses, at the beginning of April the WHO changed the algorithm, recommending that from then on a test can be regarded as “positive” even if just the E-gene assay (which is likely to detect all Asian viruses!) gives a “positive” result.
This means that a confirmed unspecific test result is officially sold as specific.
That change of algorithm increased the “case” numbers. Tests using the E-gene assay are produced for example by Roche, TIB Molbiol and R-Biopharm.
High CQ values make the test results even more meaningless
Another essential problem is that many PCR tests have a “cycle quantification” (Cq) value of over 35, and some, including the “Drosten PCR test”, even have a Cq of 45.
The Cq value specifies how many cycles of DNA replication are required to detect a real signal from biological samples.
“Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,” as it says in the MIQE guidelines.
MIQE stands for “Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments”, a set of guidelines that describe the minimum information necessary for evaluating publications on Real-Time PCR, also called quantitative PCR, or qPCR.
The inventor himself, Kary Mullis, agreed, when he stated:
If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”
The MIQE guidelines have been developed under the aegis of Stephen A. Bustin, Professor of Molecular Medicine, a world-renowned expert on quantitative PCR and author of the book A-Z of Quantitative PCR which has been called “the bible of qPCR.”
In a recent podcast interview Bustin points out that “the use of such arbitrary Cq cut-offs is not ideal, because they may be either too low (eliminating valid results) or too high (increasing false “positive” results).”
And, according to him, a Cq of 20 to 30 should be aimed at, and there is concern regarding the reliability of the results for any Cq over 35.
If the Cq value gets too high, it becomes difficult to distinguish real signal from background, for example due to reactions of primers and fluorescent probes, and hence there is a higher probability of false positives.
Moreover, among other factors that can alter the result, before starting with the actual PCR, in case you are looking for presumed RNA viruses such as SARS-CoV-2, the RNA must be converted to complementary DNA (cDNA) with the enzyme Reverse Transcriptase—hence the “RT” at the beginning of “PCR” or “qPCR.”
But this transformation process is “widely recognized as inefficient and variable,” as Jessica Schwaber from the Centre for Commercialization of Regenerative Medicine in Toronto and two research colleagues pointed out in a 2019 paper.
Stephen A. Bustin acknowledges problems with PCR in a comparable way.
For example, he pointed to the problem that in the course of the conversion process (RNA to cDNA) the amount of DNA obtained with the same RNA base material can vary widely, even by a factor of 10 (see above interview).
Considering that the DNA sequences get doubled at every cycle, even a slight variation becomes magnified and can thus alter the result, annihilating the test’s reliable informative value.
So how can it be that those who claim the PCR tests are highly meaningful for so-called COVID-19 diagnosis blind out the fundamental inadequacies of these tests—even if they are confronted with questions regarding their validity?
Certainly, the apologists of the novel coronavirus hypothesis should have dealt with these questions before throwing the tests on the market and putting basically the whole world under lockdown, not least because these are questions that come to mind immediately for anyone with even a spark of scientific understanding.
Thus, the thought inevitably emerges that financial and political interests play a decisive role for this ignorance about scientific obligations. NB, the WHO, for example has financial ties with drug companies, as the British Medical Journal showed in 2010.
And experts criticize “that the notorious corruption and conflicts of interest at WHO have continued, even grown“ since then. The CDC as well, to take another big player, is obviously no better off.
Finally, the reasons and possible motives remain speculative, and many involved surely act in good faith; but the science is clear: The numbers generated by these RT-PCR tests do not in the least justify frightening people who have been tested “positive” and imposing lockdown measures that plunge countless people into poverty and despair or even drive them to suicide.
And a “positive” result may have serious consequences for the patients as well, because then all non-viral factors are excluded from the diagnosis and the patients are treated with highly toxic drugs and invasive intubations. Especially for elderly people and patients with pre-existing conditions such a treatment can be fatal, as we have outlined in the article “Fatal Therapie.”
Without doubt eventual excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the lockdown measures, while the “COVID-19” death statistics comprise also patients who died of a variety of diseases, redefined as COVID-19 only because of a “positive” test result whose value could not be more doubtful.
Addendum: We thank Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Val Turner in particular who made valuable contributions to the realization of this article.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Torsten Engelbrecht is an award-winning journalist and author from Hamburg, Germany. In 2006 he co-authored Virus-Mania with Dr Klaus Kohnlein, and in 2009 he won the German Alternate Media Award. He has also written for Rubikon, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Financial Times Deutschland and many others.
Konstantin Demeter is a freelance photographer and an independent researcher. Together with the journalist Torsten Engelbrecht he has published articles on the “COVID-19” crisis in the online magazine Rubikon, as well as contributions on the monetary system, geopolitics, and the media in Swiss Italian newspapers.
Notes
[1] Sensitivity is defined as the proportion of patients with disease in whom the test is positive; and specificity is defined as the proportion of patients without disease in whom the test is negative.
[2] E-mail from Prof. Thomas Löscher from March 6, 2020
[3] Martin Enserink. Virology. Old guard urges virologists to go back to basics, Science, July 6, 2001, p. 24
[4] E-mail from Charles Calisher from May 10, 2020
[5] Creative Diagnostics, SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit
The original source of this article is OffGuardian **** PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related