The Coronavirus Test Is Meaningless
The only thing that the Covid-19 test is actually testing is my patience.
Considering that the entire pandemic hoax is entirely dependant on the test results to reveal how serious this 'killer virus' actually is, means that all other information such as numbers, opinions, advice, and procedures concerning coronavirus, are simply null and void without a legitimate test. I'm sure that everybody no matter where they have chosen to show their allegiance in this ridiculous and tiresome game of side-choosing, will agree on that premise alone. The test is the key. It is 100% vital to any information on the true scale of the spread or actual existence of covid. All other details are just noise, and we would do well to remember that fact as we continue to argue with each other about who is right or wrong.
So why do I claim the test is meaningless? Let's discuss that in a bit more depth.
For starters, the real time RT-PCR test which stands for Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction DOES NOT TEST FOR VIRUSES. That should be fully understood from the beginning. It is also NOT a binary test, like a pregnancy test for example, which simply churns out positive or negative results. It is much more complex than that, and a millions times more unreliable.
The test was created by American biochemist Kary Mullis who passed away in 2019 so fortunately for him, couldn't be around to see the shit show which his test is currently responsible for. The test which won him the 2003 Nobel Prize in Chemistry has already been at the heart of much controversy during his lifetime, and has already been massively misused since its conception. Mullis spent the latter years of his life controversially disputing the use of the PCR in diagnosing HIV patients, and there is a lot of information to digest concerning AIDS if one cares to delve deeper into that pool.
Its intended use is to 'apply it as manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.'(1)
As Mullis himself once said, “Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.”
Aside from not being fit for purpose, the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare the results with. This is a fundamental point. In order to determine their preciseness —it is essential that each test is evaluated for sensitivity and specificity — by comparison with the most accurate method available which is termed a 'gold standard'.
For example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself.
But in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?” Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake explained that:
"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.”
When all this chaos first started to accelerate in back in spring I downloaded the official CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel pdf file from the CDC's website which clarifies that the results are for 'the identification of 2019-nCov RNA'.
It is of course no secret that they are testing for RNA (genetic material) rather than what the general public believe, that it simply shows whether you have the virus or not.
I was astounded to find that even on the instruction manual it clearly states :
Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.
Er, what did you say? Are you actually telling us that a positive coronavirus test might not be caused by covid-19? So what is the point then? How can such a tiny subheading have such weighty connotations? It basically states that a positive test might not infer a positive case. Well I don't recall hearing that on the BBC News.
"News just in - all positive corona cases which we are basing all the lockdowns and strict impositions upon, such as (un)social distancing, face coverings, incessant hand washing, and travel restrictions etc. could actually be caused by a harmless bacterial infection. Sorry about that."
It is simply ludicrous. And those behind this global scam know it.
So if they aren't looking for a virus (not surprising really since there remains no proof that there even is a novel coronavirus since it has never been satisfactorily isolated and purified), what are they looking for exactly when they shove those lovely swabs deep into the recesses of healthy people's snouts?
Well it all started in Wuhan as we all know. When the first cases of ill folk were being reported back in December 2019, they swabbed the patients and discovered a genetic sequence which was around 80% similar to that found in patients with SARS. That is basically it. They deemed this new RNA with its similarities to be a novel strain and have been searching for it ever since. For comparison it is interesting to note that humans share 96% of our DNA with apes and even a whopping 60% with bananas! Still, COVID is close enough to SARS to warrant the global destruction of society as we know it.
Another huge problem is also that the particular primer sequence which the PCR test is searching for, is actually found in all human DNA. There is a genetic sequence that everyone has in their body that the test in part is testing for, so if the test successfully locates that specific sequence in your body during the testing, the result will be that you have tested positive 'for the virus'. A virus which the test does not test for in the first place. Absolute madness.
Another issue is the amplification process involved in the PCR test. In order to amplify the target DNA that they are looking for sufficiently enough to be able to analyse it properly, they amplify it a certain number of cycles to get the most out of it. The problem is however that if you over amplify you create too much 'noise' and risk making the sample eligible and blurry or fuzzy. Different countries follow different protocols and use varying amounts of cycles although 35 seems to be the most standard figure in use. The more cycles that are done, the more positive results are going to arise - just like the longer you look for a needle in a haystack, the more likely you will find it, and probably other needles you had know idea were hiding in there also.
A recent NHS document revealed that in the UK, the standard amount of amplification cycles is an unprecedented 45. So it should come as no surprise that 'positive' cases are on the rise. How the NHS have been allowed to do this God only knows, and even he/she is so utterly bored of talking about coronavirus that he has just paid for another Netflix subscription to avoid confronting the atrocities.
And finally, I would like to just bring your attention to a 2007 New York Times article by Gina Kolata called 'Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t' in which the same dreaded PCR test nearly caused a pandemic by accident.
The short version of this story is that in April 2006 at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in New Hampshire in the US, Dr. Brooke Herndon was suffering from a consistent cough. This continued for months and slowly other workers began to show similar symptoms until enough people were becoming unwell for concern to arise.
Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital were given a preliminary test then furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have whooping cough before thousands were given antibiotics later followed by a vaccine. Hospital beds were then taken out of commission, including some in intensive care. Does this theme sound familiar to anyone?
Before long the P.C.R. test was introduced and showed these patients to have pertussis, which the doctors believed as the results seemed completely consistent with the patients’ symptoms. “That’s how the whole thing got started,” Dr. Kirkland said, and then the doctors decided to test people who did not have severe coughing (again, familiar).
'“Because we had cases we thought were pertussis and because we had vulnerable patients at the hospital, we lowered our threshold,” she said. Anyone who had a cough got a P.C.R. test, and so did anyone with a runny nose who worked with high-risk patients like infants.
“That’s how we ended up with 134 suspect cases,” Dr. Kirkland said. And that, she added, "was why 1,445 health care workers ended up taking antibiotics and 4,524 health care workers at the hospital, or 72 percent of all the health care workers there, were immunized against whooping cough in a matter of days."
Dr. Talbot said., “You cannot imagine, I had a feeling at the time that this gave us a shadow of a hint of what it might be like during a pandemic flu epidemic.”
Infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah Dr. Cathy A. Petti said that the incident had one clear lesson. “The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,” Dr. Petti said. “No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R.”
So, in the case of the corona test, positive cases do not mean that a deadly virus is spreading, it simply means that the test found the genetic sequence in those people which it had initially set out to find. Better lock down some more cities then I suppose. No wonder the powers that be are insistent on more and more tests being done. The more tests you do, the more 'positive' tests there will be, and the more draconian impositions they will be able to enforce.
Even Boris Johnson, the PM for Great Britain, said about the test:
"Unfortunately, it only works in 7% of the cases."
And Dominic Raab who is serving as First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, reaffirmed Johnson's assertions when he told Sky News:
"The false positive rate is very high, so only 7% of tests will be successful in identifying those who actually have the virus. So, the truth is you can't just rely on that, and in fairness I don't think that those advocating it think that you can."