{"id":30894,"date":"2020-10-07T11:57:51","date_gmt":"2020-10-07T15:57:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=30894"},"modified":"2020-10-07T11:57:51","modified_gmt":"2020-10-07T15:57:51","slug":"the-pcr-test-for-covid-19-is-highly-inaccurate-as-is-the-antibody-test","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=30894","title":{"rendered":"The PCR Test for COVID-19 is Highly Inaccurate as is the Antibody Test"},"content":{"rendered":"

Busted: 11 COVID Assumptions Based on Fear Not Fact<\/strong><\/h1>\n

By Makia Freeman
\nGlobal Research
\nThe Freedom Articles<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/div>\n

COVID assumptions \u2013\u00a0the assumptions people make about COVID, how dangerous it is, how it spreads and what we need to do to stop it \u2013 are running rampant, running far more wildly than the supposed virus SARS-CoV2 itself. The coldly calculated campaign of propaganda surrounding this \u2018pandemic\u2019 has achieved its aim. Besieged with a slew of contradictory information coming from all angles, people in general have succumbed to confusion. Some have given up trying to understand the situation and found it is just easier to obey official directives, even if it means giving up long-held rights. Below is a list of commonly held COVID assumptions which, if you believe them, will make you much more likely to submit to the robotic, insane and abnormal conditions of the\u00a0New Normal<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 screening, testing, contact tracing, monitoring, surveillance, mask-wearing, social distancing, quarantine and isolation, with mandatory vaccination and microchipping to come.<\/em><\/p>\n

Assumption 1: The Method of Counting COVID Deaths is Sensible and Accurate<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

A grand assumption of the COVID plandemic is that the numbers are real and accurate, especially the death toll. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. We have had\u00a0confirmation<\/a>\u00a0after\u00a0confirmation<\/a>\u00a0after\u00a0confirmation<\/a>\u00a0(in nations all over the world) that authorities are counting the deaths in a way that makes no sense.<\/strong>\u00a0Well, it makes no sense if you want to be sensible or accurate, but it makes perfect sense if you are trying to artificially inflate the numbers and create the impression of a pandemic where there is none. The sleight of hand is achieved by counting those\u00a0who died with the virus as dying from the virus<\/strong>. This one trick alone is responsible for vastly skewing the numbers and turning the \u2018official\u2019 death count into a meaningless farce devoid of any practical value.<\/p>\n

Assumption 2: The PCR Test for COVID is Accurate<\/strong><\/p>\n

As I covered in previous articles, the PCR test (Polymerase Chain Reaction) was invented by scientist\u00a0Kary Mullis<\/strong>\u00a0as a manufacturing technique (since it is\u00a0able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times), not as a diagnostic tool.\u00a0COVID or SARS-CoV2 fails Koch\u2019s postulates<\/a>. The virus which shut the world down has still to this day never been isolated, purified and re-injected, or in other words, has never been 100% proven to exist, nor 100% proven to be the cause of the disease. When used to determine the cause of a disease, the PCR test has many flaws:<\/p>\n

1. There is no gold standard to which to compare its results (COVID fails Koch\u2019s postulates);
\n2. It detects and amplifies genetic code (RNA sequences) but offers no proof these RNA sequences are of viral origin;
\n3. It generates many\u00a0false positive results<\/strong>;
\n4. The PCR test can give a completely opposite result (positive or negative) depending upon the number of cycles or amplifications that are used, which is ultimately arbitrarily chosen. For some diseases, if you lower the number of cycles to 35, it can make everyone appear negative, while if you increase them to above 35, it can make everyone appear positive;
\n5. Many patients switch back and forth from positive to negative when taking the PCR test on subsequent days; and
\n6. Even a positive result does not guarantee the discovered \u2018virus\u2019 is the cause of the disease!<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

In summary,\u00a0the PCR test doesn\u2019t identify or isolate viruses, doesn\u2019t provide RNA sequences of pathogens, offers no baseline for comparison with patient samples, and cannot determine an infected from an uninfected sample.<\/strong>\u00a0That is staggeringly useless! Here is a quote from the article\u00a0COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless<\/em><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cTests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness \u2014 strictly speaking their \u201csensitivity\u201d and \u201cspecificity\u201d \u2014 by comparison with a \u201cgold standard,\u201d 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 \u201cHow accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?\u201d:<\/em><\/p>\n

If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we\u2019ve already got blood cultures, that\u2019s our gold standard we\u2019ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don\u2019t have a gold standard test.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper \u201cInterpreting a COVID-19 test result\u201d, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a \u201c<\/em>lack of such a clear-cut \u2018gold-standard\u2019 for COVID-19 testing.\u201d\u201c<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

Here is the\u00a0admission about the PCR test by the CDC and FDA<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cDetection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms \u2026this test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Accurate would be about the last word I would use to describe COVID PCR testing, yet it is currently the standard test worldwide for COVID. Another magnificent example of many COVID assumptions. Go figure.<\/p>\n

Assumption 3: The Antibody Test for COVID is Accurate<\/strong><\/p>\n

If you realized by reading the last section that the\u00a0COVID PCR tests<\/strong>\u00a0are flawed and meaningless, get ready for more absurdity with the\u00a0COVID antibody tests<\/strong>. As I covered in the article\u00a0COVID Antibody Tests: Here Comes More Trickery and Fakery<\/em><\/a>, there are numerous reasons why the antibody tests don\u2019t really work and can be interpreted any way you want:<\/p>\n

1. Old blood samples contain COVID antibodies, so if a test find antibodies, they may have been there for years or decades. There is no way to tell if they were recently acquired;
\n2. Like the COVID PCR test, they generate many false positive results;
\n3. They test for antibodies which may not even be specific for COVID;
\n4. Antibodies don\u2019t actually prove immunity, since there are people who fight off disease with little or no antibodies, and conversely, there are those with high antibody titers or counts, but who still get sick; and
\n5. The results can be interpreted any way you want. The presence of antibodies could mean you\u2019re safe and immune to future COVID waves, or conversely, it could mean you\u2019re dangerous (sick and infected right now). It\u2019s all about the interpretation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Hhmmm \u2026 all these COVID assumptions are not exactly reassuring, are they?<\/p>\n

Assumption 4: The COVID Case Count is Rising<\/strong><\/p>\n

Someone skeptical of the alternative view I am painting here may ask at this point: well if COVID is not that dangerous, how come cases keep rising? The answer is simple: because there is more testing. The more we test, the more cases we will find, because this \u2018virus\u2019\u00a0 (really an RNA sequence) is far more widespread than we have been told, and there are far more asymptomatic people than we have been told (which shows it\u2019s not that dangerous). As discussed in previous articles, there is really no proof that people didn\u2019t have this particular RNA sequence for years or decades before the test, so the test results are quite meaningless.<\/p>\n

That aside, a general rule of thumb is that wherever there are people trying to gain power, there will be fraud, and COVID testing is no exception. It has been exposed that tens of thousands of coronavirus tests have been double counted (in the UK, but probably happening in many places). This\u00a0article<\/a>\u00a0explains that the\u00a0\u201cdiscrepancy is in large part explained by the practice of counting saliva and nasal samples for the same individual twice.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0Additionally, the COVID tests are using the PCR method as discussed above in COVID Assumption 3, which has many flaws, including the flaw of results flipping back and forth depending on the number of cycles, as this previously quoted\u00a0article<\/a>\u00a0states:<\/p>\n

\u201d \u2026 it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test results.\u00a0<\/em>For example, already in February the health authority in China\u2019s Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test \u201cnegative,\u201d and then\u00a0tested \u201cpositive\u201d again<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

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\u00a0\u201cnegative\u201d, \u201cpositive\u201d and \u201cdubious\u201d<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients and the majority went from \u201cpositive\u201d to \u201cnegative\u201d back to \u201cpositive\u201d at least once, and\u00a0up to five times in one patient<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February that the PCR tests are\u00a0\u201conly 30 to 50 per cent accurate\u201d<\/a>; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the WHO\u2019s coronavirus response<\/a>\u00a0team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that:<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cIt 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.\u201d \u201d
\n<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Assumption 5: Thermal Imaging\/Screening for COVID is Effective<\/strong><\/p>\n

Taking people\u2019s temperature by pointing a gun at their head is blatant conditioning. It sends the subliminal message that the State is all powerful and can aim a gun-like device at your head, and you are powerless to do anything but submit. On a practical level, taking people\u2019s temperatures has no effect in stopping viral spread. Even if someone has an elevated temperature, what does that mean? There is a natural variation in human body temperatures; everyone operates at a slightly different temperature. Besides, even if your temperature is elevated, that could be because you were just exercising, running to catch a flight, just had an angry conversation with someone, just got the phone after a stressful call, had to discipline a disobedient child, etc. Think about\u00a0all<\/strong>\u00a0the things that make you stressed and irritated, or raise your blood pressure, which could lead to an elevated temperature!<\/p>\n

In this way it is similar to the antibody test; it can show a result, but the result can be interpreted in so many ways that it renders the result pointless in terms of science (although there is a very much a point in terms of control).<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
What is Covid-19, SARS-2. How is it Tested? How is It Measured? The Fear Campaign Has No Scientific Basis<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Assumption 6: Asymptomatic People Can Spread the Disease<\/strong><\/p>\n

One particular piece of propaganda hammered in hard to people\u2019s brains which is still doing great damage is the idea that anyone could be a carrier and could therefore infect anyone else. This has the effect of making people anxious, scared and even paranoid<\/strong>\u00a0in just going about their daily life.\u00a0However the idea that asymptomatic people can spread the disease is not something to worry about.<\/strong>\u00a0This Chinese study\u00a0A study on infectivity of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers<\/em><\/a>\u00a0published in May 2020 exposed 455 subjects to asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV2. None of the 455 were infected!<\/p>\n

WHO (World Health Organization) official Dr. Maria van Kerkhove was\u00a0reported by MSM CNBC<\/a>\u00a0saying the following last month in June (though she later backtracked her comments):<\/p>\n

\u201c\u201cFrom the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,\u201d Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO\u2019s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said at a news briefing from the United Nations agency\u2019s Geneva headquarters. \u201cIt\u2019s very rare.\u201d\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"CDC<\/p>\n

Assumption 7: Making Schools Adopt Insanely Restrictive Measures Will Stop COVID Spread<\/strong><\/p>\n

Of the many COVID assumptions floating around, these next two are based on the idea that children are a significant source of COVID spread. They are not! The figures from\u00a0WorldOMeter<\/a>\u00a0state that children aged 0-17 years have 0.02-0.06% share of world COVID deaths, which is essentially zero. Meanwhile,\u00a0CDC stats<\/a>\u00a0show that\u00a0\u201camong 149,082 (99.6%) cases for which patient age was known, 2,572 (1.7%) occurred in children aged <18 years\u201d<\/em>\u00a0which is likewise a tiny fraction. With this in mind, why on Earth would the CDC issue these draconian guidelines (pictured above and also found at\u00a0this link<\/a>\u00a0in full) for American schoolchildren, if not to condition and dehumanize them?<\/p>\n

Assumption 8: It\u2019s a Good Idea for Government to\u00a0Take<\/del>\u00a0Abduct Kids from COVID-Positive Parents<\/strong><\/p>\n

Governmental abduction of children using COVID as a pretext has begun. This\u00a0article<\/a>\u00a0from June 17th 2020 reports how the\u00a0\u201cLA County Dept. of Children and Family Services (DCFS) recommended that the court remove [a] child from their physical custody after the parent tested positive for COVID-19. This is a non-offending parent. The judge ruled in favor of DCFS and detained.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Let that sink in for a minute. The State stole a child from his\/her parents just because a parent showed a COVID-positive result on a (deeply flawed) test! Can anyone spell T-Y-R-A-N-N-Y? This is the outcome of the sinister and oxymoronic warning given by\u00a0WHO official Michael Ryan<\/a>\u00a0in March, that people would be removed from their families in a \u201csafe and dignified\u201d way. Ryan said:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn some senses, transmission has been taken off the streets and pushed back into family units. Now we need to go and look in families to find those people who may be sick and remove them and isolate them in a safe and dignified manner.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Mercola.com reports<\/a>\u00a0that the CDC is recommending newborns be separated at birth from their parents for COVID testing.<\/p>\n

How bad does it have to get before people wake up to what is happening?<\/p>\n

Assumption 9: Social Distancing is Backed by Solid Scientific Evidence<\/strong><\/p>\n

Another of the baseless COVID assumptions is that all this social distancing or physical distancing is backed by solid scientific evidence. It\u2019s not. Whether it\u2019s 6 feet, 1.5 meters or 2 meters, the virus seems to be able to jump different distances depending upon what country it is in. The article\u00a0There is no scientific evidence to support the disastrous two-metre rule<\/em><\/a>\u00a0states:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe influential Lancet review provided evidence from 172 studies in support of physical distancing of one metre or more. This might sound impressive, but all the studies were retrospective and suffer from biases that undermine the reliability of their findings.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Meanwhile UK governmental advisor\u00a0Robert Dingwall<\/strong>\u00a0said<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWe cannot sustain [social distancing measures] without causing serious damage to society, to the economy and to the physical and mental health of the population \u2026I think it will be much harder to get compliance with some of the measures that really do not have an evidence base. I mean the two-metre rule was conjured up out of nowhere \u2026 Well, there is a certain amount of scientific evidence for a one-metre distance which comes out of indoor studies in clinical and experimental settings. There\u2019s never been a scientific basis for two metres, it\u2019s kind of a rule of thumb. But it\u2019s not like there is a whole kind of rigorous scientific literature that it is founded upon.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Of course, the assumption that social distancing works is based on the underlying assumption that there is a distinct and isolated virus SARS-CoV2 which is contagious and is the sole cause of all the disease \u2013 which has not been proven.<\/p>\n

Assumption 10: Mask Wearing for Healthy People is Backed by Solid Scientific Evidence<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The penultimate assumption for today is the wonderful topic of masks, or\u00a0face diapers<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0face nappies<\/strong>\u00a0as many have started calling them. One of the COVID assumptions that many are still clinging to is that it is \u2018respectful\u2019 to wear masks because masks protect healthy individuals from getting sick from viruses. This is patently false. As covered in the previous article\u00a0Unmasking the Truth: Studies Show Dehumanizing Masks Weaken You and Don\u2019t Protect You<\/em><\/a>, masks are designed for surgeons or people who are already sick, not for healthy people. They stop sick people spreading a disease through large respiratory droplets; they do nothing to protect well people. In fact, they restrict oxygen flow leading to under-oxygenation (hypoxia), which in turns leads to fatigue, weakness and a lower immunity. With a lower immunity comes \u2026 more susceptibility to disease.\u00a0As I previously wrote, the\u00a0masks many people are wearing \u2013 homemade from cloth \u2013 are a joke if you think they will stop a virus which is measured in nanometers (nanometer = 10\u2013<\/sup>9<\/sup>\u00a0meters, or 0.000000001 meters). They won\u2019t stop a virus but they will assuredly become a hotbed for microbes to develop due to the warm and humid conditions. For the scientifically minded, here\u2019s what\u00a0Dr. Russell Blaylock<\/strong>\u00a0had to say:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThe importance of these findings is that a drop in oxygen levels (hypoxia) is associated with an impairment in immunity. Studies have shown that hypoxia can inhibit the type of main immune cells used to fight viral infections called the CD4+ T-lymphocyte. This occurs because the hypoxia increases the level of a compound called hypoxia inducible factor-1 (HIF-1), which inhibits T-lymphocytes and stimulates a powerful immune inhibitor cell called the Tregs. This sets the stage for contracting any infection, including COVID-19 and making the consequences of that infection much graver. In essence, your mask may very well put you at an increased risk of infections and if so, having a much worse outcome.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Assumption 11: We Live in a World of Indiscriminate Killer Viruses<\/strong><\/p>\n

The biggest assumption of this entire scamdemic is that viruses are indiscriminate killers which can cross species and jump bodies through the air to infect people. In fact, the nature of the humble virus has been totally misunderstood by mainstream science, fueled by the Medical Industry which promotes germ theory and the myth of contagion to keep you in fear and to raise demand for its toxic products (Big Pharma petrochemical drugs and vaccines). Viruses have been demonized. As discussed in earlier articles such as\u00a0Deep Down the Virus Rabbit Hole \u2013 Question Everything<\/em><\/a>, virologist\u00a0Dr. Stefan Lanka<\/strong>\u00a0exposed the truth that viruses do not cause disease. Lanka famously won a 2017 Supreme Court in Germany where he proved that measles was not caused by a virus. Lanka\u00a0writes<\/a>:<\/div>\n
\n
\u201cSince June 1954, the death of tissue and cells in a test tube has been regarded as proof for the existence of a virus \u2026 according to scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments should have been carried out \u2026 These control experiments have never been carried out by official science to this day. During the measles virus trial, I commissioned an independent laboratory to perform this control experiment and the result was that the tissues and cells die due to the laboratory conditions in the exact same way as when they come into contact with allegedly \u201cinfected\u201d material.<\/em><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In other words, the cells die of starvation and poisoning (since they are separated from energy and nutrients from the body, and since toxic antibiotics are injected into the cell culture), not from being infected by a virus. This great video presentation entitled\u00a0Viral Misconceptions: The True Nature of Viruses<\/em><\/a>\u00a0is well worth watching. It outlines many stunning truths about the nature of viruses, such as:<\/p>\n