<\/p>\n
by Jon Rappoport<\/p>\n
UPDATE 1: Trump flown to Walter Reed Hospital. Watch out for toxic antiviral drugs; e.g, remdesivir. And ventilators (lethal). This is a field day for Biden, and also for promoters of the pandemic and all the regulations. For example\u2014\u201ceveryone must get tested.\u201d Trump is made into the poster boy for COVID-19 propaganda. \u201cThe PRESIDENT has it.\u201d No matter what happens to Trump, this is another step in the ongoing coup.<\/p>\n
UPDATE 2: CNN reports\u2014 \u201cTrump had a fever Friday, a source said. He has received the unapproved experimental Regeneron treatment as well as the drug remdesivir, according to the President\u2019s physician.\u201d NOT GOOD NEWS.<\/p>\n
Regeneron is an experimental antibody cocktail. Typically, when the news reports use of these drugs, no mention is made of negative effects or toxicity.<\/p>\n
The Daily Mail reports: \u201c[In an ongoing clinical trial of Regeneron] Two patients who got the antibody cocktail drug had side effects. One of them was \u2018serious,\u2019 though it\u2019s not clear what exactly happened to that person.\u201d<\/p>\n
In tests of antibody drugs, serious problems have occurred. These are characterized as \u201cincreased infection.\u201d<\/p>\n
Drugs.com discusses remdesivir: \u201c[the drug] has not been approved to treat coronavirus or COVID-19. It is not yet known if remdesivir is an effective treatment for any condition. The FDA has authorized emergency use of remdesivir only in people with COVID-19 who are in a hospital. You must remain under the care of a doctor while receiving remdesivir.\u201d<\/p>\n
Adverse effects, according to Drugs.com: \u201cGet emergency medical help if you have signs of an allergic reaction: hives; difficult breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
More adverse effects: \u201c\u2026chills, nausea, vomiting\u2026increased sweating\u2026a light-headed feeling, like you might pass out\u2026abnormal liver function tests\u2026anemia or decreased hemoglobin concentrations\u2026acute kidney injury\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
And then we have this: \u201c[remdesivir] is being investigated for and is currently available under an FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) for the treatment of severe COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.\u201d<\/p>\n
Trump doesn\u2019t have \u201csevere COVID-19.\u201d So why is he being given remdesivir at all\u2014especially given all the adverse effects of the drug?<\/p>\n
Plus: NO ONE HAS EVER STUDIED THE EFFECTS OF COMBINING REGENERON AND REMDESIVIR\u2014THE TWO DRUGS TRUMP IS TAKING. The doctors are playing god with the president\u2019s life.<\/p>\n
And now we come to the diagnostic test\u2014Big question: how many cycles was Trump\u2019s COVID test set for? I\u2019ll explain.<\/p>\n
Each cycle of the PCR test is a quantum leap in magnification of the test sample Trump provided. As every PCR tech knows, different labs use a different number of cycles when they perform the test. There is no uniform standard.<\/p>\n
That is a giant scandal, because when you do the test using more than, say, 30 cycles, all sorts of irrelevant and inconsequential material shows up that can be counted as \u201cpositive for the coronavirus\u201d\u2014when that is NOT the case.<\/p>\n
This is exactly what is happening all over the world every day. Too many cycles; absurd and wrong diagnosis.<\/p>\n
Could Trump\u2019s COVID test have been rigged in this fashion? It\u2019s as easy as pie. Just increase the number of cycles. Doesn\u2019t matter how many times the test was repeated for \u201cconfirmation.\u201d It\u2019ll read positive if there are too many cycles. Of course, no one will admit that Trump\u2019s test was set for 40 cycles, if it was.<\/p>\n
And guess what? The \u201ccycle problem\u201d is just one of many fatal flaws in the PCR test. I\u2019ve covered this subject many times. Here it is again:<\/p>\n
COVID diagnostic test: worst test ever devised?<\/p>\n
The need for the COVID test is being hyped to the skies. More tests automatically create more case numbers. This allows heads of state and national governments to whipsaw the public:<\/p>\n
\u201cWe were re-opening the economy, but now, with the escalating case numbers, we\u2019ll have to impose lockdowns again\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
This wreaks more havoc and economic destruction, which is the true goal of the COVID operation. Its cruelty is boundless.<\/p>\n
In this article, I present quotes from official sources about their own diagnostic test for the coronavirus, the PCR.<\/p>\n
Spoiler alert: the admitted holes and shortcomings of the test are devastating.<\/p>\n
From \u201cCDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel\u201d [1]:<\/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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Translation: A positive test doesn\u2019t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID virus might not be in the patient\u2019s body at all, either.<\/p>\n
From the World Health Organization (WHO): \u201cCoronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans\u201d [2]:<\/p>\n
\u201cSeveral assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.\u201d<\/p>\n
Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID\u2014including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.<\/p>\n
The WHO document adds this little piece: \u201cProtocol use limitations: Optional clinical specimens for testing has [have] not yet been validated.\u201d<\/p>\n
Translation: We\u2019re not sure which tissue samples to take from the patient, in order for the test to have any validity.<\/p>\n
From the FDA: \u201cLabCorp COVID-19RT-PCR test EUA Summary: ACCELERATED EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) SUMMARYCOVID-19 RT-PCR TEST (LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA)\u201d [3]:<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2026The SARS-CoV-2RNA [COVID virus] is generally detectable in respiratory specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status\u2026THE AGENT DETECTED MAY NOT BE THE DEFINITE CAUSE OF DISEASE (CAPS are mine). Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.\u201d<\/p>\n
Translation: On the one hand, we claim the test can \u201cgenerally\u201d detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient. But we admit that \u201cthe agent detected\u201d on the test, by which we mean COVID virus, \u201cmay not be the definite cause of disease.\u201d We also admit that, unless the patient has an acute infection, we can\u2019t find COVID. Therefore, the idea of \u201casymptomatic patients\u201d confirmed by the test is nonsense. And even though a positive test for COVID may not indicate the actual cause of disease, all positive tests must be reported\u2014and they will be counted as \u201cCOVID cases.\u201d Regardless.<\/p>\n
From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, \u201cSARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit\u201d [4]:<\/p>\n
\u201cRegulatory status: For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures.\u201d<\/p>\n
Translation: Don\u2019t use the test result alone to diagnose infection or disease. Oops.<\/p>\n
\u201cnon-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.\u201d<\/p>\n
Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.<\/p>\n
\u201cApplication Qualitative\u201d<\/p>\n
Translation: This clearly means the test is not suited to detect how much virus is in the patient\u2019s body. I\u2019ll cover how important this admission is in a minute.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in combination with their symptoms\/signs, history, other laboratory tests and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis, and are only for the reference of clinicians.\u201d<\/p>\n
Translation: Don\u2019t use the test as the exclusive basis for diagnosing a person with COVID. And yet, this is exactly what health authorities are doing all over the world. All positive tests must be reported to government agencies, and they are counted as COVID cases.<\/p>\n
Those quotes, from official government and testing sources, torpedo the whole \u201cscientific\u201d basis of the test.<\/p>\n
And now, I\u2019ll add another lethal blow: the test has never been validated properly as an instrument to detect disease. Even if we blindly assumed it can detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient, it doesn\u2019t show HOW MUCH virus is in the body. And that is key, because in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world, not in a lab, the patient would need to have millions and millions of the virus actively replicating in his body.<\/p>\n
Proponents of the test assert that it CAN measure how much virus is in the body. To which I reply: prove it.<\/p>\n
Prove it in a way it should have been proved decades ago\u2014but never was.<\/p>\n
Take five hundred people and remove tissue samples from them. The people who take the samples do NOT do the test. The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they\u2019re in.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cAll right, in patients 24, 46, 65, 76, 87, and 93 we found a great deal of virus.\u201d<\/p>\n
Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. Are they sick? Are they running marathons? Let\u2019s find out.<\/p>\n
This OBVIOUS vetting of the test has never been done. That is an enormous scandal. Where are the controlled test results in 500 patients, a thousand patients? Nowhere.<\/p>\n
The PCR is an unproven fraud.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut\u2026but\u2026what about all the sick and dying people\u2026why are they sick?\u201d<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve written thousands of words answering that question, in past articles. A NUMBER of conditions\u2014none involving COVID, and most involving old traditional diseases\u2014are making people sick.<\/p>\n
There are other large-scale studies of the PCR test that have never been done. I\u2019ve covered them in detail, in prior articles. To summarize: a study using a thousand patients, in which their tissue samples are sent to 30 different labs for analysis and verdicts, to see whether the results are uniform from lab to lab; and a study of 1000 patients, in which the results are compared with the results of analysis by electron microcopy. These large studies\u2014never done.<\/p>\n
In other words, the PCR test has never been adequately tested; it has never been properly validated as a diagnostic tool.<\/p>\n
Here, from Canadian researcher David Crowe\u2019s bombshell paper, FLAWS IN CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC THEORY, is a key quote about the PCR test [5]:<\/p>\n
\u201cA review of 33 RT-PCR tests for COVID-19 approved under US FDA Emergency Use Authorizations showed a wide range of differences in what the tests were looking for and how they decided whether they had found it. The tests look for a variety of different segments (\u2018genes\u2019) of the presumed COVID-19 genome, that only amounts to about 1% or less of the total genome, which is about 30,000 bases. Perhaps the worst feature of the tests is how they decide whether the sample is positive if more than one [\u2018gene\u2019] segment is being looked for. Some tests look for only one, so it must be present for a positive. But tests that look for two segments are split between those that require both to be present and those that require either one for a positive. Some tests look for three segments but only require any two to be present, while one test insisted on all three. Tests that allow a segment to be undetected raise the question of how it can be said that a virus was detected when an important part of it was missing.\u201d<\/p>\n
If the PCR is a uniform standardized test, a rabbit is a spaceship.<\/p>\n
Speaking of lack of uniformity in test results, here is a quote from Stephen Bustin, who is considered one of the foremost experts on PCR in the world. The excerpt is from his 2017 article, \u201cTalking the talk, but not walking the walk: RT-qPCR as a paradigm for the lack of reproducibility in molecular research\u201d [6]:<\/p>\n
\u201cAwareness of variability problems associated with PCR has been long-standing, with the first report describing inconsistencies with replicate and serial specimens evaluated within and between laboratories as early as 1992. The lack of a theoretical understanding of the dynamic processes involved in PCR, especially with respect to the amplification of nonreproducible and\/or unexpected amplification products, was also highlighted decades ago. These observations and the resulting implications are largely disregarded.\u201d<\/p>\n
Here is the story of an epic failure of the PCR, right out in the open, for all to see. The reference is the NY Times, January 22, 2007, \u201cFaith in Quick Tests Leads to Epidemic That Wasn\u2019t.\u201d [7]<\/p>\n
\u201cDr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing\u2026By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cFor months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThen, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cNow, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test [PCR] that led them astray.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are no national data on pseudo-epidemics caused by an overreliance on such molecular tests, said Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all the time. The Dartmouth case may have been one of the largest, but it was by no means an exception, she said.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cMany of the new molecular [PCR] tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called \u2018home brews,\u2019 are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates. But their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2019You\u2019re in a little bit of no man\u2019s land,\u2019 with the new molecular [PCR] tests, said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. \u2018All bets are off on exact performance\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWith pertussis, she [Dr. Kretsinger, CDC] said, \u2018there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,\u2019 and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. \u2018We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,\u2019 Dr. Kretsinger added.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cDr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2019The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,\u2019 Dr. Petti said. \u2018No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n
There is more to report about the PCR test, and I have, but I\u2019ll make this final point for now: I\u2019ve presented, over the last several months, compelling evidence that no one proved the existence of the COVID virus, by proper scientific procedures, in the first place. So the PCR test would be looking for\u2026what? A virus that isn\u2019t there?<\/p>\n
And on the back of this test, governments are wrecking economies all over the world, and untold numbers of human lives.<\/p>\n
SOURCES:<\/p>\n
[1] https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/media\/134922\/download<\/p>\n
[2] https:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/*\/http:\/\/www.who.int\/emergencies\/diseases\/novel-coronavirus-2019\/technical-guidance\/laboratory-guidance<\/p>\n
[3] https:\/\/www.fda.gov\/media\/136151\/download<\/p>\n
[4] https:\/\/www.creative-diagnostics.com\/sars-cov-2-coronavirus-multiplex-rt-qpcr-kit-277854-457.htm<\/p>\n
[5] https:\/\/theinfectiousmyth.com\/book\/CoronavirusPanic.pdf<\/p>\n
[6] https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1111\/eci.12801<\/p>\n
[7] nytimes.com\/2007\/01\/22\/health\/22whoop.html<\/p>\n