![\"\"](\"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/Screen-Shot-2020-10-07-at-10.52.23-AM.png\")
<\/p>\nWritten by John O’Sullivan
\nPRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The\u00a0polymerase chain reaction<\/b>\u00a0(PCR) test \u2013 used as the bellwether for coronavirus \u2013 is not fit for purpose. Herein, we summarize discredited COVID19 testing and encourage you to do your own research and become better informed as to how misdirection, incompetence and scientific fraud is gravely harming our personal and societal well being.<\/p>\n
Nick Delgado<\/a>\u00a0wrote an excellent primer in April of how this COVID19 test is widely being used (and abused) and we incorporate some of his analysis herein. Despite problems known even then, the PCR test remains the most commonly used COVID-19 test both in the US and globally.<\/p>\n The PCR test was invented by Kary Mullis (photo, top) in 1985 but it was never intended for detecting disease; it\u2019s primary applications included biomedical research and criminal forensics.<\/p>\n Before his death in 2019 Mullis told reporters:<\/p>\n \u201c<\/strong>\u201cScientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don\u2019t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013<\/em>Kary Mullis, Inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Mullis often spoke out against using his test for diagnosing illnesses. So-called experts ignored the warning. But now, many independent scientists and medical professionals are coming forward to denounce the idiocy of governments, the media and NGO\u2019s for pushing the number of novel coronavirus \u201ccases\u201d (not deaths) premised on spurious results from this problematic PCR test.<\/p>\n Reporting on the original 1980\u2019s great breakthrough of the Mullis Polymerase Chain Reaction innovation, the\u00a0London Observer<\/em>\u00a0wrote:<\/p>\n \u201cNot since James Watt walked across Glasgow Green in 1765 and realized that the secondary steam condenser would transform steam power, an inspiration that set loose the industrial revolution, has a single, momentous idea been so well recorded in time and place.\u201d\u2026<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Other than Delgado\u2019s excellent introductory article, we recommend reading\u00a0Allan Weisbecker<\/a><\/span><\/span>\u00a0who offers a more up to date (August 16, 2020<\/a>) analysis citing recent evidence exposing the fallacies around COVID testing. [1]<\/p>\n Weisbecker poses the key question we should ask ourselves:<\/p>\n \u201cWhat do we mean when we say somebody has \u2018tested positive\u2019 for the Corona Virus?<\/strong><\/p>\n We\u2019ve been hijacked by our technologies, but left illiterate about what they actually mean. In this case, I am in the rare position of having known, spent time with, and interviewed the inventor of the method used in the presently available Covid-19 tests, which is called PCR, (Polymerase Chain Reaction.)\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Mullis and others correctly called out the idiocy of\u00a0groupthink<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 the reliance on ill-informed and misguided \u2018experts\u2019 who direct government health policy. A key culprit among prominent world bodies is the World Health Organization (WHO) loudly telling is to \u201ctest, test, test<\/a>!\u201d<\/p>\n WHO head Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and his co-conspirators pushing the new dystopian plan for a \u2018Great Reset\u2019<\/a>\u00a0know full well the more you test, the more positive cases will emerge and the more their insane over reaction to the \u2018crisis\u2019 becomes validated. But dissenters are wise to this scam. Here is a typical comment from one the thousands of experts dissenting from the accepted narrative:<\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m skeptical that a PCR test is ever true. It\u2019s a great scientific research tool. It\u2019s a horrible tool for clinical medicine,\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0warns Dr. David Rasnick, biochemist and protease developer.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As Delgado\u2019s research discovered:<\/p>\n \u201cThe PCR test is so well known for giving inaccurate results that the CDC warns not to give the test to asymptomatic persons \u201cbecause of the increased likelihood of false-positive results.<\/strong><\/em>\u201d In fact, there is a famous Chinese paper that stated if you\u2019re testing asymptomatic people with PCR, up to 80% of positives could be false positives.<\/p>\n But the numbers aren\u2019t just skewed by false positives, they are also skewed by how many people are offered the test and what condition they are in. For example, during the first few weeks of the \u2018pandemic\u2019 tests were scarce. As they became more widely available of course the number of infections accounted for increased as well, and false-positive results further increased those numbers.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Widespread reliance on the PCR for COVID19 testing is beyond stupid. It is criminal because it is pushed as justification for maintaining \u2018lockdown\u2019 measures and compounding the fear and misery (including economic) much of the world is still suffering as a consequence of this gigantic science fraud.<\/p>\n To better appreciate the insanity that has befallen us let\u2019s review a little of the history of the PCR test to see how we sank into this nonsensical unscientific morass. Canadian researcher David Crowe, with a degree in biology and mathematics, host of\u00a0The Infectious Myth\u00a0<\/em>podcast had this to say on the testing insanity:<\/p>\n \u201cThe first thing to know is that the test is not binary. In fact, I don\u2019t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative.<\/p>\n In the early 1990\u2019s, PCR, (Polymerase Chain Reaction) came into popular use, and Kary Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize for it in 1993. PCR, simply put, is a thermal cycling method used to make up to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample, making it large enough to study. As it correctly says on PCR\u2019s\u00a0Wikipedia page<\/a>, PCR is an \u201c\u2026indispensable technique\u201d with a \u201cbroad variety\u201d of applications, \u201c\u2026including biomedical\u00a0research<\/em>\u00a0and criminal forensics.\u201d [Italics mine.] The page goes on to say, to my [Mullis, the inventor of the test] dismay, that one of the applications of PCR is \u201c\u2026for the diagnosis of infectious diseases.\u201d\u2026<\/p>\n \u201cThe first thing to know is that the test is not binary,\u201d he said. \u201cIn fact, I don\u2019t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative. What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and\u00a0they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.<\/strong>\u201d [emphasis added]<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s so important. I think people envision it as one of two things: Positive or negative, like a pregnancy test. You \u201chave it\u201d or you don\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cPCR is really a manufacturing technique,\u201d Crowe explained. \u201cYou start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn\u2019t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it\u2019s great\u2026\u00a0This is where it gets wild.<\/p>\n \u201cIn one paper,\u201d Crowe says, \u201cI found 37 cycles. If you didn\u2019t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered \u201cindeterminate.\u201d And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I\u2019ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it\u2019s quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test.\u00a0So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.\u201d\u201d<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The fact is a vast majority of people infected with COVID-19 have mild symptoms and it\u2019s estimated that 50% of people infected are\u00a0asymptomatic<\/a>.<\/p>\n Many of the people who allegedly died from COVID-19 were already very sick and would have died anyway in a short period of time. The scientific data made available to the public proves that around 95 percent of deaths were patients were over 80 years of age with two or more comorbidities (such as cancer).<\/p>\n Social media, mainstream scientific journals (owned by self-serving corporations) and the biased national press that makes money from selling bad news so are very much\u2019 in\u2019 on ensuring you and I do not get to see the evidence contradicting the accepted \u2018doom and gloom\u2019 pandemic narrative.<\/p>\n An important Chinese research paper that exposed that around 80 percent of PCR test positives could be false positives was quietly withdrawn by PubMed. Though only the abstract is still online even though the Chinese paper appears to still be published and available.<\/p>\n Interestingly, a\u00a0month 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><\/strong><\/p>\n Allan Weisbecker<\/a><\/span><\/span>\u00a0\u2018s article tells us:<\/p>\n \u201cI actually have a translation with a friend. I translated it into English and it\u2019s a really, standard calculation of what they call positive predictive value. The abstract basically said that in asymptomatic populations,\u00a0the chance of a positive coronavirus test being a true positive is only about 20%. 80% will be false positive.\u201d<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n PCR for diagnosis is a big problem when you have to resort to amplifying the outcome a huge number of times \u2013 this increases the likelihood of generating massive amounts of false positives.<\/p>\n The United States, UK and other major nationals have all but abandoned classical diagnostic medicine in favor of biotech, or lab result medicine. No longer are doctors physically examining patients and determining a simple respiratory infection like a cold or the flu.<\/p>\n Instead, due to prevailing fears, they are jumping the gun to assume \u201ccovid\u201d<\/em>\u00a0because the symptoms are all but identical. As a clue, check the official records and see how few people are classified as ill from those traditional ailments. \u2018Hey presto<\/em>\u2018 almost every chest infection now is certified as likely due to the novel coronavirus.<\/p>\n The PCR test is finding so many asymptomatic cases (people who test positive but are otherwise very healthy with no symptoms) because the very replication technique relied on is designed to find microscopic fragments and to amplify them so that they appear far worse than they are.<\/p>\n The PCR test, in almost all cases, is finding tiny fragments of nucleic acids. On this point consider an email from Kary Mullis, to the widow of boxer Tommy Morrison, whose career and life were destroyed by an \u201cHIV test,\u201d and who litigated ferociously for years, against test manufacturers, Dr. Mullis wrote, on May 7, 2013:<\/p>\n \u201cPCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment. \u201c<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Fragments so microscopically tiny that there is no possibility any healthy person would be in danger from suffering a full-blown infection. So microscopically small yet are being reported by labs and thereafter by policymakers as \u2018positives.\u2019<\/p>\n But by any rational, sane interpretation these are not to be relied on as evidence of someone who is sick. These are people whose tests are showing up so infinitesimally small but are a \u2018positive\u2019 trigger even when they may be nothing more than the remnants of an inconsequential common cold they had weeks or months earlier.<\/p>\n Another example of the insanity is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients. The majority went from \u201cpositive\u201d to \u201cnegative\u201d back to \u201cpositive\u201d at least once, and up to\u00a0five times in one patient<\/a>.<\/p>\n Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February that the PCR tests are \u201conly 30 to 50 per cent accurate<\/a>;\u201d while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a\u00a0letter to the WHO\u2019s coronavirus response team<\/a>\u00a0and to Anthony Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that:<\/p>\n \u201cIt has been widely reported 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<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Also, the mainstream medical journal Deutsches \u00c4rzteblatt reports that in Germany\u00a070 percent of the people tested \u201cpositive\u201d are not \u201cpositive\u201d at all<\/strong>. Yet \u201cthey are prescribed quarantine.\u201d<\/p>\n It isn\u2019t what people imagine, say for a pregnancy test, where you have a definable positive or negative indicating a foetus (or not). You don\u2019t keep amplifying the results of a negative pregnancy test until you get a \u2018positive\u2019 for a baby. It is insane. But this is what is happening (and passes muster) in coronavirus PCR tests.<\/p>\n As Crowe explained, a lab could conceivably opt to keep amplifying the sequence of testing of a sample\u00a0UNTIL<\/strong>\u00a0they reach the point they arbitrarily decide they have enough copies of their sample to declare a positive result for COVID19. Labs are thus motivated to amplify samples and find more covid cases \u2013 \u201cjust to be safe!\u201d It is a vicious circle of fear driving stupidity.<\/p>\n No \u2018Gold Standard\u2019 Therefore No Testing Is Accurate<\/strong><\/p>\n In any case, those tests were not built on a \u201cgold standard\u201d which means purification of an actual virus. Purification means the pathogen has been separated from all else. HIV co-discoverer and Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier famously told journalist Djamel Tahi in an interview: \u201cI repeat, we did not purify<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper \u201cInterpreting a COVID-19 test result<\/a>,\u201d published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a \u201clack of such a clear-cut \u2018gold-standard\u2019 for COVID-19 testing.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n This admission was also made to us by Thomas L\u00f6scher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists. [2]<\/p>\n David Crowe explains it further:<\/p>\n \u201cPCR is really a manufacturing technique. You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn\u2019t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it\u2019s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it.<\/p>\n You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength. So, they measure the amount of light that comes back and that\u2019s their surrogate for how much DNA there is. I\u2019m using the word DNA. There\u2019s a step in RT- PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So, the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It\u2019s using DNA, but it\u2019s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it\u2019s the same thing, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there\u2019s a certain number of cycles.\u201d [3]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Speaking to Principia Scientific International<\/a>\u00a0on the shocking absence of any such \u201cgold standard\u201d an internationally respected virus testing expert,\u00a0Dr Saeed Qureshi<\/a>\u00a0said he knows of no such \u201cgold standard\u201d for the virus test. He said this is because no lab has yet satisfactorily identified, isolated and replicated a distinct and new virus\u00a0\u2013\u00a0 COVID19<\/em>.<\/p>\n But compounding the problem of false positives is the systemic errors and perhaps potential fakery that is only just being uncovered.<\/p>\n Big League Politics has\u00a0reported on widespread errors<\/a>\u00a0coming from certain COVID-19 testing facilities, with the total of cases being widely overinflated.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Florida Department of Health is scrambling after\u00a0fraud was discovered<\/a>\u00a0in how COVID-19 testing rates were being reported across the state.<\/p>\n After the health department released a report showing a stunning statewide positivity rate of 11 percent, analysis of the numbers revealed severe irregularities.\u00a0Many labs reported 100 percent positivity<\/strong>, meaning that every test came back positive.<\/p>\n In addition to the labs reporting 100 percent positivity, there were other testing facilities that reported abnormal levels of positive tests. FOX 35 found that Centra Care reported that 83 people who submitted tests were all counted as positive. The Orlando Veteran\u2019s Affairs Medical Center reported a 76 percent positivity rate, NCF Diagnostics reported tests at a 88 percent positivity rate, and Orlando Health reported a 98 percent positivity rate.<\/p>\n Orlando Health has admitted that the results from the health department\u2019s report are dubious. They said that their positivity rate was only 9.4 percent, not 98 percent as it was shown in the report. This casts major doubt regarding the accuracy of the total cases that have been reported in Florida.<\/p>\n The fake news has used Florida as an example to bolster their COVID-19 mass hysteria due to all of the supposed cases that were popping up throughout the state.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Award-winning journalist Torsten Engelbrecht gives more details in his article \u2018COVID19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless<\/a>.\u2019 [4]<\/p>\n Adding to the skepticism are pathologists who are yet to find a single autopsy showing COVID19, as reported in a\u00a0June 27 Off-Guardian article. [5]<\/a><\/p>\n The truth is, viruses are rarely deadly. The majority of coronavirus-related deaths in humans are due to OTHER chronic diseases that hinder the immune system or cause it to go haywire in response to the virus (cytokine storm), and not damage caused by the virus itself.<\/p>\n We need to stop saying\u00a0 \u201cStay safe!\u201d to everyone. We are safe. We have a powerful and intelligent immune system that is designed to withstand toxic, microbial inundation at all times.<\/p>\n The pandemic emergency needs to cease immediately and the world must never again resort to a knee-jerk reaction to a \u2018crisis\u2019 that, in effect, occurs every year in any normal flu season. We know this particular outbreak is no worse than a bad influenza because \u2018Neither US Nor UK Have ANY Excess Deaths From COVID19<\/a>.\u2019<\/p>\n The CDC has even quietly updated that only 6% of ~180,000 US \u201cvirus\u201d deaths are directly attributed to the virus. [6]. While British mathematician,\u00a0Andrew Maher<\/a>\u2018s analysis of the official data goes even further. He concluded that\u00a0NO ONE has died from COVID19<\/strong>. [7]<\/p>\n We must stop being sheep and start living our lives again. Together, we refuse to surrender to fear.<\/p>\n [1]\u00a0http:\/\/blog.banditobooks.com\/labs-can-manipulate-how-many-cases-of-covid-19-their-country-has\/<\/a><\/p>\n [2] E-mail from Prof.\u2009Thomas L\u00f6scher from March 6, 2020<\/p>\n [3]\u00a0https:\/\/uncoverdc.com\/2020\/04\/07\/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus\/<\/a><\/p>\n [4]\u00a0https:\/\/principia-scientific.com\/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless\/<\/a><\/p>\n [5]\u00a0https:\/\/off-guardian.org\/2020\/06\/27\/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless\/<\/a><\/p>\n [6]\u00a0https:\/\/www.cdc.gov\/nchs\/nvss\/vsrr\/covid_weekly\/index.htm<\/a><\/p>\n [7] https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/results?search_query=Andrew+Mather<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/principia-scientific.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/999-2.jpg?resize=550%2C529&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n