COVID: two vital experiments that have never been done

Why not? Because they would expose this vicious farce, the criminals perpetuating it, and end the lockdowns.

by Jon Rappoport

April 10, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

The first experiment would confirm or deny the accuracy of the PCR diagnostic test. The experiment would reveal whether this widespread test for COVID-19 can actually predict illness in the real world, in humans, not in the lab.

This experiment has never been done. It should have been done before the PCR was ever permitted to make claims about THE QUANTIY OF VIRUS that is replicating in a patient’s body.

Quantity is vital, because, in order to even begin talking about whether a virus can cause disease, millions and millions of virus must be actively replicating in a patient’s body.

Here is the experiment. Assemble a group of 500 volunteers, some sick, some healthy. Take tissue samples from them, and give the samples to PCR technicians. The technicians will never see or know who the 500 volunteers are.

The techs run these samples through the PCR. For each sample, they report which virus they found, and how much of it they found.

“In patients 34, 57, 83, 165, and 433, we found a great deal of the following disease-causing viruses.”

Now we un-blind those specific patients. By the test results, they should all be sick. Are they? Aren’t they? Then we would know. We would know how accurate and relevant the test is in the real world.

Of course, this is not the end of the experiment. The same samples should have been given to a whole other set of PCR techs to run. Did they come up with the same results the first set of PR techs did?

Several new groups of 500 patients each should be enlisted, and still more sets of lab techs should repeat the experiment, ending up with confirmation or rejection of the initial findings. This is the way the scientific method is supposed to work.

In the absence of this experiment, the quantitative PCR must be looked at as a rogue hypothesis that should never have been foisted on the public. It should never be used as the basis for determining case numbers of any disease.

In the “COVID-19 crisis,” all case numbers derived from the PCR should be thrown out…

COVID: two vital experiments that have never been done

UK 26th March 2020: Covid-19 Testing

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51943612

At the moment, only patients in hospital with flu-like symptoms are being routinely tested for the virus.
However, there have been calls to do more tests, especially for NHS staff and other key workers
…
The test being used is known as a PCR test. A swab from your throat or nose has to be taken and tested in the lab.

But scientists are also looking at tests which can check whether someone has had the disease in the past. These look for markers of immunity called antibodies in the blood.

They are faster than PCR tests, using a drop of blood on a device a bit like a pregnancy test.

This could help work out how widespread the disease has been and whether people are safe to go back to work

Here’s what the CDC says about the test for the Coronavirus

Straight from the horse’s mouth—both sides
by Jon Rappoport
March 24, 2020

“Positive [test] 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. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.”

I’m going to blow past the blatant contradiction in that CDC paragraph and cut to the chase.

The key line in that paragraph is: “The agent detected [the coronavirus] may not be the definite cause of disease.”

Here’s what the CDC says about the test for the Coronavirus

 

Faulty CDC PCR Test kits & Bogus virus counts

Jon Rappoport has written two recent articles on the coronavirus deceits of the (Statists (Western/Chinese), media and health bodies (WHO/CDC).

Sudden spike in coronavirus cases only means new method of counting

“All right, people, we want to inflate case numbers in the epidemic. How do we do it? Forget testing for the coronavirus. How about this? We run a test for ‘the epidemic disease’, pneumonia. If any kind of pneumonia turns up positive, we’ll just SAY this is a case of coronavirus, with no proof. Any objections? Good. Get busy.”

Mainstream news outlets are reporting a spike in the number of coronavirus cases in China. The news stories also mention this sudden rise is the result of a new method of counting.

NO tests for the presence of the coronavirus are now necessary, in China. Read that sentence again.

Sudden spike in coronavirus cases only means new method of counting

CDC announces test kits for coronavirus don’t work

“The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Wednesday morning said issues [problems] with the tests the agency has developed for the respiratory illness spreading rapidly through China surfaced after they were sent out to state labs…Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said federal officials believe the issue [problem] stems from one substance used in the test that ‘wasn’t performing consistently.’ She said the federal agency was remanufacturing that agent to try to correct the problem.”

I have news. Correcting those flaws in the test won’t make any difference. The test, as I reported days ago… CAN’T WORK.

Why? Because, as the CDC mentions on its website, the test is a version of the PCR. Technicians take a small specimen from a patient that might contain a virus. If it does, the virus particle(s) would be much too small to observe or analyze. The test then amplifies the specimen many times—as you would blow up a photograph—until a virus, if present, can be observed and—supposedly—identified.

There is just one flaw, and it’s fatal. The test says nothing reliable about HOW MUCH virus is in the patient’s body. Why is this important? Because millions and millions of virus, actively replicating in the body, are necessary to even begin talking about the virus causing disease. A few vague viral particles floating around in the body are irrelevant.
CDC announces test kits for coronavirus don’t work

Safe Yellow fever vaccine?

A friend informed me that they had to have a yellow fever certificate to travel. They are compelled (mandated) to receive the vaccine if they wish to get their travel visa, so I decided to look at adverse reactions.
Worst case scenario: Risk getting Yellow Fever-induced haemorrhagic fever or vaccine-induced “Yellow Fever Vaccine-Associated Viscerotropic Disease (YEL-AVD)”.

Yellow Fever factsheet
Signs and symptoms
YF varies in severity. The infection has an incubation period (time from infected mosquito feeding and symptoms developing) of three to six days. Initial symptoms include myalgia (muscle pain), pyrexia (high temperature), headache, anorexia (lack of appetite), nausea, and vomiting. In many patients there will be improvement in symptoms and gradual recovery three to four days after the onset of symptoms.

Within 24 hours of an apparent recovery, 15 to 25 percent of patients progress to a more serious illness. This takes the form of an acute haemorrhagic fever, in which there may be bleeding from the mouth, eyes, ears, and stomach, pronounced jaundice (yellowing of the skin, from which the disease gets its name), and renal (kidney) damage. The patient develops shock and there is deterioration of major organ function; 20 to 50 percent of patients who develop this form of the disease do not survive [18]. Infection results in lifelong immunity in those who recover.

“Reactions to YF vaccine are usually mild and short lived. They include myalgia (muscle pain), headache, and low-grade fever, typically occurring during the first five to ten days post vaccination, and will affect 10-30% of recipients.

Serious adverse events are rare and fall into three main categories: hypersensitivity reactions, vaccine-associated neurologic disease (YEL-AND) and vaccine-associated viscerotropic disease (YEL-AVD).

Hypersensitivity reactions
“The vaccine is propagated in chick embryos. The SPC for Stamaril® (the only YF vaccine used in the UK) lists sorbitol and lactose as excipients. Anaphylaxis (serious allergic reaction), because of sensitivity to either egg or other vaccine components, is estimated to occur at an incidence of 1.3 cases/100,000 doses distributed (US data) [21].”

Yellow Fever Vaccine-Associated Neurologic Disease (YEL-AND)
“Post-vaccine encephalitis – encephalitis is an uncommon but serious condition in which the brain becomes inflamed (swollen) -has been recognised as a rare event since the early use of the vaccine. Cases were reported in very young infants during the 1950s (when there was no age restriction for vaccine administration). In the 1960s, when vaccine use was restricted to babies aged over six months, reduced numbers of post vaccine encephalitis were reported [6].”

Yellow Fever Vaccine-Associated Viscerotropic Disease (YEL-AVD)
“YF vaccine-associated viscerotropic disease (YEL-AVD) is a syndrome of fever and multi-organ failure that resembles severe YF disease;
…
One to eighteen days (median four days) following vaccination [12], patients with YEL-AVD develop fever, malaise, headache, and myalgia that progress to hepatitis (inflammation of the liver), hypotension (low blood pressure), and multi-organ failure. Death has occurred in more than 60 percent of reported cases worldwide [6]”

So to sum up,  15% to 25% non-vaccinated people -depending on their general health/vitality/life style – will develop the more serious version of Yellow Fever, which looks very much like like the vaccine-induced Yellow Fever Vaccine-Associated Viscerotropic Disease (YEL-AVD)! Also note that serious Yellow Fever infection leads to haemorrhagic fever.
Haemorrhagic Fever? Similar family to Ebola, Marburg and Lassa fever. It then begs the question on false positives. Would I get a positive response for Ebola (re:Congo) if I had Yellow Fever? The PCR test as the basis for commercial testing is flawed as pointed out by Jon Rappaport: The gold standard of medical tests is fake

Pro-vaxxers, troll farms comment away. All views are welcome. Honest bloggers are open to debate, discussions unlike multi billion dollar pharma cartels.

Smartphone Device Detects HIV, Syphilis

http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20150204/smartphone-device-detects-hiv-syphilis

The low-cost device can spot markers of the infectious diseases from a finger prick of blood in 15 minutes. It’s the first smartphone accessory that replicates all the functions of a laboratory-based blood test, according to the researchers.
…
“This is a new technology that uses smartphones to detect antibodies against HIV and syphilis. Although an encouraging development, there are significant limitations, such as comparison with confirmatory tests in standardized laboratories,” said Dr. Ambreen Khalil, an infectious disease specialist at Staten Island University Hospital, in Staten Island, N.Y.
…
The device — called a dongle — is small and light enough to fit into a hand, uses little power and will cost about $34 to make, according to the researchers.

Full Webmd Article

CDC – Laboratory diagnosis of Ebola virus disease

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/diagnosis/
Ebola virus is detected in blood only after onset of symptoms, most notably fever, which accompany the rise in circulating virus within the patient’s body. It may take up to three days after symptoms start for the virus to reach detectable levels. Laboratory tests used in diagnosis include:

Timeline of Infection	Diagnostic tests available
Within a few days after symptoms begin	Antigen-capture enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) testing IgM ELISA Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) Virus isolation
Later in disease course or after recovery	IgM and IgG antibodies
Retrospectively in deceased patients	Immunohistochemistry testing PCR Virus isolation

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)

Polymerase Chain Reaction

Understanding the basis of the PCR technique used to test for Ebola

Christopher H. Logue Virology Training Lead / Adjunct Professor of Virology

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/christopherlogue
Virology Training Lead – Novel and Dangerous Pathogens Training Group
Public Health England, Novel and Dangerous Pathogens Training
January 2013 – Present (1 year 11 months)PHE – Porton Down

Note: Novel and emerging would seem to be euphemisms for NEW!