BOMBSHELL:  

The CDC quietly announced last week that it was withdrawing its request to the FDA for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Most of the public is probably unaware that similar to the current COVID-19 injections that are not yet approved by the FDA, but only given Emergency Use Authorization, so too the hundreds of diagnostic tests that supposedly detect COVID-19 are also NOT approved by the FDA, but only authorized via an EUA.

FDA ANNOUNCES THAT CDC’S PCR TEST FAILED REVIEW, WILL HAVE EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION REVOKED  (July 25, 2021)  

The FDA goes on to explain the risks associated with false positives and negatives:

False-negative results may lead to delayed diagnosis or inappropriate treatment of SARS-CoV-2, which may cause patient harm including serious illness and death. False-negative results can also lead to further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including when presumed negative patients are grouped into cohorts in health care, long-term care, and other facilities based on false test results.
False-positive results could lead to a delay in the correct diagnosis and the initiation of an appropriate treatment for the actual cause of patient illness, which could be another life-threatening disease that is not SARS-CoV-2. False-positive results could also lead to further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus when presumed positive patients are grouped into cohorts based on false test results.

.................................................................................

 The price of Covid-tests UNRELIABILITY is a matter of capital importance. It means people who have not been sick and their close ones had to isolate and thus suffer psychological or financial damage, or submit to inappropriate treatments. It means jobs have been lost, businesses destroyed, food chain has been damaged, poverty , suicide, domestic abuse and the lack of medical assistance have all taken a great toll on the people... it means only in the UK millions of life have been severely affected and thousands have been lost... FOR NOTHING. 

BOMBSHELL (July 2021) CDC to Withdraw Emergency Use Authorization for RT PCR Test Because It Cannot Distinguish Between SARS-CoV-2 and the Flu  

OLDER REFERENCES:
In the UK, the cost and implications of mass testing could be absolutely devastating for the economy and the society as a whole... 

An article summarizing the science  and that costed his author,  dr. Pascal Sacre his job:The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How to Mislead All Humanity - Using a "Test" to Lock Down Society (see more below on this page)  

"In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the 

Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which 

render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.  

The decision as to which test protocols are published and made widely available lies squarely 

in the hands of Eurosurveillance. A decision to recognise the errors apparent in the Corman-

Drosten paper has the benefit to greatly minimise human cost and suffering going forward."

YES, THEY CAN VACCINATE US THROUGH NASAL TEST SWABS AND TARGET THE BRAIN -   CITED STUDIES:  

• NANONEUROTHERAPEUTICS APPROACH INTENDED FOR DIRECT NOSE TO BRAIN DELIVERY 
• NANOEMULSION BASED INTRANASAL DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM OF SAQUINAVIR MESYLATE FOR BRAIN TARGETING
• HYDROGEL NANOPARTICLES AND NANOCOMPOSITES FOR NASAL DRUG/VACCINE DELIVERY

Excerpts from the presentation "Brain Science from Bench to Battlefield: The Realitites - and Risks - of Neuroweapons - James Giordano Phd (2009) - speaks about invisible weaponised NANO-technology used to disrupt the brain activity and the use of AI, genetically modified mosquito and bugs  etc....

- DO NOT GET TESTED ~ WORSE THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE ~ MS. CELESTE SOLUM VALIDATED...AGAIN https://www.bitchute.com/video/0XYDL1Ck0E8Q/

Possible Ref: 

- COVID19 TEST SWABS (WITH SELF ASSEMBLING NANO-MATERIALS... AKA MORGELLONS) https://www.bitchute.com/video/Jx825MiDJYi7/

- NANO PARTICLES IN COVID 19 TEST (also about Covid vax) - dr. Lorraine Day

https://www.bitchute.com/video/WoalgeFAOYkX/

ARE CORONAVIRUS TESTS RELIABLE?

“The PCR test is the preferred COVID-19 testing method in England (tinyurl.com/u9xxxup). It detects the presence of the virus by amplifying the virus’genetic material to a point where it can be detected by scientists (tinyurl.com/y7rno7pf).

A spokesperson for Public Health England told Reuters why PCR tests are being used widely in England: “Molecular diagnostic tests, such as real-time PCR, are the gold standard methods for identifying individuals with an active viral infection, such as SARS-CoV-2 (the cause of COVID-19 disease), in their respiratory tract. These tests are rapid and produce results in real-time.

Dr. Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel prize for inventing PCR to detect HIV, explains its limitations – why the PCR test is not especially diagnostic, for HIV or for anything else:

“Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron. PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral-load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV.
 

“THE TESTS CAN DETECT GENETIC SEQUENCES OF VIRUSES, BUT NOT VIRUSES THEMSELVES.” [1]

“Can’t identify viruses? Then how do we know all these people have the same disease, let alone the same novel disease?

This means that with all these people who have supposedly been PCR tested for COVID, there is still no conclusive diagnostic evidence that they have any coronaviruses at all. Let alone the same virus. According to the inventor of the primary diagnostic test.”

(The Doctor Within – Newsletter March 20: https://thedoctorwithin.com/blog/2020/03/10/newsletter-march-2020/)
[1]  National Library of Medicine Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent
Front Public Health. 2014; 2: 154. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172096/

Let’s add some more about the PCR test, following some key points from the article,The Corona Simulation Machine: Why the Inventor of The “Corona Test” Would Have Warned Us Not To Use It To Detect A Virus: https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/  

- The PCR technology was not meant to be used for diagnosis.

- PCR’s original purpose is to manufacture DNA samples for research by using a process of amplification that successively doubles the amount of the DNA in each cycle of the process.

- PCR doesn’t produce a Yes or No result. The more cycles of amplification in the process, the more doubling of the DNA. 

- The number of cycles used is chosen arbitrarily. So, the test could produce much less or much more DNA depending on the number of cycles used. Furthermore, the amount of DNA is on a continuum and the threshold at which point a test is considered positive is also arbitrary.

- Even a positive PCR test does not prove infection with SARS-COV2, as this virus has not been isolated.

- When you are swabbed for the test your DNA sample is recorded in a government database.

- Repeated tests on the same person can result in different results, some of which may be above and others of which may be below the cut-off for a positive result. Sometimes the test is given repeatedly until a positive result is obtained.”

(here the WHO description of PCR tests used for Covid-19: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/real-time-rt-pcr-assays-for-the-detection-of-sars-cov-2-institut-pasteur-paris.pdf?sfvrsn=3662fcb6_2)
 

An important article coming from an investigative journalist who knew Kary Mullin and interviewed another two experts on the PCR topic (WAS THE COVID-19 TEST MEANT TO DETECT A VIRUS? https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/ ) reveals indeed the possibility of having this common primary sequence (primer) determine  a false result: 

“ From an email from Kary Mullis (PCR creator), to the widow of boxer Tommy Morrison, whose career and life were destroyed by an “HIV test,” and who litigated ferociously for years, against test manufacturers, Dr. Mullis wrote, on May 7, 2013: “PCR 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. “

Lets’ add another couple of critical excerpts from the scientists’ testimonies...

““You have to have a whopping amount of any organism to cause symptoms. Huge amounts of it,” Dr. David Rasnick, bio-chemist, protease developer, and former founder of an EM lab called Viral Forensicstold me. “You don’t start with testing; you start with listening to the lungs. I’m skeptical that a PRC test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool.  It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine.  30% of your infected cells have been killed before you show symptoms. By the time you show symptoms…the dead cells are generating the symptoms.” I asked Dr. Rasnick what advice he has for people who want to be tested for COVID-19.
“Don’t do it, I say, when people ask me,” he replies. “No healthy person should be tested. It means nothing but it can destroy your life, make you absolutely miserable.”

The following is a presentation of how exactly, one can obtain a positive or negative result depending on the number of cycles of amplification they use for the PCR, for which THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL STANDARD:

“I conducted a two-hour interview with David Crowe– Canadian researcher, with a degree in biology and mathematics, host of The Infectious Myth podcast, and President of the think-tank Rethinking AIDS. He broke down the problems with the PCR based Corona test in great detail, revealing a world of unimaginable complexity, as well as trickery.

“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary,” he said. “In fact, I don’t 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 they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.”

“PCR is really a manufacturing technique,” Crowe explained. “You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t 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’s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it.  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’s their surrogate for how much DNA there is. I’m using the word DNA. There’s 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’s using DNA, but it’s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it’s the same thing, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there’s a certain number of cycles.”

This is where it gets wild. “In one paper,” Crowe says, “I found 37 cycles. If you didn’t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered “indeterminate.” And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I’ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it’s 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. So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.”[…]

“I think if a country said, “You know, we need to end this epidemic,” They could quietly send around a memo saying: “We shouldn’t be having the cutoff at 37. If we put it at 32, the number of positive tests drops dramatically. If it’s still not enough, well, you know, 30 or 28 or something like that. So, you can control the sensitivity.” Yes, you read that right. Labs can manipulate how many “cases’ of Covid-19 their country has. Is this how the Chinese made their case load vanish all of a sudden?”

Similar observations, in the BUlgarian Pathology Association article:   

 Speaking about the chinese let's observe that the unreliability of the PCR tests due to a very high rate of false positives has been noted in a Chinese research, from March 2020, now withdrawn:

- [WITHDRAWN: Potential false-positive rate among the 'asymptomatic infected individuals' in close contacts of COVID-19 patients] (Chinese study Mar 2020)

“The paper said the Government had hired private firms to help produce thousands of kits so mass testing will be available to the public within weeks. But Luxembourg-based supplier Eurofins has told officials a consignment of parts called probes and primers had been contaminated with coronavirus and would be held up.”

21st April Telegraph article shows that “Leaked memo exposes farce as Covid-19 results are less reliable than first thought because of 'degraded' performance”

- Revealed: NHS staff given flawed coronavirus tests: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/21/public-health-england-admits-coronavirus-tests-used-send-nhs/

“The British regulatory authority responsible for medical products has ordered the recall of hundreds of thousands of coronavirus tests after they were found not to be safe for use.

Up to 741,000 tests from the Randox company are affected, the British government confirmed on Saturday.”

Similar things have happened in the US:

-   Coronavirus testing at Boston lab suspended after nearly 400 false positives: 

Concerns about the reliability of the PCR coming from experts have been even published in the MSM:

The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus." In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said."  

" But even though the tests used by the NHS and other European health services are considered highly reliable by international standards, “it’s surprisingly hard to determine how accurate a coronavirus test is”, says Maureen Ferran, associate professor of biology at New York’s Rochester Institute of Technology, in an article on The Conversation.

When overall infection rates are low, as they are still in the UK and most of the rest of Europe, the risk of false positives - that is, people who don’t have the disease being told that they do - can be significant.

“If only 5% of a population have the coronavirus, a test with 95% specificity would result in a 50% chance of a false positive,” Ferran says."

Here you have Jason Leitch,'s clear confirmation: 

Yesterday (26th August 2020), a totally unexpected statement from CDC rocked the US:  

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/513704-cdc-says-asymptomatic-people-dont-need-testing-draws-criticism-from-experts?fbclid=IwAR1gG0lqEqpxDI1dYTR3JbcX78-znxA3TqHN9_Q-6c0oqU8f2kPMjJm_W6k

The guidance now states: “If you have been in close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with a COVID-19 infection for at least 15 minutes but do not have symptoms: You do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or State or local public health officials recommend you take one.”

Though the last words leave place for any possible abuse, this “is a stark change from the previous CDC guidance, which emphasized the importance of testing people who were in close contact with infected people.

“Testing is recommended for all close contacts of persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection,” the previous guidance said. “Because of the potential for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, it is important that contacts of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection be quickly identified and tested.””

Let’s also remember that this new CDC position is consistent with the idea that asymptomaticpeople (infected but not displaying the symptoms) practically do not spread the disease, as officially  affirmed at the beginning of June by Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the World Health Organization’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit. 

" It’s also unclear to what extent people with no symptoms transmit SARS-CoV-2. The only test for live virus is viral culture. PCR and lateral flow tests do not distinguish live virus. No test of infection or infectiousness is currently available for routine use.678 As things stand, a person who tests positive with any kind of test may or may not have an active infection with live virus, and may or may not be infectious.9  [...]  The transmission rates to contacts within a specific group (secondary attack rate) may be 3-25 times lower for people who are asymptomatic than for those with symptoms.1121415 A city-wide prevalence study of almost 10 million people in Wuhan found no evidence of asymptomatic transmission.16 "  

16. "Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan. All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270–0.339/10,000) were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases."   Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly 10 million residents of Wuhan, China,  

Now, of course, if we consider the previous assertions about the unreliability of the PCR tests, everything make sense in the light that ASYMPTOMATIC cases may be in fact FALSE POSITIVE, meaning such people are not infected with SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19)

- THE TESTS HAVE LOW RELIABILITY AND MAY GIVE SUCCESIVE DIFFERENT RESULTS FOR SAME INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT REASONABLE JUSTIFICATION.

- PCR TESTS ARE QUALITATIVE AND NOT QUANTITATIVE, THUS CANNOT MEASURE HOW MUCH A PERSON IS “BURDENED” WITH A DISEASE-CAUSING VIRUS, 

“the science is clear: The numbers generated by these RT-PCR tests do not in the least justify frightening people who have been tested “positive” and imposing lockdown measures that plunge countless people into poverty and despair or even drive them to suicide.

And a “positive” result may have serious consequences for the patients as well, because then all non-viral factors are excluded from the diagnosis and the patients are treated with highly toxic drugs and invasive intubations. Especially for elderly people and patients with pre-existing conditions such a treatment can be fatal, as we have outlined in the article “Fatal Therapie.” https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/fatale-therapie

Without doubt eventual excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the lockdown measures, while the “COVID-19” death statistics comprise also patients who died of a variety of diseases, redefined as COVID-19 only because of a “positive” test result whose value could not be more doubtful.”

WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said: “We have a simple message for all countries: TEST, TEST, TEST.”

Indeed, people may be concerned about countless other issues in relationship to this so-called pandemic… but truly, the one essential  action that is at the root of all the disaster we are seeing today is… TESTING. So they want more…

′′ There are swabs that contain glass fibres, rigid, in some cases silicon. Untested biocompatibility materials. The fundamental problem is that these fibres break while remaining inside the injury. Injury that is not citracified in case of repeated tampons. Why dig so much tissue when, if there is a virus, you can find it anywhere? Even in the saliva?" Dr. Antonietta Cats, Physicist and Bioengineer, Founder of Free Health Academy

′′ Swabs can be tolerable in small cases, but repeated in this way, in short cases you pass the 50 swabs in a few months... this is torture ". Avv. Nino Moriggia, ComiCost

′′ Every instrument will be used from civil, criminal, administrative, administrative, for the truth to come out and overcome this fideistic swab science that holds up this emergency state from the beginning of this story ". Avv. Linda Corrias, Constitutionalist and Community

Please save, share and use these resources.

P.S.  Please compare all the arguments and references presented on this page with the ones offered by  the Fact Chechers -   The inventor of PCR never said it wasn’t designed to detect infectious diseases 

 The lack of reliability of the PCR tests is to be found in the PCR MANUAL itself...
- CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel
https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
Chapter 'Limitations', pag 37-38:
"Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Optimum specimen types and timing for peak viral levels during infections caused by 2019-nCoV have not been determined. Collection of multiple specimens (types and time points) from the same patient may be necessary to detect the virus.
• A false-negative result may occur if a specimen is improperly collected, transported or handled. False-negative results may also occur if amplification inhibitors are present in the specimen or if inadequate numbers of organisms are present in the specimen.
• Positive and negative predictive values are highly dependent on prevalence. FALSE-NEGATIVE TEST RESULTS ARE MORE LIKELY WHEN PREVALENCE OF DISEASE IS HIGH. FALSE-POSITIVE TEST RESULTS ARE MORE LIKELY WHEN PREVALENCE IS MODERATE TO LOW.
• Do not use any reagent past the expiration date.
• If the virus mutates in the rRT-PCR target region, 2019-nCoV may not be detected or may be detected less predictably. Inhibitors or other types of interference may produce a false-negative result. An interference study evaluating the effect of common cold medications was not performed.
• TEST PERFORMANCE CAN BE AFFECTED BECAUSE THE EPIDEMIOLOGY AND CLINICAL SPECTRUM OF INFECTION CAUSED BY 2019-NCOV IS NOT FULLY KNOWN. For example, clinicians and laboratories may not know the optimum types of specimens to collect, and, during the course of infection, when these specimens are most likely to contain levels of viral RNA that can be readily detected.
• DETECTION OF VIRAL RNA MAY NOT INDICATE THE PRESENCE OF INFECTIOUS VIRUS OR THAT 2019-NCOV IS THE CAUSATIVE AGENT FOR CLINICAL SYMPTOMS.
• THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS TEST HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR MONITORING TREATMENT OF 2019-NCOV INFECTION.
• The performance of this test has not been established for screening of blood or blood products for the presence of 2019-ncov.
• THIS TEST CANNOT RULE OUT DISEASES CAUSED BY OTHER BACTERIAL OR VIRAL PATHOGENs."

In other words,  a positive test doesn't necessarily mean that the cause of the symptoms (if there are any) is COVID-19, doesn't give relevant information about the possible covid-19 infection that are needed to monitor it and in fact, may point to OTHER disease causing pathogens than 2019-ncov.  Three ways to say that this is not a reliable test to diagnose the infection with 2019-ncov, a fact that the inventor of the test, Nobel prize winner Karry Mullis has implicitly confirmed also, when claiming that this method is not to be used to diagnose viral infections.
And still, the use of this test has lead to more economic, social and psychological disaster than the humanity has ever seen after the second world war. And yes, to more lost lives than the ones considered to be caused by the disease that it supposedly identified.

USING PCR-TESTS TO FIND INFECTIOUS PEOPLE IS A FRAUD.

From Public Health of England:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-threshold-ct-in-sars-cov-2-rt-pcr

Document:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/926410/Understanding_Cycle_Threshold__Ct__in_SARS-CoV-2_RT-PCR_.pdf

Page 6:

RT-PCR detects presence of viral genetic material in a sample but is not able to distinguish whether infectious virus is present.

COVID diagnostic test: worst test ever devised? - Pulitzer Prize Nominee JOHN RAPPAPORT  

"From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit” [4]:

“Regulatory status: For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures.”

[....] “There 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.”

“Many of the new molecular [PCR] tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called ‘home brews,’ 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.”

Lies, Damned Lies and Health Statistics – the Deadly Danger of False Positives  

"That all said, Government decided to call a person a ‘case’ if their swab sample was positive for viral RNA, which is what is measured in PCR. A person’s sample can be positive if they have the virus, and so it should. They can also be positive if they’ve had the virus some weeks or months ago and recovered. It’s faintly possible that high loads of related, but different coronaviruses, which can cause some of the common colds we get, might also react in the PCR test, though it’s unclear to me if it does.

But there’s a final setting in which a person can be positive and that’s a random process. This may have multiple causes, such as the amplification technique not being perfect and so amplifying the ‘bait’ sequences placed in with the sample, with the aim of marrying up with related SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA. There will be many other contributions to such positives. These are what are called false positives.

Think of any diagnostic test a doctor might use on you. The ideal diagnostic test correctly confirms all who have the disease and never wrongly indicates that healthy people have the disease. There is no such test. All tests have some degree of weakness in generating false positives. The important thing is to know how often this happens, and this is called the false positive rate. If 1 in 100 disease-free samples are wrongly coming up positive, the disease is not present, we call that a 1% false positive rate. The actual or operational false positive rate differs, sometimes substantially, under different settings, technical operators, detection methods and equipment. I’m focusing solely on the false positive rate in Pillar 2, because most people do not have the virus (recently around 1 in 1000 people and earlier in summer it was around 1 in 2000 people). It is when the amount of disease, its so-called prevalence, is low that any amount of a false positive rate can be a major problem. This problem can be so severe that unless changes are made, the test is hopelessly unsuitable to the job asked of it. In this case, the test in Pillar 2 was and remains charged with the job of identifying people with the virus, yet as I will show, it is unable to do so.

Because of the high false positive rate and the low prevalence, almost every positive test, a so-called case, identified by Pillar 2 since May of this year has been a FALSE POSITIVE. Not just a few percent. Not a quarter or even a half of the positives are FALSE, but around 90% of them. Put simply, the number of people Mr Hancock somberly tells us about is an overestimation.

 The alternative to the PCR test, that has not been taken into account by any authority is the 'Sanger sequencing' according to dr. Sin Hang Lee

The Petitioner of this ADMINISTRATIVE STAY OF ACTION is Dr. Sin Hang Lee, a pathologist and founder of Milford Molecular Diagnostics, a CLIA-certified diagnostic laboratory in Milford, Connecticut.

Dr. Lee is a world-renowned expert on DNA sequencing-based diagnostics. He has trained and taught in some of the world’s most prestigious institutions and has published scores of scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals.

He recognized very early on that the PCR tests and other tests fast-tracked by the FDA were not accurate in identifying SARSCoV-2 RNA, and even sent a letter, back in March, to Dr. Margaret Harris and Dr. Eduardo Guerrero of the World Health Organization, and Dr. Anthony Fauci at the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), explaining why the tests to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA were generating false positives and negatives.

You can read his March 22, 2020 letter here. He explained that a two-phased test would “guarantee no-false positive results” based on his research and published work from Japan.

According to Attorney Mary Holland of Children’s Health Defense, he never received a reply from the WHO or the NIH. To this day, they continue to use faulty tests to identify COVID.ate by a factor of about ten-fold. Earlier in the summer, it was an overestimate by about 20-fold."

External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results  - November 2020   https://www.researchgate.net/.../346483715_External_peer...

"In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which 

render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test USELESS.  

The decision as to which test protocols are published and made widely available lies squarely in the hands of Eurosurveillance. A decision to recognise the errors apparent in the Corman-

Drosten paper has the benefit to greatly minimise human cost and suffering going forward."

Man in the UK sends the PCR unused test for checkup to NHS and result comes back POSITIVE (oct 2020) https://www.facebook.com/fstott1/videos/10157603052900222

From: Cease and desist papers served on Prof. Dr. Christian Drosten by Dr. Reiner Füllmich

3. The third false claim: PCR-based diagnostics

Without the lie of a symptom-free risk of infection, no one would have come up with the idea of

testing even perfectly healthy people for SARS-CoV-2 using PCR. In reality, PCR-based diagnostics

are fraught with so many sources of error that it was downright irresponsible to introduce them

for symptomless people:

● A PCR test cannot distinguish between lifeless viral debris from surviving infection, on the

one hand, and from viruses capable of reproducing, on the other. In this situation, any

mass testing of asymptomatic people will have fatal consequences: Since the vast majority

of COVID-19 infections are inconsequential, a large number of people will be tested who are perfectly healthy and whose immune systems have coped with the pathogen, but who

then carry these lifeless fragments. As will be seen, this is a source of error that will

become apparent all by itself in the coming weeks and months. This source of error will not

change even if your assertion in the podcast of September 29, 2020, that nevertheless with

lifeless viruses the full virus genome is still detectable, were true.

● No test is 100% accurate. At low prevalence, even minor deficiencies in the specificity of

the test system used are enough to noticeably diminish any beneficial predictive value of a

positive test result. Even the German Minister of Health, Jens Spahn, has acknowledged

this, namely in an ARD interview of 14. June 2020.

Nevertheless, testing continues en-masse - despite the continued low prevalence of

COVID-19. And not all test systems used are equally specific - if only because nowhere is it

prescribed what the minimum specificity of such a system must be in order to be allowed

to be used at all. An example of this is an incident that came to light in Augsburg, Germany,

in which 58 of a cohort of 60 people tested falsely positive. And this happened close to the

time of the lockdown decision of the Conference of Minister Presidents. Such decisions are

made on the basis of incorrectly determined case numbers and therefore with far-reaching

consequences.

● If the test system only begins detection after a large number of replication cycles, the viral

load is so low that active infection is ruled out. In the NDR podcast of May 7, 2020, you

yourself referred to a study according to which a patient is considered "less infectious"

above 25 cycles. In fact, the authors of a Canadian study failed to identify any replicable

virus beyond 24 cycles (Jared Bullard et al. in Clinical Infectious Diseases,

https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ ciaa638). Nevertheless, when the new case numbers are

added up again, nowhere is it checked at which Ct value the cut-off was set in the

respective positive test case. This makes the result of a PCR test highly susceptible to

manipulation - and thus susceptible to political influence when high case numbers are

"needed" in order to intimidate the population. In any case, the values determined on the

basis of a PCR test are not a sufficient basis for a complete shutdown of public life and

interference with people's liberties on an unprecedented scale.

● A PCR test is not capable of distinguishing mere contamination from infection. As long as

the viruses remain on the mucous membranes and do not enter the cells of the body, a

person is only contaminated, but not infected. In this case, the viruses do not replicate and

therefore do not pose a risk of infection. Nevertheless, a PCR test will deliver a positive

result for such people. You yourself pointed out this problem in an interview with

Wirtschaftswoche in 2014.

● The significance of a positive PCR test also depends on which and how many primers are

searched for. The less specific these are for SARS-CoV-2, the lower this significance.

Conclusion: a positive PCR test is not the same as an infection. We don't know what happened in

all the particular testing-labs. It is not surprising that Mike Yeadon, former Chief Scientific Officer

for Respiratory Research at Pfizer, strongly advises against the use of PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in a recent article (https://lockdownstics.org/lies- damned-lies- and-health-statistics-

the-deadly-danger-of-false-positives/).

And yet every positive test is included in the statistics of the Robert Koch Institute as an alleged

"new infection" and thus in the very metric on which political decisions are based.

A further complicating factor is that if a person is tested several times in rapid succession, each

positive test result is declared to be a "new infection".

For this very reason, PCR tests are not only unsuitable for individual diagnostics, but also not even

for screening. The only decisive factor must be how many people become ill, how many have to be

hospitalized, how many have to be treated in intensive care and how many have to be ventilated.

The instrument for reliably assessing these events has long existed at the Robert Koch Institute,

namely in the area of influenza surveillance: the Sentinel Program (see Section 13 (2) IfSG). It is

incomprehensible why this is not also used to a much greater extent for COVID-19. Friedrich

Pürner, the head of the Aichach-Friedberg public health department (who has since been

transferred), recently called for the Sentinel instruments to be used for COVID-19 surveillance.

The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus: 

  Tens of thousands of coronavirus tests have been double-counted, officials admit ( uk May 2020)Two samples taken from the same patient are being recorded as two separate tests in the Government's official figures 

-  Coronavirus testing at Boston lab suspended after nearly 400 false positives: 

 - HOUSANDS MAY HAVE BEEN FORCED INTO LOCKDOWN UNNECESSARILY BECAUSE THE TEST FOR COVID-19 IS FLAWED AND NEEDS TO BE CHANGED AS A "MATTER OF URGENCY".

"But Professors Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan warned that the tests were flawed because they were so sensitive they could skew the infection results.The pair, who reviewed 25 papers on Covid tests, found in one area of Italy over half of all positive tests were "false positives" as a result of the problem.Researchers called for the current PCR - polymerase chain reaction - test to be re-calibrated and questioned the rationale behind plans by the Health Secretary to introduce mass testing of which will see weekly tests for thousands.[...] The flaws could explain why despite seeing rising numbers of cases, the UK and Italy - the nations worst hit by Covid-19 - have not seen a parallel number of deaths even weeks after cases started rising again.Lead author Professor Jefferson, from the Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine, said: "I agree we need to find out who is infected but there is currently no way to distinguish people who are testing positive because they have ongoing infection or whether they have had a previous infection and are no longer infectious."For this reason you cannot lock down a whole region based on the infection levels as a result of testing."Nor do I understand the rationale behind mass testing. We need to refine testing to find infectious people as a matter of urgency - not people who have remnants of a previous disease." 

 Thousands may be in pointless lockdown as major flaw found in coronavirus test:  "Local lockdowns have been imposed because infections are deemed dangerously high, but research by experts at Oxford University suggests as many as half of the "positive" tests relied upon could actually be false. This is because the current test is so sensitive it can pick up dead and harmless viral particles that are shed once the infection has passed." 

Sweden Finds Thousands of False Positive Results From Chinese-Made Coronavirus Test Kits: 

Sweden's Public Health Agency said Tuesday it has found thousands of false positive coronavirus test results from Chinese-made tests.In a statement, the agency said that the PCR kits, which test for coronavirus infection, were made in China by BGI Genomics and that the errors were discovered during routine quality control checks in two laboratories. The tests were unable to distinguish the difference between very low levels of virus infection and a negative result. Third article is referencing to an Oxford scientist also (Daily Mail): 'There is no second wave': Oxford expert says rise in UK Covid cases is because of 'increased testing' and those infected are 'young, healthy, symptomless people' who are unlikely to die or be hospitalised "Professor Carl Heneghan, a medicine expert at the University of Oxford, said: 'There is currently no second wave. What we are seeing is a sharp rise in the number of healthy people who are carrying the virus, but exhibiting no symptoms. Almost all of them are young. They are being spotted because – finally – a comprehensive system of national test and trace is in place.'"

"An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2, and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful.

Further, the ruling suggested that any forced quarantine applied to healthy people could be a violation of their fundamental right to liberty.

Most importantly, the judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection. (20.11.2020)

Graphene - Biotechnology Used In Swab Tests - Using Field-Effect Transistor-Based Biosensor
"The team based their test on a field-effect transistor—a sheet of graphene with high electronic conductivity. The researchers attached antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to the graphene. When they added either purified spike protein or cultured SARS-CoV-2 virus to the sensor, binding to the antibody caused a change in the electrical current.
Next, the team tested the technique on nasopharyngeal swabs collected from patients with COVID-19 or healthy controls. Without any sample preparation, the sensor could discriminate between samples from sick and healthy patients. The new test was about 2-4 times less sensitive than RT-PCR, but different materials could be explored to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, the researchers say."
https://statnano.com/news/67620/Field-effect-Transistor-based-Biosensor-Detects-Coronavirus-in-Under-a-Minute#ixzz6riPNFk4q
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c02823?goto=supporting-info https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2020/april/diagnostic-biosensor-quickly-detects-sars-cov-2-from-nasopharyngeal-swabs.html
https://www.printedelectronicsworld.com/articles/20563/graphene-biosensor-detects-sars-co-v-2-in-under-a-minute

Intranasal Delivery Therapy
Currently, many studies are being conducted on developing a method for delivering nanoparticles into the nasal cavity as a safe and more effective countermeasure against viral infection and treatment.180 Since SARS-CoV-2 initiates infection on the mucosal surface of the eye or nasal cavity, mucosal therapy is the most important strategy for treating such infectious diseases.
https://www.dovepress.com/application-of-nanotechnology-in-the-covid-19-pandemic-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IJN

Graphene applications in biomedicine are numerous and can be classified into several main areas: transport (delivery) systems, sensors, tissue engineering and biological agents (for example antimicrobials).
https://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/learn/applications/biomedical/

Vaccines.The graphene oxide can efficiently load drug substances thanks to its large surface area, and the polyethylenimine binds the mRNA content for translation.
https://www.fiercebiotech.com/research/mrna-vaccine-delivered-hydrogel-shows-promise-as-a-durable-cancer-immunotherapy

Graphene Biosensor Developed for Rapid COVD-19 Testing
https://www.medgadget.com/2020/04/graphene-biosensor-developed-for-rapid-covd-19-testing.html

Health Canada have issued an advisory asking people not to “use face masks labelled to contain graphene or biomass graphene.”
https://medium.com/edge-of-innovation/how-safe-are-graphene-based-face-masks-b88740547e8c

Graphene and CNTs are both made of carbon atoms. A carbon nanotube can be thought of as a sheet of graphene (a hexagonal lattice of carbon) rolled into a cylinder. Accordingly, CNTs can be used as a starting point for making graphene, by “unzipping” them.
https://www.graphene-info.com/carbon-nanotubes

The possible effects of graphene on human health were examined at the cellular, tissue and
whole body levels in comparison to CNTs. The extent and mechanism by which cells interact
and uptake graphene is considered critically important, since once inside a living cell the
material could interact with or disrupt cellular processes and cause damage. Exposing the
body to carbon nanomaterials could result in either their accumulation in the tissues or
elimination through excretion. Accumulated nanomaterials could pose a risk to organ
function, and therefore to health.
At the level of the whole body, the authors indicate that there are two main safety factors to
consider regarding exposure to CNTs and graphene. The first is their ability to generate a
response by the body’s immune system; the second is their ability to cause inflammation and
cancer.
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/graphenes_health_effects_summarised_in_new_guide_48si8_en.pdf

Rapid Detection of COVID-19 Causative Virus (SARS-CoV-2) in Human Nasopharyngeal Swab Specimens Using Field-Effect Transistor-Based Biosensor
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.0c02823?goto=supporting-info