Pseudopandemic

by Iain Davis

  Looking for matches to published genomes, following 40 rounds of RT-qPCR amplification, they found 29,891-base-pairs which shared a 79.6% sequence match to the SARS-CoV genome. They called it 2019-nCoV and the WHO subsequently renamed it SARS-CoV-2.

  The Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments (MIQE standards [37]) state that 40 quantification cycles (Cq) of RT-qPCR is the absolute limit of detection (LOD) for any molecule. However, this only applies to establishing the existence of a molecule in quantitative experiments.

  The Wuhan researchers were trying to see if a virus could be detected. They were not trying to ascertain if that virus was present in sufficient quantity (viral load) to make someone ill.

  A study by scientists at Porton Down Defence Science and Technology Laboratory [38] demonstrated the importance of SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Subjects infected with high doses had more illness that those infected with medium doses and those with mild doses had very little illness. Accurately detecting the viral load was key to understanding if a person was at risk of becoming ill with COVID 19.

  RT-PCR was repeatedly referred to as the "gold standard" SARS-CoV-2 test throughout the pseudopandemic. It was only capable of detecting the presence of nucleotide sequences. RT-PCR is not a test for an active virus, only for sequences indicative of a virus. That judgment was entirely dependent upon a range of other factors.

  SARS-CoV-2 is said to be a single strand of RNA inside a protein shell called a capsid. This structure, containing the viral RNA, is called a virion. PCR cannot amplify RNA, only DNA. An enzyme called reverse transcriptase is added to first convert viral RNA in the sample to complimentary cDNA. In essence, cDNA is a manufactured DNA double helix created from the single strand RNA.

  During PCR amplification, when a chemical enzyme called a probe meets another called a primer, the probe decays releasing a fluorescent dye. Laboratories can measure the fluorescence in "real time," as these chemical reactions occur. Hence Real Time (RT) - PCR.

  By heating the cDNA to a specific temperature, the primers bind, or "anneal," to the ends of the cDNA strands, called the sense and antisense strands. The probe is then added to highlight the cDNA between the primers. For this to clearly indicate the corresponding presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, the primers must demonstrate specificity. They must bind to nucleotide sequences that are unique to SARS-CoV-2.

  Wherever in the world they were used, SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR kits were calibrated to the primers and probes specified in the WHO's SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR protocols. [39] These protocols were based upon a single, supposedly scientific study which claimed to offer a validated RT-PCR workflow for laboratories around the world to test for MN908947.1 (or its latest, updated version).

  The paper by Corman - Drosten et al "Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR" [40], was the second key supporting document for the pseudopandemic. The WHO used this paper to justify their protocols [41] defining the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test primers and probes [42].

  Like the Wuhan team, when Cormen - Drosten et al researched the genome they did not have any isolated samples of the SARS-CoV-2 virus from which to work. They formulated the WHO RT-PCR protocols using a nucleotide sequence from the Wuhan genome. They did not have a viral sample from a COVID 19 patient. They noted:

  "In the present case of 2019-nCoV, virus isolates or samples from infected patients have so far not become available to the international public health community. We report here on the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens."

  Many of the world’s leading scientific experts in virology, RT-PCR, epidemiology and other relevant disciplines had serious doubts about the scientific credibility of the Corman - Drosten et al paper. Some were concerned enough to instigate an independent peer review. They made a formal request that the paper be withdrawn [43] pending genuine scientific validation.

  The scientists found 7 serious scientific flaws in the study. The primers were inaccurate, non-specific and inadequate; the binding (annealing) temperature used in the study was too high, again giving non specific results; the study used 45 PCR amplification cycles, meaning the RT-PCR identified nothing but genetic background noise. There was no bio-molecular verification of the results. There were no controls applied to viral detection. No standardised operating procedures were described to enable others to repeat the experiment and the study design was imprecise, greatly increasing the chances of false results.

  Research undertaken by the Spanish medical journal D-Salud [44] showed that the Cormen - Droston primers and probes, stipulated in the WHO protocols, were not unique to the SARS-CoV-2 published genome. They could possibly indicate the presence of the virus, but could also tally to a range of nucleotide sequences, found in anything from microbes to the human genome itself. A "positive" RT-PCR test, using the WHO protocols, did not appear to reliably identify the presence of SARS-CoV-2.

  First published in January 2020 Corman - Drosten et al provided some initial scientific kudos for the core conspirators and informed influencers. Ultimately it enabled them to make the unfounded claims that the misnamed positive RT-PCR test was proof of infection and evidence of a COVID 19 “case.”

  The scientists who requested the paper's withdrawal were not convinced that the paper had ever been peer reviewed, as claimed. The paper was submitted for review on 21st January 2020, accepted on the 22nd and published on the 23rd. Proper peer review did not seem possible. The paper was first published in Eurosurveillance and two of the study's lead authors, Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken, were members of the Eurosurveillance editorial board [45].

  The WHO repeated the "errors" first uncovered by PACE's investigation of their declared 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Again, the WHO were either unaware or unwilling to disclose serious undeclared conflicts of interest. Four of the scientists responsible for the paper forgot to mention crucial commercial interests. As is the apparent norm, the WHO either didn't check or didn't care.

  Olfert Landt is the CEO of TIB-Molbiol and Marco Kaiser works for them as a scientific advisor. TIB-Molbiol were credited as the first company to produce SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test kits [46]. These were commercially available on the 11th January [47]. Nearly two weeks before the Cormen - Drosten et al paper was published.

  Neither Landt nor Kaiser made their disclosure until July 2020. Six months after the paper was published. By then the WHO protocols had been used to "assess" the scale of the first alleged wave of the pseudopandemic using the completely unsuitable RT-PCR kits, which weren't tests for a disease at all. They continue to be used to this day.

  However, despite their colleague’s admissions, Victor Corman and Prof. Drosten did not feel they needed to declare their affiliations with Labor Berlin [48]: a commercial laboratory that specialises in virus diagnostics using real time PCR testing.

  In 1993 Karry Mullis won the Nobel Prize [49] for Chemistry for his work developing the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification technique. It is a reiterative exponential growth process [50]. It can replicate a single DNA (or cDNA) molecule millions, even billions of times. In a 2013 email [51] to the widow of boxer Tommy Morrison, Karry Mullis wrote:

  "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."

  The so-called RT-PCR test, driving public perceptions of the pseudopandemic, was the somewhat arbitrary choice of primers and probes to pick out target nucleotide sequences from that amplified genetic mix.

  When using an RT-PCR test, the number of amplification cycles, beyond which no meaningful sequences can be identified, is referred to as the Ct threshold. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) considered the absolute maximum cycle threshold [52] (Ct) to be 34. Anything above 34 cycles would mean there wa
s no "meaningful or transmissible disease" detected.

  Yet the WHO's standard for RT-PCR, to identify alleged COVID-19 "cases," recommended 50 cycles of amplification [53]. At 50 cycles, the RT-PCR process cannot identify anything but an indistinct genetic soup. Or rather it will detect any nucleotide you want to detect, because the chances of that sequence not being somewhere in the sample is practically zero.

  Professor Stephen Bustin [54] is one of the world’s leading, living experts in RT-qPCR. A Professor of Molecular Medicine, he wrote the definitive reference to qPCR called the "A-Z of Quantitative PCR." He is also a founding author of the MIQE standards [55] for quantitative PCR.

  In a podcast discussion with researcher David Crowe, Prof. Bustin pointed out [56] that reliable results for RT-PCR (tests) are found between 20 and 30 cycles. This assumes the target nucleotide sequences and primer and probe design are specific, which does not seem the case with SARS-CoV-2, and that all the other many variables, such as the annealing temperature, are properly calculated and fastidiously observed. Like the IDSA, he stated that any result gleaned from more than 35 cycles was practically meaningless.

  French scientists analysed the results [57] from thousands of French "positive" RT-PCR tests. They compared viral cultures, produced from the nasopharyngeal samples collected for the subsequent RT-PCR tests, with the respective Ct values of those tests. From this they were able to calculate the Ct dependent accuracy. Up to 25 cycles accuracy was 70%, at 30 cycles this had dropped to 20% and with a Ct of 35, accuracy was less than 3%.

  Throughout the pseudopandemic State franchise authorities around the world have either been spectacularly vague or curiously tight-lipped about their RT-PCR laboratory Ct values. They could have been using up to 50 cycles, which would have been absurd.

  The New York Times reported [58] that they had seen data from researchers which found that most US laboratories were using 40 rounds of amplification and a few at 37. Using these Ct values their RT-PCR tests were woefully inaccurate. The false positive rate would have been extraordinarily high.

  The UK government guide to RT-PCR [59] Ct values stated the following:

  "Live and potentially infectious virus has been isolated in laboratory cell culture from samples exhibiting high Ct (>36) - to what extent this indicates a potential transmission risk from person-to-person is not fully understood."

  This was complete nonsense. The UK State franchise's claim that they found "live and potentially infectious virus" using more than 36 cycles of PCR amplification was highly questionable. Their consideration of potential transmission risk was practically irrelevant because the likelihood they had accurately identified the presence of active SARS-CoV-2 was virtually nil.

  For the RT-PCR test to have been the gold standard test, to identify cases in a global pandemic, consistency and rigorous adherence to effective, standardised procedure would have been necessary. This did not happen. A study from the Department of Microbiology [60] at Queen Mary Hospital, University of Hong Kong found wild variations in RT-PCR accuracy.

  RT-PCR was between 22% – 80% reliable depending on how it was applied. This general unreliability has been confirmed [61] by other studies. Further studies show clear discrepancies [62] between RT-PCR test results and clinical indication from other diagnostic tools, such as CT scans.

  Regardless of the numerous problems with the global RT-PCR testing regime there was a far more fundamental deception at the heart of the pseudopandemic. RT-PCR tests may or may not detect the presence of a virus but they are absolutely incapable of diagnosing a disease. RT-PCR could not, in any sense, identify a COVID 19 "case."

  The WHO stated:

  "Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by a newly discovered coronavirus.....The best way to prevent and slow down transmission is to be well informed about the COVID-19 virus, the disease it causes and how it spreads."

  The UK State published a study [63] of residents in care homes which purported to show the total number of confirmed cases. Among this number they claimed:

  "80.9% of residents who tested positive were asymptomatic."

  Yet the UK Coronavirus Act makes a clear distinction between the virus and the disease. It states [64]:

  "Coronavirus" means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); "coronavirus disease" means COVID-19 (the official designation of the disease which can be caused by coronavirus).”

  The definition of disease [65] is:

  "A disorder of structure or function in a human....one that produces specific symptoms."

  Therefore, to have the disease called COVID 19 you must have the symptoms of COVID 19. You may be pre-symptomatic, and possibly go on to develop COVID 19, but that cannot be determined by the RT-PCR test. In the UK government's study (cited above) 80.9% of the care home residents may have allegedly tested "positive" for SARS-CoV-2 but they did not have COVID 19 disease.

  In no way could they justifiably be described as COVID 19 confirmed cases. Doing so was contrary to the UK authorities own Coronavirus Act. However the UK State franchise apparently made this "mistake" endlessly, without ever correcting themselves in any of their public addresses, statements or national press briefings.

  Throughout the pseudopandemic the MSM used the terms coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 and COVID 19 interchangeably. Understandably this created further confusion, which was the point. Muddying the waters wasn't just a favoured tactic of the MSM and the national State franchises. The World Economic Forum [66] (WEF) stated:

  "People are 'asymptomatic' when they test positive for COVID-19 without having shown any symptoms."

  You cannot be both asymptomatic and test positive for COVID 19. You can only potentially test positive for the virus SARS-CoV-2. They are not the same thing.

  The WEF were among many within the GPPP who persistently asserted that RT-PCR tests were capable of identifying COVID 19. This was the epitome of disinformation. An RT-PCR test could not diagnose a "case" of COVID 19.

  This false claim was repeated ad nauseum [67] throughout the pseudopandemic. It seeped into the collective consciousness and drove the pseudopandemic hysteria. In one of numerous examples, on September the 21st 2020, the UK Government's Chief Scientific Advisor Sir Patrick Valance made precisely that "error." During his delivery of the SAGE update to the UK people, the GSK shareholder [68] said:

  "I want to start talking about the number of cases.....We've seen increases in cases across Europe.....we've seen an increase in the number of cases."

  Valance was referring to an increase in the number of RT-PCR tests, not cases. We can only speculate why a State franchise appointed scientist would give such a misleading impression. What can be said is that his "mistake" ably advanced the pseudopandemic narrative.

  To put this into context, speaking at a symposium Q&A [69] during the AIDS crisis, Karry Mullis stated:

  "If they could find this virus in you at all, PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody....If you can amplify one single molecule, up to something you can really measure, which PCR can do, and there's very few molecules that you don't have at least one of them, then that could be thought of as a misuse of it, to claim that it is meaningful.. It allows you to take a very minuscule amount of anything and make it measurable and then talk about it in meetings and stuff, like it is important.....It doesn't tell you that you are sick and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that."

  Karry Mullis scepticism and his observation that PCR could find "anything in anybody" seemed to be corroborated by the former president of Tanzania. In May 2020 President John Magufuli, who held a doctorate in chemistry, was sufficiently dubious of imported RT-PCR test kits that he sent swabs taken from a goat, a quail, a sample of engine oil and a paw paw to the Tanzanian National Health Laboratory. When the tests came back positive [70] for SARS-CoV-2 he sacked the technical director.

  Magufuli wasn't the only senior African politician
who openly questioned the pseudopandemic. The president of Burundi Pierre Nkurunziza [71] called the WHO's declared global pandemic nonsense. Aged just 55 he suddenly died of a suspected heart attack, although no one was really sure. His successor Evariste Ndayishimiye immediately declared COVID 19 to be the nations "biggest enemy."

  In a truly amazing coincidence, a few months later exactly the same thing happened to President John Magufuli. Shortly after announcing to the world that the WHO's RT-PCR protocols meant that engine oil tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the President of Tanzania just vanished. His whereabouts were unknown until it was officially announced he had suddenly died at the age of 61 [72].

  No clear explanation to his death was given, though it was said to be a suspected heart attack, just like President Nkurunziza's. In another remarkable coincidence, his replacement President Samia Suluhu Hassan, who started wearing a face mask in public, was warmly welcomed by the WHO's Director who said he looked forward to working with her [73].

  Karry Mullis also frequently questioned the scientific orthodoxy and was highly critical of the corruption of science [74] by corporate interests. He died suddenly of pneumonia aged 74, just weeks before the process he invented would be violated to create the pseudopandemic deception. Had he lived a few more months perhaps he could have brought some much needed reason to a terrified public.

  The propaganda, asserting that an RT-PCR test was proof of a COVID 19 "case," was accompanied by the equally false claim that so called asymptomatic cases posed a threat of infection. COVID 19, a disease with relatively small impact upon the population and a low mortality rate, was thereby heightened to plague status in the public's imagination.

  For the core conspirators' pseudopandemic to work it was vital to them that the majority accepted the high reported number of "cases." The intention to convince enough people that they had, or were at high risk of catching, COVID 19. For reason we will discuss shortly, the RT-PCR case deception created an environment where practically any illness, combined with a "positive RT-PCR result," was incorrectly reported and frequently misdiagnosed as COVID 19.