by Jon Rappoport
September 1, 2020
(To join our email list, click here.)
Townhall.com, August 29 [1]: “According to The New York Times, potentially 90 percent of those who have tested positive for COVID-19 have such insignificant amounts of the virus present in their bodies that such individuals do not need to isolate nor are they candidates for contact tracing. Leading public health experts are now concerned that overtesting is responsible for misdiagnosing a huge number of people with harmless amounts of the virus in their systems.”
“’Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…’ warns The Times.”
Yes, that’s what the NY Times is confessing (8/29) [2]: “Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus. Most of these people are not likely to be contagious…”
“In three sets of testing data…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.”
Let me break this down for you, because it’s a lot worse than the Times admits. The rabbit hole goes much deeper—and I’ve been reporting on the deeper facts for months.
The issue appears to be the ballooning sensitivity of the PCR test. It’s so sensitive that it picks up inconsequential tiny, tiny amounts of virus that couldn’t harm a flea—and it calls these amounts “positive.”
Therefore, millions of people are labeled “positive/infected” who carry so little virus that no harm would come to them or anyone they come in contact with.
That would be bad enough. But the truth is, the PCR test is not able to produce ANY reliable number that reflects how much virus a person is carrying. A lot, a little, it doesn’t matter.
The test has never been validated, in a large-scale study, for the ability to quantify the amount of virus a person is carrying. I’ve proposed how that study should be done IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT IN THE LAB.
You take 1000 people and remove tissue samples from them. A lab puts these samples through its PCR and announces which virus it found in each case and how much virus it found in each case.
It says: “All right, in patients 23, 46, 76, 89, 265 we found a high amount of virus.”
That should mean these particular patients are visibly sick. They will have obvious clinical symptoms. Why? Because actual illness requires millions of millions of a virus replicating in the body.
So now we unblind these particular patients with high amounts of virus, according to the PCR. Are they, in fact, sick? Or are they running marathons and swimming five miles a day? Let’s see. For real.
THIS VALIDATION OF THE PCR HAS NEVER BEEN DONE.
Therefore, the claim that the PCR can determine how much virus is in a human is completely and utterly unproven. Period.
Therefore, ALL the PCR tests being done on people all over the world reflect NOTHING about illness, infection, contagion, or transmission.
The scam is wall to wall.
But there’s more.
The PCR isn’t even testing for a particular virus in the first place. It’s using a piece of RNA assumed to be part of a virus. The assumption is unproven.
And finally, as I’ve been writing and demonstrating for months, there is no evidence that researchers used proper procedure to discover “a new coronavirus that is causing a pandemic.” [3]
Therefore, the PCR test, as worthless as it already is, aims to show the presence of a germ that has never been shown to exist.
But let’s lock down the planet, destroy economies and untold numbers of lives in the process.
SOURCES:
[1] townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/08/29/it-looks-like-a-lot-of-those-positive-covid-tests-should-have-been-negative-n2575305
[2] nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
[3] https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/10/19/dr-tom-cowan-explores-the-covid-virus-invented-out-of-sheer-nonsense/
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
And then there’s this BS
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/04/key-coronavirus-forecast-predicts-over-410000-total-us-deaths-by-jan-1.html
Jon, have you examined the excess deaths numbers in detail? Based on up to date CDC excess deaths numbers there clearly is something major going on — or so it seems based on the rolling updates of excess deaths. Would appreciate your insights as to whether these numbers are for some reason not reliable at this time.
A good source for answers would be the CDC website for the actual RT-PCR ASSAY they made and I believe also have a patent on. The FDA authorized the CDC TO use the test.
On page 2 of the document from the CDC it says under intended use.
Results are for the identification of 2019-nCoV RNA. The 2019-nCoV RNA is generally detectable in upper
and lower respiratory specimens during infection. Positive 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.
It also says.
Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for
treatment or other patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical
observations, patient history, and epidemiological information.
The document is available here from the CDC.
https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
FYI:
In 2019 through 2020 there were major volcanic eruptions from volcano’s in the pacific (Russia). These volcanoes produced massive amounts of S02 and ash which were released into the atmosphere. There was also an eruption early in 2020 off the coast of Italy. S02 can and does cause lung related problems. Coupled with fine ash particles these particles are small enough to make it deep into the lungs. Data shows that whuan china had severe S02 levels via satellite measurements during nov 2019 through January 2020. The plumes went south west and also east to the USA and then onto Europe.
The Russian volcano were Raikoke & Shiveluch, in Italy Stromboli also erupted.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2019/09/17/eruption-of-russian-volcano-caused-colorful-skies/
The article routinely references how much “virus”… with specifying which. This is strategic, not specifically stating covid, since PCR doesn’t detect which. Just, viral material.