COVID diagnostic test: worst test ever devised?

by Jon Rappoport

September 10, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

The need for the COVID test is being hyped to the skies. More tests automatically create more case numbers. This allows heads of state and national governments to whipsaw the public:

“We were re-opening the economy, but now, with the escalating case numbers, we’ll have to impose lockdowns again…”

This wreaks more havoc and economic destruction, which is the true goal of the COVID operation. Its cruelty is boundless.

In this article, I present quotes from official sources about their own diagnostic test for the coronavirus, the PCR.

Spoiler alert: the admitted holes and shortcomings of the test are devastating.

From “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel” [1]:

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”

Translation: A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID virus might not be in the patient’s body at all, either.

From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans” [2]:

“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”

Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.

The WHO document adds this little piece: “Protocol use limitations: Optional clinical specimens for testing has [have] not yet been validated.”

Translation: We’re not sure which tissue samples to take from the patient, in order for the test to have any validity.

From the FDA: “LabCorp COVID-19RT-PCR test EUA Summary: ACCELERATED EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) SUMMARYCOVID-19 RT-PCR TEST (LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA)” [3]:

“…The SARS-CoV-2RNA [COVID virus] is generally detectable in respiratory specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status…THE AGENT DETECTED MAY NOT BE THE DEFINITE CAUSE OF DISEASE (CAPS are mine). Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.”

Translation: On the one hand, we claim the test can “generally” detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient. But we admit that “the agent detected” on the test, by which we mean COVID virus, “may not be the definite cause of disease.” We also admit that, unless the patient has an acute infection, we can’t find COVID. Therefore, the idea of “asymptomatic patients” confirmed by the test is nonsense. And even though a positive test for COVID may not indicate the actual cause of disease, all positive tests must be reported—and they will be counted as “COVID cases.” Regardless.

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.”

Translation: Don’t use the test result alone to diagnose infection or disease. Oops.

“non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”

Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.

“Application Qualitative”

Translation: This clearly means the test is not suited to detect how much virus is in the patient’s body. I’ll cover how important this admission is in a minute.

“The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in combination with their symptoms/signs, history, other laboratory tests and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis, and are only for the reference of clinicians.”

Translation: Don’t use the test as the exclusive basis for diagnosing a person with COVID. And yet, this is exactly what health authorities are doing all over the world. All positive tests must be reported to government agencies, and they are counted as COVID cases.

Those quotes, from official government and testing sources, torpedo the whole “scientific” basis of the test.


And now, I’ll add another lethal blow: the test has never been validated properly as an instrument to detect disease. Even if we blindly assumed it can detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient, it doesn’t show HOW MUCH virus is in the body. And that is key, because in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world, not in a lab, the patient would need to have millions and millions of the virus actively replicating in his body.

Proponents of the test assert that it CAN measure how much virus is in the body. To which I reply: prove it.

Prove it in a way it should have been proved decades ago—but never was.

Take five hundred people and remove tissue samples from them. The people who take the samples do NOT do the test. The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they’re in.

The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and HOW MUCH of it they found.

“All right, in patients 24, 46, 65, 76, 87, and 93 we found a great deal of virus.”

Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. Are they sick? Are they running marathons? Let’s find out.

This OBVIOUS vetting of the test has never been done. That is an enormous scandal. Where are the controlled test results in 500 patients, a thousand patients? Nowhere.

The PCR is an unproven fraud.

“But…but…what about all the sick and dying people…why are they sick?”

I’ve written thousands of words answering that question, in past articles. A NUMBER of conditions—none involving COVID, and most involving old traditional diseases—are making people sick.

There are other large-scale studies of the PCR test that have never been done. I’ve covered them in detail, in prior articles. To summarize: a study using a thousand patients, in which their tissue samples are sent to 30 different labs for analysis and verdicts, to see whether the results are uniform from lab to lab; and a study of 1000 patients, in which the results are compared with the results of analysis by electron microcopy. These large studies—never done.

In other words, the PCR test has never been adequately tested; it has never been properly validated as a diagnostic tool.

Here, from Canadian researcher David Crowe’s bombshell paper, FLAWS IN CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC THEORY, is a key quote about the PCR test [5]:

“A review of 33 RT-PCR tests for COVID-19 approved under US FDA Emergency Use Authorizations showed a wide range of differences in what the tests were looking for and how they decided whether they had found it. The tests look for a variety of different segments (‘genes’) of the presumed COVID-19 genome, that only amounts to about 1% or less of the total genome, which is about 30,000 bases. Perhaps the worst feature of the tests is how they decide whether the sample is positive if more than one [‘gene’] segment is being looked for. Some tests look for only one, so it must be present for a positive. But tests that look for two segments are split between those that require both to be present and those that require either one for a positive. Some tests look for three segments but only require any two to be present, while one test insisted on all three. Tests that allow a segment to be undetected raise the question of how it can be said that a virus was detected when an important part of it was missing.”

If the PCR is a uniform standardized test, a rabbit is a spaceship.

Speaking of lack of uniformity in test results, here is a quote from Stephen Bustin, who is considered one of the foremost experts on PCR in the world. The excerpt is from his 2017 article, “Talking the talk, but not walking the walk: RT-qPCR as a paradigm for the lack of reproducibility in molecular research” [6]:

“Awareness of variability problems associated with PCR has been long-standing, with the first report describing inconsistencies with replicate and serial specimens evaluated within and between laboratories as early as 1992. The lack of a theoretical understanding of the dynamic processes involved in PCR, especially with respect to the amplification of nonreproducible and/or unexpected amplification products, was also highlighted decades ago. These observations and the resulting implications are largely disregarded.”

Here is the story of an epic failure of the PCR, right out in the open, for all to see. The reference is the NY Times, January 22, 2007, “Faith in Quick Tests Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.” [7]

“Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing…By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing…”

“For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.”

“Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.”

“Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test [PCR] that led them astray.”

“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.”

“’You’re in a little bit of no man’s land,’ with the new molecular [PCR] tests, said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ‘All bets are off on exact performance’.”

“With pertussis, she [Dr. Kretsinger, CDC] said, ‘there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,’ and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. ‘We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,’ Dr. Kretsinger added.”

“Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.”

“’The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,’ Dr. Petti said. ‘No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R’.”

There is more to report about the PCR test, and I have, but I’ll make this final point for now: I’ve presented, over the last several months, compelling evidence that no one proved the existence of the COVID virus, by proper scientific procedures, in the first place. So the PCR test would be looking for…what? A virus that isn’t there?

And on the back of this test, governments are wrecking economies all over the world, and untold numbers of human lives.


SOURCES:

[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/laboratory-guidance

note: said document above (archived at web.archive.org) was on the following page…

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/laboratory-guidance

…however, that page now redirects to…

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance-publications

…and that new page does not have said document

see also,…

blog.microbiologics.com/2019-novel-coronavirus-what-microbiologists-need-to-know/

[3] https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download

[4] https://www.creative-diagnostics.com/sars-cov-2-coronavirus-multiplex-rt-qpcr-kit-277854-457.htm

[5] https://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf

[6] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/eci.12801

[7] nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html


The Matrix Revealed

(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.

The whole scam just fell apart: COVID test, overwhelming number of false positives

by Jon Rappoport

September 1, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Townhall.com, August 29: “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): “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.”

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:

townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/08/29/it-looks-like-a-lot-of-those-positive-covid-tests-should-have-been-negative-n2575305

nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html


The Matrix Revealed

(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.

Another failure of the COVID diagnostic test

by Jon Rappoport

July 29, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

In previous articles, I’ve detailed several key reasons why the PCR test is worthless and deceptive. (PCR article archive here).

Here I discuss yet another reason: the uniformity of the test has never been properly validated. Different labs come up with different results.

Let’s start here—the reference is the NY Times, January 22, 2007, “Faith in Quick Tests Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.”

“Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing…By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing…”

“For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.”

“Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.”

“Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test [PCR] that led them astray.”

“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 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.”

“’You’re in a little bit of no man’s land,’ with the new molecular [PCR] tests, said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ‘All bets are off on exact performance’.”

“With pertussis, she [Dr. Kretsinger, CDC] said, ‘there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,’ and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. ‘We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,’ Dr. Kretsinger added.”

“Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.”

“’The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,’ Dr. Petti said. ‘No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R’.”

—Sobering, to say the least. Of course, some people will claim that since the date of the Times’ article (2007), vast improvements have been made in the PCR test.

Really? The truth is, something much worse is lurking in the weeds. It has been lurking ever since the PCR was approved for use in diagnostics:

No large study validating the uniformity of PCR results, from lab to lab, has ever been done.

You would think at least a dozen very large studies had checked for uniform results, before unleashing the PCR on the public; but no, this was not the case. It is still not the case.

Here is what should have been done decades ago:

Take a thousand volunteers. Remove tissue samples from each person. Send those samples to 30 different labs. Have the labs run PCR and announce their findings for each volunteer.

“We found the following virus in sample 1…” Something simple like that.

Now compare the findings, in each of the 1000 cases, from all 30 labs. Are the findings the same? Are the outcomes uniform all the way across the board?

My money would be against it. Strongly against.

But this is not the end of the process. SEVERAL of these large-scale studies should be done. In EACH study, there are 1000 volunteers and 30 labs.

Why? Because, as you can readily see, the whole story about a current pandemic is riding on those tests. The story, the containment measures, the lockdowns, the economic devastation, the human destruction—it’s all built on the presumption that the PCR is a valid test.

It’s unthinkable that these validation studies of the PCR weren’t done decades ago. But they weren’t. And there is only one reason why: to avoid the truth. The results of the PCR aren’t uniform. They vary from lab to lab.

One lab says positive for virus B. Another lab says negative for virus B. Both labs are looking at the same sample.

No? Couldn’t be? Then prove it with the several large-scale studies I’m proposing.

I’ll give you a rough fictional analogy for the current testing situation—

In an old-growth forest of immense trees, a government agency tests white spots found on some trunks. The verdict? A highly destructive and novel fungus, for which there is no remedy. Without immediate and drastic action, the fungus will spread to the whole forest and destroy all the trees.

So a government contract is signed with a logging company, and workers move in and start cutting down many trees.

Meanwhile, another lab tests those white spots and reports they’re harmless bird droppings. Yet another lab claims they’re a mild traditional fungus of no great concern.

The reports of these two labs are suppressed and censored. The labs are put on a quiet blacklist, and their business dries up.

The tree cutting continues.

An analyst at the US Forestry Service sends a memo to his boss. It details the fact that the test which found deadly fungus is unreliable. Different labs doing the test come up with different and conflicting results.

Worse yet, that test was never properly validated as a uniform process before being approved for use. In other words, no one did a large study in which multiple labs used the test to determine the composition of spots found on trees. No one made sure that all labs came to the same conclusions using the test.

The Forestry analyst writes: “The test has inherent flaws. Different labs examining the same sample will always come up with different results. This has disastrous consequences in the real world. You can see that now; we are cutting down half a forest to prevent the spread of a fungus which has been noticed for centuries, and never caused serious harm…”

The analyst is fired from his job and firmly reminded that he signed a non-disclosure agreement, and he better keep his mouth shut.

The tree-cutting goes on. A developer buys up the cleared land at a very low price…

In essence, the pipeline of information from actually reliable sources, to the government, and then to the public, is narrowed, and guarded against unwelcome intrusions of TRUTH.

In the case of the PCR test, that’s what is happening.

SOURCE:

nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html


The Matrix Revealed

(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.

Does wearing a mask cause diagnostic tests to read false-positive for COVID?

by Jon Rappoport

July 23, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Suppose one of the most intense “safety practices”—wearing a mask—actually inflates the number of COVID diagnoses?

Needless to say, it would be a bombshell. Suppose PCR and antibody tests turn out false positive results because people are wearing masks every day?

How is that possible?

Actually, it’s quite simple. A person wearing a mask is breathing in his own germs all day long. He breathes them out, as he should, but then he breathes them back in.

It seems evident that this unnatural process would increase the number and variety of germs circulating and replicating in his body; even creating active infection.

Along with this, a decrease in oxygen intake, which occurs when a mask is worn, would allow certain germs to multiply in the body—germs which would otherwise be routinely wiped out or diminished in the presence of an oxygen-rich environment.

Here’s the key: Both the PCR and antibody tests are known for registering false-positive results, since they cross-react with germs which have nothing to do with the reason for the test.

If wearing a mask increases the number and variety of germs replicating in the body, and also increases the chance of developing an active infection…then the likelihood of a false-positive PCR or antibody test is increased.

In other words, masks would promote the number of so-called COVID cases. This would, of course, have alarming consequences.

People labeled “COVID” face all sorts of negative consequences. I don’t have to spell them out.

In past articles, I’ve shown that both PCR and antibody tests DO register false-positives because they react with irrelevant germs.

For example, let’s consider the PCR: From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans”:

“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”

Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.

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

“…non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”

Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.

Now let’s consider the antibody test—

Business Insider, April 3, 202: “Some tests have demonstrated false positives, detecting antibodies to much more common coronaviruses.”

Science News, March 27: “Science News spoke with…Charles Cairns, dean of the Drexel University College of Medicine, about how antibody tests work and what are some of the challenges of developing the tests.”

“Cairns: ‘The big question is: Does a positive response for the antibodies mean that person is actively infected, or that they have been infected in the past? The tests need to be accurate, and avoid both false positives and false negatives. That’s the challenge’.”

That’s just a sprinkling of sources on both the PCR and antibody tests—revealing that both of these tests DO spit out false-positive results. Many of those false-positives are the result of cross reactions with irrelevant germs.

And as I stated at the top of this article, if wearing masks increases the number and variety of germs circulating and replicating in the body, then it’s quite likely that masks will, in fact, contribute to false diagnoses of COVID.


Now, we come to a different angle on this story. Everyone is aware that governors and other politicians are ramping up orders to wear masks to new insane levels. If indeed this order will result in more diagnosed COVID cases…

How can we avoid looking at the financial incentives?

It turns out that the states are receiving federal money for EVERY COVID case.

The reference here is Becker’s CFO Hospital Report, April 14, 2020, “State-by-state breakdown of federal aid per COVID-19 case”:

“HHS recently began distributing the first $30 billion of emergency funding designated for hospitals in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act…”

“Below is a breakdown of how much funding per COVID-19 case each state will receive from the first $30 billion in aid. Kaiser Health News used a state breakdown provided to the House Ways and Means Committee by HHS along with COVID-19 cases tabulated by The New York Times for its analysis.”

“Alabama
$158,000 per COVID-19 case

Alaska
$306,000

Arizona
$23,000

Arkansas
$285,000

California
$145,000

Colorado
$58,000

Connecticut
$38,000

Delaware
$127,000…”

The article goes on to list every state and the money it will receive for EACH DIAGNOSED COVID CASE.

If mask wearing increases the likelihood of a COVID diagnosis, then: those states forcing new widespread mask dictates will be multiplying their federal $$$.

And if you really want to cover the bases, every method of fake case-counting will have the same ballooning $$$ effect for the states.

ALL the so-called containment measures—masks, quarantine, isolation, distancing, lockdowns, economic destruction—bring on fear, stress, loneliness…lowering immune-system function…leading to more infections…which means more germs replicating in the body…which means more false-positive COVID diagnostic tests…and more human destruction…and more $$$ for the states.

SOURCE:

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/state-by-state-breakdown-of-federal-aid-per-covid-19-case.html


The Matrix Revealed

(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.

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 29, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

I’m republishing this article, because more people are becoming aware there is something wrong—very wrong—with the “science” at the bottom of this fake epidemic.

For example, Dr. Thomas Cowan, in his recent popular video, described my proposal for a true procedure that would determine whether a new virus actually exists. If he contacts me, I have more ammunition for him.

All right, let’s jump in—

The claim of having discovered a new virus (COVID-19) is wrong (unproven).

And the claim that the main diagnostic test (the PCR) can determine whether a person is sick or is going to get sick is also wrong (unproven).

What seems to be true in the lab is not sufficient in the real world.

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 in the first place. 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.

The second vital experiment concerns the discovery of a new virus—in this case, COVID-19.

First of all, there is no lab procedure that can climb inside the human body in real time and record the active replication of millions of virus. The closest you can come involves the use of electron microscopy.

Suspecting the existence of a new disease-causing virus, researchers should line up, at the very least, several hundred people who seem to have the new disease. Tissue samples should be taken from them. Using correct steps of isolating-purifying-centrifuging these samples, specimens of the results should be examined and photographed under the electron microscope.

In every one of the several hundred photos, do the researchers see many identical particles of a virus they’ve never seen before; and do the researchers see that these many particles are the same from photo to photo?

If so, and if more than one group of researchers independently carrying out this procedure on the patients’ tissue samples achieves the same result…then, this is as close as you can come to saying you’ve discovered a new disease-causing virus.

Other researchers with other large groups of patients should attempt to replicate the above findings.

This vital experiment has never been done in the case of COVID-19. Not even close. Therefore, researchers can’t make a true claim to have discovered a new disease-causing virus.

In the absence of the two vital experiments I’ve described in this article, all you’re left with, concerning a single “COVID-19” pandemic and a single new cause, are: anecdote, rumor, gossip, conjecture, speculation, bad science, and lies.

Plus the horrendous damage from all the consequences of lockdowns based on those lies.

It’s essential to realize where the burden of proof rests. The scientists who claim to have discovered a new epidemic virus, and the scientists who claim their PCR can determine whether a person is sick or is going to get sick—THEY are making the assertions. THEY have to supply the proof.

“Oh, but it could be a virus, and the virus could be killing lots of people…” People saying this are caught in the trap, the COULD-BE trap. Yes, it could be a purple cow giving birth to a calf on Mars, who is then flown to China, where it infects seven bats in a dark alley in Wuhan, after which several people eat the bats…

If COULD-BE were science, the planet would remain locked down until there were no humans left.

TO READ ALL MY ARTICLES ON THE COVID LUNACY:

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/category/covid/


The Matrix Revealed

(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.

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.

The second vital experiment concerns the discovery of a new virus—in this case, COVID-19.

First of all, there is no lab procedure that can climb inside the human body in real time and record the active replication of millions of virus. The closest you can come involves the use of electron microscopy.

Suspecting the existence of a new disease-causing virus, researchers should line up, at the very least, several hundred people who seem to have the new disease. Tissue samples should be taken from them. Using correct steps of centrifuging these samples, specimens of the results should be examined and photographed under the electron microscope.

In every one of the several hundred photos, do the researchers see many identical particles of a virus they’ve never seen before; and do the researchers see that these many particles are the same from photo to photo?

If so, and if more than one group of researchers independently carrying out this procedure on the patients’ tissue samples achieves the same result…then, this is as close as you can come to saying you’ve discovered a new disease-causing virus.

Other researchers with other patients should attempt to replicate the above findings.

This vital experiment has never been done in the case of COVID-19. Not even close. Therefore, researchers can’t make a true claim to have discovered a new disease-causing virus.

In the absence of the two vital experiments I’ve described in this article, all you’re left with, concerning a single “COVID-19” pandemic and a single new cause, are: anecdote, rumor, gossip, conjecture, speculation, bad science, and lies.

Plus the horrendous damage from all the consequences of lockdowns based on those lies.

TURN ON THE ECONOMY.


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, 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.

Corona: creating the illusion of a pandemic through diagnostic tests

by Jon Rappoport

April 8, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Nailed them, with their own words.

In this article, I’ll present quotes from official sources about their own diagnostic test for the coronavirus. I’m talking about fatal flaws in the test.

Because case numbers are based on those tests (or no tests at all), the whole “pandemic effect” has been created out of fake science.

In a moment of truth, a propaganda pro might murmur to a colleague, “You know, we’ve got a great diagnostic test for the virus. The test turns out all sorts of results that say this person is diseased and that person is diseased. Millions of diseased people. But the test doesn’t really measure that. The test is ridiculous, but ridiculous in our favor. It builds the picture of a global pandemic. An excuse to lock down the planet and wreck economies and lives…”

The widespread test for the COVID-19 virus is called the PCR. I have written much about it in past articles.

Now let’s go to published official literature, and see what it reveals. Spoiler alert: the admitted holes and shortcomings of the test are devastating.

From “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel” [1]:

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”

Translation: A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID virus might not be in the patient’s body at all, either.

From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans” [2]:

“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”

Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.

The WHO document adds this little piece: “Protocol use limitations: Optional clinical specimens for testing has [have] not yet been validated.”

Translation: We’re not sure which tissue samples to take from the patient, in order for the test to have any validity.

From the FDA: “LabCorp COVID-19RT-PCR test EUA Summary: ACCELERATED EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) SUMMARYCOVID-19 RT-PCR TEST (LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA)” [3]:

“…The SARS-CoV-2RNA [COVID virus] is generally detectable in respiratory specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status…THE AGENT DETECTED MAY NOT BE THE DEFINITE CAUSE OF DISEASE (CAPS are mine). Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.”

Translation: On the one hand, we claim the test can “generally” detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient. But we admit that “the agent detected” on the test, by which we mean COVID, “may not be the definite cause of disease.” We also admit that, unless the patient has an acute infection, we can’t find COVID. Therefore, the idea of “asymptomatic patients” confirmed by the test is nonsense. And even though a positive test for COVID may not indicate the actual cause of disease, all positive tests must be reported—and they will be counted as “COVID cases.” Regardless.

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.”

Translation: Don’t use the test result alone to diagnose infection or disease. Oops.

“non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”

Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.

“Application Qualitative”

Translation: This clearly means the test is not suited to detect how much virus is in the patient’s body. I’ll cover how important this admission is in a minute.

“The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in combination with their symptoms/signs, history, other laboratory tests and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis, and are only for the reference of clinicians.”

Translation: Don’t use the test as the exclusive basis for diagnosing a person with COVID. And yet, this is exactly what health authorities are doing all over the world. All positive tests must be reported to government agencies, and they are counted as COVID cases.”

Those quotes, from official government and testing sources, torpedo the whole “scientific” basis of the test.

And now, I’ll add another, lethal blow: the test has never been validated properly as an instrument to detect disease. Even assuming it can detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient, it doesn’t show HOW MUCH virus is in the body. And that is key, because in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world, not in a lab, the patient would need to have millions and millions of the virus actively replicating in his body.

Proponents of the test assert that it CAN measure how much virus is in the body. To which I reply: prove it.

Prove it in a way it should have been proven decades ago—but never was.

Take five hundred people and remove tissue samples from them. The people who take the samples do NOT do the test. The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they’re in.

The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and HOW MUCH of it they found.

“All right, in patients 24, 46, 65, 76, 87, and 93 we found a great deal of virus.”

Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. Are they sick? Are they running marathons? Let’s find out.

This OBVIOUS vetting of the test has never been done. That is an enormous scandal. Where are the controlled test results in 500 patients, a thousand patients? Nowhere.

The test is an unproven fraud.

And, therefore, the COVID pandemic, which is supposed to be based on that test, is also a fraud.

“But…but…what about all the sick and dying people…why are they sick?”

I’ve written thousands of words answering that question, in past articles. A NUMBER of conditions—none involving COVID, and most involving old traditional diseases—are making people sick.

Sources:
[1]: (link)
[2]: (link)
[3]: (link)
[4]: (link)


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, 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.

Corona: creating the illusion of a pandemic through diagnostic tests

by Jon Rappoport

March 30, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Nailed them, with their own words.

In this article, I’ll present quotes from official sources about their own diagnostic test for the coronavirus. I’m talking about fatal flaws in the test.

Because case numbers are based on those tests (or no tests at all), the whole “pandemic effect” has been created out of fake science.

In a moment of truth, a propaganda pro might murmur to a colleague, “You know, we’ve got a great diagnostic test for the virus. The test turns out all sorts of results that say this person is diseased and that person is diseased. Millions of diseased people. But the test doesn’t really measure that. The test is ridiculous, but ridiculous in our favor. It builds the picture of a global pandemic. An excuse to lock down the planet and wreck economies and lives…”

The widespread test for the COVID-19 virus is called the PCR. I have written much about it in past articles.

Now let’s go to published official literature, and see what it reveals. Spoiler alert: the admitted holes and shortcomings of the test are devastating.

From “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel” [1]:

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”

Translation: A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID virus might not be in the patient’s body at all, either.

From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans” [2]:

“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”

Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.

The WHO document adds this little piece: “Protocol use limitations: Optional clinical specimens for testing has [have] not yet been validated.”

Translation: We’re not sure which tissue samples to take from the patient, in order for the test to have any validity.

From the FDA: “LabCorp COVID-19RT-PCR test EUA Summary: ACCELERATED EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) SUMMARYCOVID-19 RT-PCR TEST (LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA)” [3]:

“…The SARS-CoV-2RNA [COVID virus] is generally detectable in respiratory specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status…THE AGENT DETECTED MAY NOT BE THE DEFINITE CAUSE OF DISEASE (CAPS are mine). Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.”

Translation: On the one hand, we claim the test can “generally” detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient. But we admit that “the agent detected” on the test, by which we mean COVID, “may not be the definite cause of disease.” We also admit that, unless the patient has an acute infection, we can’t find COVID. Therefore, the idea of “asymptomatic patients” confirmed by the test is nonsense. And even though a positive test for COVID may not indicate the actual cause of disease, all positive tests must be reported—and they will be counted as “COVID cases.” Regardless.

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.”

Translation: Don’t use the test result alone to diagnose infection or disease. Oops.

“non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”

Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.

“Application Qualitative”

Translation: This clearly means the test is not suited to detect how much virus is in the patient’s body. I’ll cover how important this admission is in a minute.

“The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in combination with their symptoms/signs, history, other laboratory tests and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis, and are only for the reference of clinicians.”

Translation: Don’t use the test as the exclusive basis for diagnosing a person with COVID. And yet, this is exactly what health authorities are doing all over the world. All positive tests must be reported to government agencies, and they are counted as COVID cases.”

Those quotes, from official government and testing sources, torpedo the whole “scientific” basis of the test.

And now, I’ll add another, lethal blow: the test has never been validated properly as an instrument to detect disease. Even assuming it can detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient, it doesn’t show HOW MUCH virus is in the body. And that is key, because in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world, not in a lab, the patient would need to have millions and millions of the virus actively replicating in his body.

Proponents of the test assert that it CAN measure how much virus is in the body. To which I reply: prove it.

Prove it in a way it should have been proven decades ago—but never was.

Take five hundred people and remove tissue samples from them. The people who take the samples do NOT do the test. The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they’re in.

The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and HOW MUCH of it they found.

“All right, in patients 24, 46, 65, 76, 87, and 93 we found a great deal of virus.”

Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. Are they sick? Are they running marathons? Let’s find out.

This OBVIOUS vetting of the test has never been done. That is an enormous scandal. Where are the controlled test results in 500 patients, a thousand patients? Nowhere.

The test is an unproven fraud.

And, therefore, the COVID pandemic, which is supposed to be based on that test, is also a fraud.

“But…but…what about all the sick and dying people…why are they sick?”

I’ve written thousands of words answering that question, in past articles. A NUMBER of conditions—none involving COVID, and most involving old traditional diseases—are making people sick.

Sources:
[1]: (link)
[2]: (link)
[3]: (link)
[4]: (link)


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, 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.

How Many People Have Coronavirus?

None? Let’s go to the tests and find out

Lockdown of the population, panic shopping, and the virus

by Jon Rappoport

March 15, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

Note: this article contains several major points. I could have written it as four or five separate pieces. But because the points are related, they’re under one roof here. I ask serious readers to dig in. (For further reference, full archive of “corona epidemic” articles here.)

The other day, I was in a UPS store, and a customer was paying for a large box he was sending to Florida. I asked him what was in the box.

He said, “Toilet paper.”

The new economy.

The majority of the people stripping items off store shelves know nothing about the virus, and if they did, they wouldn’t care. They’re acting like frothing marauders because other people are, too. “I’ve got to get paper towels and pet food because everyone else is hoarding them.” Now there’s REAL contagion.

The corollary: If no one were hoarding, store shelves would be adequately stocked, and shopping would be a relatively calm affair.

Quarantines, lockdowns, the advice to maintain “social distancing,” and wall-to-wall propaganda about “transmission of the virus” have resulted in mass cancelation of public events and the shuttering of large venues. Untold numbers of small businesses are in serious trouble.

This is a direct attack on the economy. It is also a ripping of the right to “peaceably assemble,” one of the natural freedoms embodied in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. As usual, “the threat to public safety and health” is invoked to override freedoms and rights. You would think the public sees through this tired excuse for dictatorial control, but it is not the case. Parental government as a concept and a practice has invaded minds. “Well, sure, they’re taking care of us.” If you believe that, I have condos for sale on the far side of the moon.

At another level, quarantines serve to enforce the idea that all people are medical patients for their whole lives—and, therefore, they must follow medical orders. Get tested, diagnosed, drugged, vaccinated. For what? For all possible diseases and infections.

As far as the coronavirus is concerned, forget about contagion and transmission for the moment. What about the widespread diagnostic test for the virus in humans? Is this PCR test accurate? Is it useful? I keep coming back to the issue, because the whole designation of a “coronavirus case,” if it means anything at all, depends on the veracity of the test—not in a lab or a medical journal, but in life, in the world.

I repeat what I wrote in a recent article: Outside of China, the most widely used test is called the PCR. It must be done with tremendous care, because contamination with irrelevant microbes and cellular material can yield a misleading and absurd result.

The PCR, it is claimed, can take a tiny, tiny bit of material from a patient and blow it up many times, so it can be identified. “This is the coronavirus. This patient is infected.”

Not only that, the test’s proponents assert that, quite easily, the PCR can also determine the AMOUNT of virus in the patient’s body. Why is that vitally important? Because, to even begin talking about the patient ever getting sick, he must have millions and millions of coronavirus actively replicating in his body.

There are people (and I’m one of them) who challenge the claim that the PCR can show how much virus is in the patient’s body. The experts try to brush us off—we don’t understand the intricacies of the test, it’s highly technical, we’re not qualified to make a judgment, etc.

I’ve been searching for a way around this futile argument. In the process, I’ve discovered something important about the PCR. I SEE NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ACCURACY OF THE TEST HAS EVER BEEN PROVEN.

Let me explain. You bring your car to a good repair shop. The mechanics hook it up to a device and run a test to diagnose what’s causing the car to stall. Who says their tests are accurate? At some point in the past, these diagnostic procedures have been vetted, to make sure they work properly.

And sure enough, when the mechanics say, “We’ve found the problem,” and when they correct that problem, you drive the car and it doesn’t stall anymore. This is called a real-life result.

This is not the situation re the PCR. Its proponents claim it can count how much virus is in a patient’s body—how much of a particular virus. But where is the proof, in real-life terms, that the PCR can do that? How was that proof ever established?

When I say proof, I don’t mean technical mumbo-jumbo. I’m not referring to the highly dense language these scientists use among themselves. I’m talking about real live human patients, and results.

After all, if the PCR is being used to diagnose people, and if the results are being used to count the number of coronavirus cases in various countries, and if the number of cases forms the basis for, say, locking down the whole of Italy in a mass quarantine…THE TEST IS IMPORTANT, WOULDN’T YOU SAY?

I have seen no wide-ranging proof that the PCR was ever checked properly, when it was first introduced, to show it could do what researchers say it can do.

WHO TESTED THE TEST?

I have come up with a process—a simple process—which will check the veracity of the PCR. It should have been carried out decades ago. The fact that it wasn’t is an enormous scandal.

Here it is.

From a hundred patients, very small tissue samples are taken. The PCR lab people don’t take the samples. They don’t ever see the patients or know who they are.

The lab professionals run these hundred samples through the PCR, obtain results, and then report: what virus did they find in each case, and how much of that virus did they find?

Let’s say, in six instances, the lab techs claim they found a great amount of virus in the patients.

Well, those patients should be sick.

Are they? ARE THEY?

“We’ve determined that patients 4, 9, 32, 54, 65, and 86 all have a huge amount of virus in their bodies.”

“Interesting. Thanks. Let’s see. Hmm. Turns out these people are fit as a fiddle. Not sick. I guess your test didn’t work. It’s a flop.”

Or maybe the test does work. The six patients are sick. LET’S FIND OUT. IN THE WORLD, NOT IN JOURNALS.

That’s what I mean by real-life results. No jive, no tap dancing.

There is more. This experiment with the hundred patients? It should be done, not just once, but many times. A hundred patients here at this facility, a hundred patients there at that facility. Thirty or forty different facilities, and thirty or forty different sets of a hundred patients. It should be done by independent scientists without conflicts of interest.

It should have been done decades ago. I see no evidence that it was.

THE TEST WAS NEVER PROPERLY TESTED. A GIANT SCANDAL.

Think about what that means.

Now let’s go to China, where we’re told the majority of people who “have the virus” reside. What diagnostic test are they using there? CT scans of the lungs. Looking for what? Pneumonia. Why? Because it’s being called the number one symptom of coronavirus infection.

They’re kidding, right?

Unfortunately, no.

Well, pneumonia has many causes, none of which needs the presence of a coronavirus. That’s number one. Number two, roughly 300,000 people in China die of pneumonia every year—long before the supposed coronavirus emerged. And number three, in the city of Wuhan, where the “epidemic” supposedly started, the air quality is horrific. Last summer, protests on the streets of Wuhan attested to citizen outrage at the problem. And, breaking news: disastrous air quality can cause pneumonia—no germs of any kind necessary.

But of course, we can sweep all these concerns off the table because, well, who cares about the accuracy of tests? If people in Los Angeles are fighting over who gets the last six rolls of toilet paper, that’s all the proof we need: this is a global epidemic caused by a virus. Right?

Finally, I’ll make a few comments concerning the ‘BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS’ PEOPLE. They have endless questions centering on reports of corona cases in this country, that country, this city, that town, another planet, another galaxy. I have answered some of those questions. There is a basic point covering all the questions:

DO NOT ASSUME THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SICK IN VARIOUS PLACES ARE ALL SUFFERING FROM THE SAME CAUSE. You might want to read that statement several times.

Since the diagnostic tests for the virus are inaccurate, wrong-headed, and absurd, the LUMPING OF ALL THESE SICK PEOPLE EVERYWHERE UNDER THE SAME LABEL—CORONAVIRUS—IS MEANINGLESS AND DECEPTIVE. Don’t fall for it. Be smarter than that. Stop trying to use one explanation to account for all supposed cases of the virus.

And furthermore, don’t make the false assumption that all these reported coronavirus cases are the result of NEW disease or never- before-seen disease. Where people are genuinely ill, many or most of them have the same health conditions that have been affecting humans for a long, long time—now recycled and re-labeled CORONAVIRUS.

I’m giving you insights I gained in 1987 while researching AIDS. In a nutshell, I took the groups the CDC claimed were at high-risk for AIDS—Haitians, Africans in certain countries, IV street drug users, gay men, hemophiliacs—and found that, for the most part, the groups were suffering from very old diseases and long-standing horrendous environmental conditions. Nothing to do with HIV. And where new illness was present, the causes were mainly chemical toxicity.

“It has to be all coronavirus or all something else.” Wrong. False. Misguided. Baloney. Start over.

I discovered this central con-hustle of the medical cartel 34 years ago, and it applies precisely and across the board, in the current “epidemic.”

For example, for those people researching 5G technology and its harmful health effects, stop stretching your necks trying to prove that 5G has to be THE real and single cause of ALL supposed corona cases. If you show 5G applies to one or two areas where people are being falsely labeled with the virus, you’ve done a major service. If you can’t prove 5G applies to other areas, that’s not a problem.

We’re looking at multiple factors here. Some people are sick because of X. Others because of Y. Others because of Z. Still others are not sick at all.

But ALL OF THEM are being falsely corralled under the LABEL of coronavirus.

We don’t need to replace one fake label with another single label.

Frankly, to use a technical term, this bullshit needs to stop.

If you’re somewhat puzzled by this article, go back and read it again. Keep doing that until it comes clear. I say this because, in 1987, I had the same facts in front of me, the same basic facts I ‘ve presented in this article—and it took me three months to realize the implications and see where I’d bought the big con.

The biggest con of all: THIS EPIDEMIC IS ONE THING.

No. It isn’t.


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, 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.

CDC begins testing Americans for the Coronavirus—but how?

by Jon Rappoport

February 17, 2020

(To join our email list, click here.)

As my readers know, I’ve been presenting evidence AGAINST the idea that the China “epidemic” is caused by a new coronavirus. (archive here)

Of course, the World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control are relentlessly pushing the idea that: this is a spreading epidemic, and it is caused by COV-19, a new human coronavirus.

Now, the US Centers for Disease Control is rolling out a program to test Americans (e.g., travelers who have been to China). As time passes, the program will likely pull larger numbers of Americans into that net.

The CDC program immediately raises two problems: why bother testing for a virus if it isn’t really causing human disease; and what kind of test is being done?

In this article, I’m focusing on the type of test, and whether it’s accurate, even if you assume the coronavirus is causing disease.

Reading through CDC literature (see also here), I believe the two most prevalent US testing methods are: antibody, and PCR.

Antibody tests are notorious for cross-reactions. This means factors in no way relevant to a given virus can make the test read positive. In that case, the patient would be falsely told he “has the coronavirus.” But it gets worse. Traditionally, antibody tests reading positive were taken as a good sign for the patient: his immune system had contacted a germ and defeated it. Then, starting in 1984, the science was turned upside down: a positive test was, astoundingly, taken to mean the patient was ill or would soon become ill.

The PCR test (which requires excellent technicians who will not make any number of possible mistakes) takes a tissue sample from a patient which might contain a tiny virus particle(s) much too small to be observed—and blows it up many times, so it can be seen. However, the test says nothing reliable about HOW MUCH virus is in the patient’s body. Why is that important? Because millions and millions of replicating virus in the body are necessary to even begin talking about actual illness. A positive PCR test, nevertheless, will be taken to mean the patient “has the epidemic disease.” —An even deeper issue: where is the PRIOR PROOF that the PCR is testing for a virus that actually causes disease?

The prospect of these two tests being done on Americans is not comforting, to say the least. People will be roped into believing they are “epidemic cases,” and therefore need to be isolated, and treated with highly toxic antiviral drugs.

In the event they become ill, from the drugs, they’ll be told “the coronavirus is doing the damage.” In some cases, this will result in even further dosing with the same drugs, at higher levels—a disaster.

A very small percentage of doctors are aware of the profound shortcomings of these two diagnostic tests. Most of them will shrug off their doubts and perform the tests anyway, because refusal would endanger their careers and medical licenses.

This is the sordid drama now unfolding in the American landscape.

It’s not just America. The same tests are being done all over the world.


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, 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.