5. Tests

Despite the absence of identification of a virus, by 1 January 2020, Professor Christian Drosten from the Charité hospital in Germany had begun to work towards a “diagnostic flow”[1] and the first version of his paper on the subject was released on 13 January 2020.[2] It is only on January 11-12 that “the Chinese authorities shared” what they claimed is “the full sequence of the coronavirus genome, as detected in [the four] samples taken from the first patients”.[3] This was the first scientific claim of any similarity with any former Sars virus. Thus his work entirely “relied on social media reports announcing detection of a SARS-like virus,”[4] not on any scientific data regarding any eventual virus, and thus concerns “theoretical”, not observed, sequences, let alone any observed virus.[5]

Now, even in the best of circumstances, PCR (short for polymerase chain reaction) methods and tests are inconclusive since they consist in identifying only small fragments, without being able to determine what these fragments are part of. Indeed, studying isolated pieces of DNA being next to impossible, PCR consists in amplifying, i.e. copying, small segments of DNA again and again. Each individual time the process is run, called a cycle, it doubles the amplification, i.e. the number of copies. So that if it is run 35 times, it amplifies 235 times, if it is run 60 times, 260 times. A fluorescent signal indicates when a DNA fragment corresponds to the genetic markers the PCR test is calibrated for and evidently the greater the number of copies being perused, the more likely this is.

According to Nobel Laureate Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, PCR can lead “you to find almost anything in anybody … For if you are going to amplify one single molecule up to something you can really measure, which PCR can do then, there is just very few molecules that you don’t have one single one of them in your body. So that can be thought as a misuse to claim that it is meaningful.”[6]

Hence PCR tests cannot be used as a diagnostic tool unless the fragments detected are known to belong to a virus. This could logically only be known if the virus had been observed beforehand, i.e. isolated in pure culture away from other material, and in particular shown to be an external entity, not an endogenous one. None of this has yet been achieved regarding the present case. Moreover, the fragments would have to be uniquely those of the virus.

In the case of Sars-Cov-2, not only no virus has been identified, but founding the PCR test on Drosten’s detection of it is especially problematic as we have even less clue what it reveals. Indeed, the genetic markers the fragments are checked against are merely extrapolated from another supposed virus, investigations of which reveal the same issues, and in particular to this date has also not be evidenced to exist and thus is equally a virtual construction. Even according to the dominating thesis, its closeness is less than our closeness to cats.[7]

Notwithstanding, on 21 January, the WHO recommended what Drosten claimed to be a “genetic detection procedure with which he can reliably detect the presence of the new corona virus in humans … as a reliable test method”[8] and all tests and even studies are since based on this procedure. Namely, the genetic markers chosen are based on his work.

These “so called unique genetic markers for SARS-CoV-2, recorded in the WHO protocols” for the ensuing tests are however “complete or high percentage matches with various fragments of the human genome”, as well as with at least “100 microbes”, namely bacteria and fungi, and thus are far from being unique. This can be checked by using BLAST[9]: anyone can compare the list of nucleotide sequences given on the WHO website[10] “with all those stored by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) genetic database called GenBank”.[11] In other words, the tests are just affirming we are humans and our bodies contain bacteria and fungi. All this does is confirm what has been previously stated, namely that nothing has been identified.

In short, since last December, a disease so far undistinguishable clinically from the large range of respiratory and lung diseases, but to which has been associated a pathological virus lacking reality and is nothing more than a computer simulation, whose genome includes the sequences of human proteins and enzymes, thereby reclassified as viral, is being diagnosed through tests which inevitably will be either detecting human protein, RNA or DNA, or bacterial RNA or DNA or animal protein, RNA or DNA from the adulterated cell cultures.

Hence no wonder, that so many test positive. To paraphrase Dr Thomas Cowan,[12], the more someone’s DNA is degraded into various fragments, the less the amplification needed since there are already many copies. This is why those with some illness causing DNA degradation are more likely to test positive at a lower amplification. However we all have some amount of DNA degradation, hence with sufficient amplification, we can all test positive since the genetic markers in the case of Sars-Cov-2 are the same as parts of human DNA. Already above 35 cycles, most will test positive, above 40, 60 to 80% will. Increasing the number of cycles from 16 to 45 increases the number of positive cases from 5% to 95%.[13]

The inappropriateness of the PCR test for diagnosis is recognized by the CDC: “Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.” “This test”, it continues, “cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”[14] The latter is also recognized by the American Food and Drug Administration: “Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”[15] RT-PCR, which these warnings concern, is all the more inappropriate because regarding Sars-Cov-2, like other viruses alleged to cause respiratory diseases, its genetic material is assumed to be RNA. Hence, it needs to be converted into DNA, more stable and therefore better suited for detection purposes. This is done in a process called reverse transcription which itself faces many issues.[16]

It is also unsurprising that the particles observed are not known to cause any harm to humans. This is still the case now, as it was when the tests were elaborated, which further raises questions about the reasons for their elaboration. Indeed, the paper mentioned previously published on 21 January, only found cytopathic effects on monkey Vero cells, not human ones.[17] So did a paper published by CDC researchers on 3 March 2020: “We examined the capacity of SARS-CoV-2 to infect and replicate in several common primate and human cell lines … No cytopathic effect was observed in any of the cell lines except in Vero cells. HUH7.0 and 293T cells [human liver and embryonic kidney cells respectively] showed only modest viral replication and A549 cells [human lung tissue cells] were incompatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection.”[18]

Besides, as already stated, studies about the biological consequences of a specific respiratory or lung disease cannot be studied without clear clinical distinguishing signs from other such diseases. Only by comparing with a control group of patients from these other diseases, can any consequences be attributed to any specific one. A control group of non-respiratory cases as is the case in some studies[19] can only allow conclusions about respiratory diseases as a whole, not any specific one.

Also, as stated earlier, autopsies from deaths alleged to be due to the novel virus instead found many were due to notably thrombosis,[20] while others could not be differentiated from flu deaths by pathologists.[21]

Furthermore, the mere presence of a microbe is, as equally mentioned above, known not to entail illness, given that the human body contains multitudes. For a disease to be viral, the viral load would need to be high. Estimating this load is complicated. This is done using the reverse transcription real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR), of which RT-PCR is only a first step. RT-qPCR requires dyeing, a process during which “particles bec[o]me totally deformed, so that they appear[] as particles with long tails. They [a]re full-blown artificial products of the laboratory, and they still look[] exactly like so many other non-viral cellular components. This, logically, ma[kes] it impossible to determine if a virus or a non-viral particle ha[s] been found.”[22] Therefore this can contribute to a positive test result – a problem which, as remarked previously, already pervades the simpler RT-PCR.[23] Moreover, “elementary protocol errors, inappropriate data analysis and inadequate reporting continue to be rife … [So] a majority of published RT-qPCR data are likely to represent technical noise. Confidence in quantitative measurements depends on a number of parameters, one of which is reproducibility.” However, “experimental test results can vary widely, even when performed by the same individual at the same time”.[24]

As for antibody tests, they meet with a similar issue: without identifying the virus, what the tests are reacting to is anybody’s guess. No antibody had been anyhow isolated by July 2020.[25] How could any be? This would require a disease to be properly distinguished, and a foreign substance capable of triggering an immune response would need to be associated to it, which the fragments observed have so far not been shown to be.

Notwithstanding the perplexing logic behind the entire affair and the absence of any solid empirical data, death and case numbers are broadcast daily since early 2020 although these are only the numbers of positive cases of tests with no connection whatsoever with any virus – making irrelevant the question of false positives –, yet used to identify a disease without any clear clinical symptoms to distinguish it from others of its kind and attributed to a hypothetical virus.

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/
  2. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/protocol-v2-1.pdf
  3. https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/institut-pasteur-sequences-whole-genome-coronavirus-2019-ncov
  4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/
  5. https://zenodo.org/record/4298004/files/Review%20Corman_Drosten_Paper_Final_Version_10-3-Public_final.pdf?download=1
  6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc0Kysti6Kc
  7. See previous section
  8. https://winteroakpress.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/the-scientific-fraud-by-prof.-christian-drosten-10.7.20.pages_.pdf
  9. https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi
  10. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/real-time-rt-pcr-assays-for-the-detection-of-sars-cov-2-institut-pasteur-paris.pdf?sfvrsn=3662fcb6_2
  11. https://in-this-together.com/covid-19-evidence-of-global-fraud/
  12. https://stop5g.cz/us/dr-tom-cowan-5g-millimetre-waves-are-a-weapon-to-make-people-sick-with-covid/
  13. Private email from Dr Robert Young
  14. https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
  15. https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download
  16. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6374950/pdf/main.pdf
  17. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.22.914952v1
  18. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.02.972935v1.full.pdf
  19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7167655/#bib11
  20. https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/autopsies-prove-death-by-disseminated-intravascular-coagulation-or-pulmonary-thrombosis
  21. https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/Alexov-webinar-transcript.pdf?x37569
  22. Engelbrecht, T. et al. 2007. Virus Mania. Translated by Megan Chapelas, Danielle Egan. Victoria, Ca.: Trafford
  23. https://principia-scientific.com/covid-tests-scientifically-fraudulent-epidemic-of-false-positives/
  24. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28796277/
  25. https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/Alexov-webinar-transcript.pdf?x37569