The Law of Truly Large Numbers says, there are no coincidences.
A month ago I shared information gleaned from the CDC and Jon Rappaport, an investigative journalist who has done the deepest dive into the COVID-19 data of anyone I’ve encountered to date.
Rappaport has made some startling and controversial claims in his blog, but he has always provided source citations and often uses the “words of the experts” to incriminate the experts. The information I shared previously explained flaws in the PCR tests, how it was administered, and how it had no apparent standard. The result was millions of positive “cases” over the past year even when a majority of those cases (people) never experienced a symptom.
Where this became a serious problem was with regard to state governments basing their covid lockdown policies and mandates on case numbers. The rights and freedoms of Americans in all 50 states were severely restricted and in some cases stripped completely. When journalists or physicians questioned the tests, they were ignored or silenced. It became politically incorrect to question the authorities, because, for heaven sakes people were dying! How could anyone be so cold hearted and question those who were just trying to save lives?
But every American life was being grossly effected by government edicts based on bad data from tests that were being grossly mishandled. As a side note and in a twist of irony, all other leading forms of death in the US in 2020 decreased while COVID deaths filled the gaps. A study published by Johns Hopkins University made this astonishing discovery. It was so astonishing and controversial that Johns Hopkins retracted it almost as soon as it was published, but not before the cat was out of the bag and a fleeting moment of transparency exposed the narrative again.
Now to the “coincidence” which occurred this month on the very day the new president of the United States officially took office. The World Health Organization (WHO) issued a little-noticed technical report that calls into question many of the policies that we have adopted to control the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. At the heart of all the data on COVID-19 cases is the, you guessed it, PCR tests.
According to The Hill, “the WHO’s guidance on the RT-PCR test emphasizes two things that have long been known in the scientific literature and public health practice but inexplicably ignored in COVID policy for almost a year. First, they point out that a positive COVID test does not necessarily mean that someone has any capacity of infecting someone else with the virus. Therefore, it instructs laboratories to report a key statistic that indicates how likely a positive test result actually constitutes infectious COVID-19. And second, the WHO warns against relying on a single test for patients without clinical COVID-19 symptoms.”
Observation #1: This is a contradiction to the daily narrative repeated by the media throughout 2020. Yes, they briefly discussed a problem with false positive tests, but quickly made it appear they were not a problem and “new tests” were better and false positives were rare. This wasn’t true, but it’s what people came to believe and even defend and governments continued to use case numbers, not the number of infections but the number of cases (positive tests), to continue their lockdowns and mandates.
The report goes on to say, “the PCR test is not designed to identify active infectious disease but rather genetic material (dead, alive or partial) from the virus. PCR amplifies this material in samples to find traces of COVID-19, so while it often identifies people with active, infectious disease, it can also indicate people as “positive” erroneously. Dead COVID-19 RNA in the nose or mouth of someone who was never sick could create a positive PCR result. Recovered patients who test negative and are non-infectious can still come up positive repeatedly in the following months. These are neither new cases nor infectious ones needing quarantine but could be incorrectly counted as such.”
Are you listening governors?
Continuing, the report indicates “multiple studies showing that the number of amplification or duplication “cycles” performed via PCR to amplify the sample has a relationship with infectiousness – at a certain point, the more cycles needed to get positivity from a sample the generally less viral replication the sample shows.” In plain English this means the more cycles the more positives. Meaningless positives. “An article in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that among positive PCR samples with a cycle count over 35 – a common lab occurrence – only 3 percent of samples showed viral replication.” This really tells us that the high number of daily cases was due to bad testing, but no one will admit it.
Observation #2: In my previous article Case vs Infection – The COVID Con I discuss the problem with the cycles used in the PCR tests and how there didn’t seem to be any real standard. Here’s a portion of that report.
The PCR test is run in “cycles.” Each cycle is a quantum leap in amplifying or magnifying the original tiny, tiny piece of material taken from the patient’s swab sample. It’s like blowing up a small photo to an amazing size.
The question is: how many cycles should the PCR test be run at? This is vital issue, because the number of cycles changes the result.
July 16, 2020, podcast, “This Week in Virology” [1]: Tony Fauci makes a point of saying the PCR COVID test is useless and misleading when the test is run at “35 cycles or higher.” A positive result, indicating infection, cannot be accepted or believed.
Here, in techno-speak, is an excerpt from Fauci’s key quote (starting at about the 4-minute mark [1]): “…If you get [perform the test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”
Too many cycles, and the test will turn up all sorts of irrelevant material that will be wrongly interpreted as relevant.
That’s called a false positive.
Here’s the kicker. The FDA, which authorizes the test for public use, was recommending the test be run at 40 cycles. Uhhh, Houston, we have a problem.
The lapdog media was quick to jump to the rescue and make sure we all understood the WHO wasn’t admitting the testing was flawed or giving misleading numbers of cases, they were just making sure the test was being correctly administered with a “standard.” The Associated Press and Politifact and the social media fact checkers were quick to place their spin on the report to make sure NO ONE attempted to use this new information to demean or refute the media’s long held narratives. Politifact headline: “WHO did not say PCR tests grossly inflate positive test numbers.” Well, not in those words perhaps, therefore they can say that claim is FALSE.
The Hill concludes, “The questionable quality of COVID-19 testing data, alongside loose COVID-19 case definitions, means we cannot effectively work to build an efficient, effective system to address the disease at the individual or community level. Data that are available now are inadequate to inform local and statewide policymakers, business owners, school administrators and the public at large. As we collectively understand trends in infectiousness and fine tune our testing system, we can act more effectively and efficiently, and reduce disruption to people’s lives, schools and businesses.”
Translation: Now that Trump is gone we can be honest and use the PCR tests as intended and with the proper number of cycles which will result in a dramatic reduction in the number of positive tests (cases) allowing governors to stop shredding the constitution and giving Joe Biden credit for defeating the evil China Virus…whoops that term has been banned…I mean, evil COVID-19 and bringing freedom back to the Democracy by way of Executive Order. Or something like that.
Coincidence?
