NY TIMES: Up to 90% Who’ve Tested COVID-Positive Wrongly Diagnosed! TRUTH: A Whole Lot Worse!

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it.”
― H.L. Mencken

In the previous entry, we learned how a process invented to increase the size of research samples of DNA called polymerase chain reaction is used to test for viruses even though the guy who received a Nobel Prize for inventing it said using it that way doesn’t work.

Kary Mullis’s PCR process takes segments of DNA through a “cycle” that doubles the amount. If you run a single segment of DNA through just 40 cycles, you’ll end up with 1 x 240, which is over a trillion copies. Remember that number, it’s going to be important later.

We also saw that the COVID-19 virus, like any other virus, is just some genetic code surrounded by a shell that acts as a “Trojan horse,” allowing the virus to invade the cells of living organisms. Once inside, the genetic code exits the shell, hijacking the cell’s functions to make it produce more copies of the virus.

The genetic code inside the COVID-19 virus’s shell is RNA. So, since the PCR cycle only works on DNA, before a sample is tested for COVID-19 another process is used to convert the former into the latter. Once that’s done, the sample is run through a number of PCR cycles to amplify the amount of any converted-viral-RNA that was originally in it so there’s enough be detected.

But two factors are responsible for creating the massive unreliability of PCR testing that, as we saw in part 1, the New York Times reported on but downplayed to push for mass testing of a different kind without discrediting the whole concept.

  1. The bits of genetic material whose amount is being amplified ARE NOT viruses. They’re just small segments of inert genetic material found inside a virus’s shell. Without the shell, they don’t have any ability to infect a cell and reproduce. The PCR test doesn’t detect “live” viruses, at best it only detects their “remains.”
  2. The detection of viral remains involves massively amplifying the amount in the original sample by running it through successive PCR cycles. And nothing about the PCR test itself will tell you if there was actually any “live” virus in the original sample.

The number of PCR cycles it takes to amplify a sample containing viral remains to the point where they can be detected is called its cycle threshold.

And if the New York Times were interested in producing journalism rather than shilling for mandatory testing, they would have focused their whole story on something you have to read three-fourths of the way in to even find out.

The Food and Drug Administration said in an emailed statement that it does not specify the cycle threshold ranges used to determine who is positive, and that “commercial manufacturers and laboratories set their own.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it is examining the use of cycle threshold measures “for policy decisions.” The agency said it would need to collaborate with the F.D.A. and with device manufacturers to ensure the measures “can be used properly and with assurance that we know what they mean.”

So the FDA and CDC have spent months hyping a test that involves amplifying tiny samples of viral remains until there’s enough to detect. But, according to the New York Times, there are no rules or even any guidelines for how much amplification the testing companies do.

Even though obviously, the more positive test results they churn out, the more downstream business they’ll get from people who are worried because they had contact with someone that tested positive and the general increased concern over the virus.

AP featured imageJournalist Brian Fuss holds up COVID-19 testing information after receiving a coronavirus test by the White House Medical Unit before attending a news conference with President Donald Trump in the press briefing room at the White House, Thursday, April 9, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

And, of course, the Times neglected to mention any of that but, instead, focused on pushing for continuing to mass test for COVID-19 but using a different test.

As we saw in the previous entry, they also failed to mention that, since any test will have a false positive rate, mass testing will mean that an alarming number of bogus COVID-19 cases will continue to be reported every single day from now til eternity even after the virus has run its course, creating an illusory pandemic that never goes away.

Convenient huh?

But what the New York Times says about the unreliability of PCR testing also significantly understates how badly the cycling process is being abused to inflate the number of positive test results.

And it’s probably no coincidence that, had they been upfront about just how unreliable the data we’ve thus far gotten from PCR-testing is, they would have had a tough time claiming there was any justification for mass testing by other means.

Their article informs us that most testing companies run the samples they receive through 40 cycles. As we saw above, that means any genetic material in them is being multiplied over a trillion times. We’re told that a few companies run samples through only 37 cycles, which is still multiplying the amount of converted viral-RNA by a factor of almost 140 billion.

The New York Times goes on to say that the “C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles.” But, this is a deceptive way of stating what the CDC’s data shows that significantly understates how using 40 or even 37 cycles is going to result in massive amounts of positive diagnoses that ought to be negative.

The CDC didn’t just have “extreme difficulty” finding any live virus in samples whose cycle threshold was above 33. They were straight-up unable to find any. Moreover, they were frequently unable to find any live virus even in samples with lower cycle thresholds.

But the worst is yet to come.

Though the CDC replied to the Times by saying they were “examining the use of cycle threshold measures for policy decisions,” the New York Times either didn’t know or didn’t want you to know that the CDC already has guidelines that recommend … wait for it… 40 amplification cycles. Even though their own researchers were unable to find any live virus in samples with a cycling threshold greater than 33!

That’s right folks. The CDC issued guidelines for COVID-19 testing that their own research shows are bound to mean that a lot of people not infected by the virus would get back test results falsely saying they were.

Moreover, even running samples through the 33 cycles the New York Times mentions as the cutoff point in the CDC’s research appears to be way too much amplification.

One paper the CDC cites reports finding no “live” virus in any samples whose cycle threshold is greater than 24. And, even the CDC found a lot more samples that had no live virus than they did samples that did for cycle thresholds between 24 and 33.

Moreover, a pooled analysis of several different studies by a team of researchers at Oxford also concluded that positive PCR test results from samples with cycle thresholds over 24 shouldn’t be taken to indicate the presence of any actual virus.

The upshot of all of this is that the 40 amplification cycles recommended by the CDC and used in the majority of U.S  labs looks like it will generate a lot more bogus positive test results than even the New York Times said.

The Times claimed that around 90% of samples taken from a set of positive tests that used 40 cycles were really negative because, when they were run through only 30 cycles, no viral remains were detected.

But given that 30 cycles also appear to be way too much amplification, it’s likely that a lot more than just 90% were actually bogus. Who knows how few positive diagnoses would have been verified if they’d used the much lower 24 number of amplifying cycles recommended by the Oxford team and above which the other research cited by the CDC found no live virus.

Moreover, though that other research did at least sometimes find actual virus in some samples with cycle thresholds at or below 24, they still frequently found none. Meaning that, so far as the available research goes, positive PCR test results appear to never be very reliable regardless of how few amplification cycles are used.

But it gets even worse. All the studies cited by the CDC were done only on people with symptoms. And it turns out that the number of days after onset seems to have a huge effect on whether positive PCR test results are reliable.

According to that study the CDC cited that found no virus at cycle thresholds above 24, if a sample testing positive is taken more than seven days after the onset of symptoms, the probability that the test is indicating the presence of live virus is… wait for it…. zero.

But even positive test results from samples taken within 7 days of the onset of symptoms don’t turn out to be very reliable.  The study only found a 40% or less chance of discovering any live virus in samples testing positive for viral remains that were taken on any of the first seven days after symptom onset except the third and fourth. And the ones taken on the third day only had an 80% chance of containing any virus while the ones taken on the fourth only had a 70% chance.

Even for people with symptoms, the research seems to show that regardless of how few cycles you use the PCR test is going to diagnose a lot of people who aren’t actually infected with the COVID-19 virus as positive.

But what’s worse for the regime of mass testing is that none of these studies was done on asymptomatic patients at all. So we have no reason whatsoever to believe that PCR testing is ever reliable for discovering infections in people who don’t show symptoms.

Remember:

  • The study which kept track of the amount of time after symptom onset samples were taken found no live virus in samples testing positive taken more than 7 days after symptoms began.
  • The CDC didn’t find any virus in most samples that tested positive after being run through more than 24 cycles. The other study found no virus in any samples with a cycle threshold greater than 24. And the Oxford pooled analysis also found that more than 24 amplification cycles is too many.

Given that most labs in the U.S are running samples through 40 amplification cycles and the few that aren’t are amplifying them 37 times, as hard as it is to believe, it’s very possible that, for all intents and purposes, no one in America who tested positive but didn’t have symptoms was really infected.

And even if some were, the percentage who weren’t is likely to be a lot more than the 90% upper bound suggested by the New York Times.

Moreover, given the available research, a positive PCR test isn’t even a reliable indicator of COVID-19 infection even if you do have symptoms. It wouldn’t be at all surprising if most of the people with symptoms who’ve been led to believe they have COVID-19 by a positive PCR test really have something else.

In short, all the available research seems to indicate that positive PCR test results are utterly meaningless.

It turns out that the guy who won a Nobel Prize for inventing the process was right and it shouldn’t be used to test for viruses at all.

Who would have thought it?

*** See the preceding installment for more on Kary Mullis’s reasons for saying the process he won a Nobel Prize for inventing can’t be used to test for viral infection and how even the very low false-positive rate any test will have winds up creating a phony case count.***

And, since PCR tests are the standard diagnostic tool that’s been used to detect COVID-19 infection, all the data we’ve been given is worthless too. We don’t have a clue how many people have really been infected with the COVID-19 virus or what it’s fatality rate is.

The numbers the medical bureaucrats in charge have been throwing at us might as well have come from a Ouija board.

But there’s something that’s, in a way, even more scandalous going on here.

The CDC was hyping PCR tests for COVID before any of this research was even done. They were also using the results to compile data which they then used to scare the public and justify the never-before-seen widespread adoption of extreme measures to slow down its spread.

They even ignored all the precautions they took to limit the use of PCR-testing in all of the previous four viral epidemics that occurred this century.

Clearly someone needs to investigate why the CDC recommended that COVID testing labs run samples through 40 amplification cycles.

Why PCR testing is even still being used to generate data that keeps the country in a state of panic when it’s clearly worthless is another thing that obviously needs to be looked into seriously.

But a more basic question is why PCR tests were being hyped as “the gold standard” for COVID-19 detection before any testing was done to verify that claim when they don’t even detect the virus.

The American people have been frightened into surrendering their most basic liberties based on a test that both Anthony Fauci and CDC director Robert Redfield had to know there was no reason to think was at all reliable.

And once the research showed that the test is likely falsely diagnosing millions of Americans who don’t really have COVID-19, they not only did nothing to end its use, they continued scaring us with its results.

We’re witnessing perhaps the greatest political scandal in all of history and certainly one of its greatest crimes. And it’s about time someone with authority found out what those responsible were trying to accomplish and make sure that, whatever it was, they’re made to pay the steep price justice demands.

We’ve suffered way too much carnage and been told way too many lies to let this pass.

Finis

Please follow and like us:

33 thoughts on “NY TIMES: Up to 90% Who’ve Tested COVID-Positive Wrongly Diagnosed! TRUTH: A Whole Lot Worse!”

  1. Pingback: Προβλέψεις μιας παγκόσμιας δυστοπίας | Σ.Υ.Τ.Α.
  2. What a koinky dink. If you do enough cycles, you find something. The average human has only 380 trillion viruses in their body. It’s like finding a haystack in a needle. This is a complete and total scam.

    moderated
    1. Maybe the overcounting of actual covid cases can explain the collapse in seasonal flu counts. People with flu get tested for covid and, presto, are counted as covid cases, not influenza. Just a hunch.

      moderated
  3. This is of course my opinion, but I am not buying that Trump had the ‘vid.
    Maybe he had a cold…a touch of anything…who knows. We DO know the tests are 90-95% inaccurate or come back with false positives. This could very well be the case with all those now testing positive in the WH .
    So, they gave him, through a transfusion, something called Regeneron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regeneron_Pharmaceuticals ), which appears to be a soup of antibiotics. He said it made him feel better than he had in years. He had very few symptoms which could have been from anything. Keericed, I get a sore throat and feel tired every-once-in-a while and at his same age, I watch what I eat, take some C and maybe some extra vitamins…get some extra sleep and the next day I feel GREAT. Our bodies have ways of telling us to slow down IF we listen.

    I think he was USED to further this hoax. At times, Trump can be quite naive.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8dGSyHnGF0&feature=emb_logo

    moderated
    1. Or it could be that Trump went along with the covid diagnosis so that he could stage a heroic recovery and therefore diminish the fear factor of the pandemic. He said something like don’t be afraid, you can beat this. That’s vital to hear for those who believe in the medical theater.

      It’s important to remember that he doesn’t need to convince us. We already see through it. So being mad that he doesn’t say what we know to be true, but that would be shocking to the average citizen, is just short-sighted. He’s got to bring everyone along to be reelected.

      moderated
      1. Excellent. Could well be true. One thing for sure, he will win in a landslide unless this turns out to be the greatest election theft ever. And according to Olivier on Fetz’s interview, that will be the scenario because of media control. BUT, I beg to differ….as did Fetz. Gallup now says 56%…the largest percentage they have ever recorded and they have made very few mistakes when it comes to presidential elections.

        moderated
  4. This FRAUD is coming to an end:

    The Smoking Gun: Where is the coronavirus? The CDC says it isn’t available.
    Oct
    8
    by Jon Rappoport

    by Jon Rappoport

    October 8, 2020

    (To join our email list, click here.)

    The CDC document is titled, “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.” It is dated July 13, 2020.

    Buried deep in the document, on page 39, in a section titled, “Performance Characteristics,” we have this: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays [diagnostic tests] designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…”

    The key phrase there is: “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available…”

    Every object that exists can be quantified, which is to say, measured. The use of the term “quantified” in that phrase means: the CDC has no measurable amount of the virus, because it is unavailable. THE CDC HAS NO VIRUS.

    A further tip-off is the use of the word ‘isolates.” This means NO ISOLATED VIRUS IS AVAILABLE.

    Another way to put it: NO ONE HAS AN ISOLATED SPECIMEN OF THE COVID-19 VIRUS.

    NO ONE HAS ISOLATED THE COVID-10 VIRUS.

    THEREFORE, NO ONE HAS PROVED THAT IT EXISTS.

    As if this were not enough of a revelation to shock the world, the CDC goes on to say they are presenting a diagnostic PCR test to detect the virus-that-hasn’t-been-isolated…and the test is looking for RNA which is PRESUMED to come from the virus that hasn’t been proved to exist.

    And using this test, the CDC and every other public health agency in the world are counting COVID cases and deaths…and governments have instituted lockdowns and economic devastation using those case and death numbers as justification.

    If people believe “you have the virus but it is not available,” and you have the virus except it is buried within other material and hasn’t been extracted and purified and isolated, these people believe the moon is made of green cheese.

    This is like saying. “We have the 20 trillion dollars, they are contained somewhere in our myriad accounts, we just don’t know where.” If you don’t know where, you don’t know you have the money.

    “The car keys are somewhere in the house. We just don’t where.” Really? If you don’t know where, you don’t know the keys are in the house.

    “The missing cruise missile is somewhere in the arsenal, we just don’t where.” No. If you don’t know where, you don’t know the missile is in the arsenal.

    “The COVID-19 virus is somewhere in the material we have—we just haven’t removed it from that material. But we know what it is and we’ve identified it and we know its structure.” NO YOU DON’T. YOU ASSUME THAT.

    Science is not assumptions.

    “But…but…there is a study which says a few researchers in a lab isolated the virus…”

    They say they did. But in July, the CDC is saying no virus is available. I guess that means trucks were not available to bring the virus from that lab to the CDC. The trucks were out of gas. It was raining. The bridge was washed out. The trucks were in the shop. Joe, the driver, couldn’t find his mask, and he didn’t want to leave home without it…

    Science is not assumptions.

    The pandemic is a fraud, down to the root of the poisonous tree.

    moderated
  5. AND, Trump’s reply to the “virtual debate”:

    Update (0805ET): Well that didn’t take long – as we suspected – President Trump said on Fox that the decision to change the format for the next presidential debate to virtual “is not acceptable to us,” adding that “I’m not going to waste my time on a virtual debate, that’s not what debating is all about. You sit behind a computer and do a debate, it’s ridiculous.”

    “I’m not gonna waste my time on a virtual debate,” Trump announces on Fox Business pic.twitter.com/OgHGlJ53wb
    — Dave Brown (@dave_brown24) October 8, 2020

    Trump has decided to hold a rally instead…”We’ll pass on this sad excuse to bail out Joe Biden and do a rally instead.”

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/second-trump-biden-debate-will-be-held-remotely

    Watcha think, RS??

    moderated
  6. This is just breaking, so there is little information. The next presidential debate will be held remotely. Absolutely ridiculous that there can be no doubt, considering the Democrat’s performance for the past 4 years, that FRAUD will be perpetrated. This is beyond outrageous and a move of total desperation in an attempt to steal this election AND further this proven ‘vid hoax. I am sickened.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/second-trump-biden-debate-will-be-held-remotely

    moderated
  7. Newsome is not insane, he is evil, a communist, an agent of Satan playing his role in the Globalist NWO plan, which is primarily under jewish control, with Freemasons and other proxy warriors playing their part. “The locusts have no leader, yet they attack in formation.” (Proverbs 30.27) This was all predicted by Our Lady of Fatima four months before the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Every nation on earth would be enslaved if Her requests were not heeded. fatima.org

    moderated
  8. Clearly, the PCR test has huge issues with its use, even assuming that it can ever do what it says on the tin.
    Despite the tens of thousands of dollars these CDC / FDA individuals are paid, and the hundreds of scientists reporting to them, nobody seems to have understood the simplest thing, ie that you treat somebody who has symptoms which are distressing, and you detect the spread of a condition by noting how this number either increases, decreases, or remains constant.
    So empirical means are utilized to monitor the condition, not theoretical means.
    If we do the former, then we see, as is rapidly becoming so obvious that even CDC / FDA people should now understand, that this entire thing is a complete hoax.

    moderated
      1. The copy below had more info, but came up too small.
        To be allowed to work I had to fill out a form. That is the fine my company may get if I fill out the form wrongly. I have been through many check points to do country jobs, manned by police and army personnel. They did not question it.

        moderated
  9. I follows the rules because I don’t want to get locked up or fined. If I fill out the form incoorectly I could get a fine just under $100,000. I know most people don’t like conspiracy types like me, so I am not going to be a marryr for them.

    Attachment

    moderated
  10. It’s like David Icke, I liked him&his son’s speeches. But as the comments said on youtube, he spoke early and supposedly left to pee, surely he could pee in a bottle behind a coat or something. It is suspicious, it looks like he was warned and shot through. He could be an “gent provocateur”.

    moderated
  11. One thing for sure this is a psyop. When nearly every news article is on a topic, like CO2 causing global temperatures to rise and kill us all, when CO2 is about 0.05% of the atmosphere and is vital for most life on earth, you know the bulldust is being propagandized to us.

    moderated
  12. Pingback: Michael Thau explains in layman’s words why more than 90% of Covid tests are false positives - PaulCraigRoberts.org
  13. Although a bit more elaborate, this is very close to what Icke said in his interviews with Brian Rose. Couple this article with possibility they may not only be doing a worthless test, but using the ACCESS TO YOUR DNA to harvest that and/or actually place something in your sinus cavity that could very well be causing some reaction.
    Even considering just one of these possibilities, this is easily the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the world population and the guilty parties should hang several times.
    Trump…you had better get hoppin’ and expose this madness now.
    If i see another arsehole with a mask, I cannot be responsible for my actions.

    moderated
    1. I only minimalize it, but I’m going to get locked up for the sake of wearing a mask. I have a tea towel tied with elastic at the back. When I work I pull it down, I am allowed because it is strenuous, like you don’t have to wear it if running or cycling. Whether it is propaganda or real, they have videos of people , mainly girls, easy prey, being attacked by the cops. I think if someone wears a mask, that is their business, not yours, don’t become a violent vigilante like the BLM bulldust. But obviously this is a psyop and it is evil. Whatever the disease, if any but probably it exists, the cure is worse by far.

      moderated
    2. I have been in court with these type of goverment&legal types. I won the case, seven respondents involved, but still got to pay about $30,000 for the engineer who got let out of the case because my letter to bring him into the case was deemed not up to scratch, but the court brought him in and kept him on that letter. The insurance company had brought me into the case let me out, but the builder brought me in, they said his lawyer did not word his attempt to bring in the case properly, accoring to the judge, but I was brought back in.

      Attachment

      moderated

Leave a Reply