Lets start with the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technique…
Kary Mullis – Wikipedia
Kary Banks Mullis (December 28, 1944 – August 7, 2019) was an American biochemist. In recognition of his invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique, he shared the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Michael Smith and was awarded the Japan Prize in the same year. His invention became a central technique in biochemistry and molecular biology.
(Note the date of his death, just before the ‘pandemic’ – Mick Raven)
His words on the PCR Test…
PCR Test is Flimsy, Say Inventor
February 27, 2021
Every day, the television news tells people about new COVID-19-positive test results, but are they reliable? Kary Mullis, the late inventor of the diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19, explained how his test could be misused. So did a Portuguese court which ruled a positive test is an insufficient basis to isolate or quarantine anybody. Fortunately, this is not the TV news.
Mullis won the 1993 Nobel Prize in chemistry for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. He died August 7, 2019, months before it would be used to diagnose SARS-CoV-2. Regardless, his weighty words remain.
“The PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody,” Mullis once said in a public address. “If you can amplify one single molecule up to something you can really measure, which is something you can do.…So that could be thought of as a misuse of it.”
In an interview, Mullis claimed the president of the University of South Carolina invited Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, to debate Mullis, but Fauci declined.
“These guys like Fauci get up and start talking and he doesn’t know anything really about anything and I would say that to his face. Nothing,” Mullis said. “The man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope and if it’s got a virus in there, you’ll know it. He doesn’t understand electron microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine and he should not be in a position like he’s in. Most of those guys up there on the top are just total administrative people and they don’t know anything about the body.
“Those guys have got an agenda which is not what we would like them to have, being that we pay for them to take care of our health in some way. They have a personal kind of agenda. They make up their own rules as they go; they change them when they want to. And they (are smug)—like Tony Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people who pay his salary and lie directly into the camera.
“You can’t expect the sheep to really respect the best and the brightest. They don’t know the difference, really. I like humans, don’t get me wrong, but the vast majority don’t have the ability to judge who is and who isn’t a really good scientist.”
But if any non-scientist could judge, might it be an actual judge?
Last summer, four German tourists were detained in Portugal indefinitely after one of the four tested positive for the coronavirus. A subsequent test two weeks later drew the same conclusion, leaving the four stranded in their hotel. Finally, they made a legal appeal under habeas corpus and were released. On November 11, the Lisbon Court of Appeal in Portugal upheld that decision in a 34-page ruling. The judges noted that none of the applicants was ever seen by a doctor, “which is frankly inexplicable, given the alleged seriousness of the infection.”
Everything relied on the PCR test, which the judges found flimsy: “However, in view of the current scientific evidence, this test is, in itself, unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to a person’s infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
Such reliability was “more than debatable,” in the judges’ words, as it depended on the viral load and how many repetitive cycles in the PCR test were used to amplify the samples. Each cycle exponentially increased the load, but the court was not told how many cycles were used for the tourists’ tests.
The verdict referenced a study published by Oxford Academic in September on the correlation between 3,790 positive PCR tests and 1,941 SARS-CoV-2 isolates. The researchers found that at a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, the test was 70 percent reliable, a figure that dropped to 20 percent at 30 cycles, and just three percent at 35 cycles. That meant 97 percent were false positives, yet that was used “in most laboratories in the USA and Europe.”
The judges also concluded that, “however, and more relevantly, there is no scientific data to suggest that low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equate to infection, unless the presence of infectious viral particles has been confirmed by laboratory culture methods.”
Why all of this matters is best summed up by the words of Gian Luigi Gatta, a professor of criminal law at Italy’s Università degli Studi di Milano. The judges quoted Gatta’s warning of a slippery slope for freedom: “Today the emergency is called a coronavirus. We don’t know tomorrow. And what we do or don’t do today, to maintain compliance with the fundamental principles of the system, can condition our future….The legislative turmoil generated around the containment of the spread of COVID-19…can never harm the right to freedom and security and, ultimately, the absolute right to human dignity.”
(by the way this site AVN is blocked as a security threat?… at the moment)
Just following orders
At the end of the day this is what the ministry of health (NSW) put out. We just deal with what we are told by the ministry. We have guidelines as usual that we need to follow.
https://avn.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/scientist.mp3Recently NSW resident David asked some probing questions of scientist Thomas Karagiannis, from pathology at Prince of Wales Hospital, NSW. (Click the audio file to hear this interesting interview)
But first some Background on the COVID-19 Test
The reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) test used to identify those people infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus uses a nasal swab to collect RNA from deep within the nasal cavity of the individual being tested. The RNA is reverse transcribed into DNA and amplified through 40 or more cycles, or until virus is detected. The result is reported as a simple “yes” or “no” answer to the question of whether someone is infected.
Thomas confirms that the number of amplification cycles used in New South Wales range from 40-45. Once a positive test is obtained the sample undergoes genomic sequencing to find the particular strain.
This is very interesting to actually have this number of cycles confirmed as any test with a cycle threshold (CT) above 35 is too sensitive. The test’s threshold is so high that it is said to detect people with the live virus (for which we have no evidence of its isolation ) as well as those with a few genetic fragments left over from a past infection that no longer poses a risk.
Michael Mina, MD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health states:
It’s like finding a hair in a room after a person left it
As many of us now know it is a test that is incapable of diagnosis
According to Reiner Fuellmich, a leading German lawyer and one of four members of the German Corona Investigative Committee:
Not only are PCR tests expressly not approved for diagnostic purposes, as is correctly noted on leaflets coming with these tests, and as the inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, has repeatedly emphasized. Instead, they’re simply incapable of diagnosing any disease.
The Corman Drosten review report
David asked Karagiannis if he was familiar with the Corman Drosten review report which features 22 scientists who refute the PCR methodology.
David offered to send the scientist a copy however Karagiannis declined the offer:
Don’t send me anything I won’t read it . We just do what we are told by the Ministry. We have guidelines as usual that we need to follow.
More on the Corman Drostan review report:
This paper (hereafter referred to as “Corman-Drosten paper”), published by “Eurosurveillance” on 23 January 2020, describes an RT-PCR method to detect the novel Corona virus (also known as SARS-CoV2). After careful consideration, our international consortium of Life Science scientists found the Corman-Drosten paper is severely flawed with respect to its biomolecular and methodological design.
A detailed scientific argumentation can be found in our review “External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results”, which we herewith submit for publication in Eurosurveillance.
Background to the Drosten PCR test
At the beginning of January of 2020, based on this very basic knowledge, Mr. Drosten developed his PCR test, which supposedly detects an infection with SARS-COV-2, without ever having seen the real Wuhan virus from China, only having learned from social media reports that there was something going on in Wuhan, he started tinkering on his computer with what would become his corona PCR test. For this, he used an old SARS virus, hoping it would be sufficiently similar to the allegedly new strain of the coronavirus found in Wuhan. Then, he sent the result of his computer tinkering to China to determine whether the victims of the alleged new coronavirus tested positive. They did.
And that was enough for the World Health Organization to sound the pandemic alarm and to recommend the worldwide use of the Drosten PCR test for the detection of infections with the virus now called SARS-COV-2. Drosten’s opinion and advice was – this must be emphasized once again – the only source for the German government when it announced the lockdown as well as the rules for social distancing and the mandatory wearing of masks.
Scientists, politicians and others should not just follow orders. This is not a killer virus. 99.9% of people under 65 survive the virus. This injection is not saving lives. Thousands of people have died worldwide or been seriously injured following this injection (gene therapy).
This has to stop NOW!
But wait there’s more…
A Vaccine? or ‘Experimental Gene Therapy’?