Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “positive” patients, whereby “positive” is usually equated with “infected.”
But looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2.
We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.”
The message was spread through headlines around the world, for instance by Reuters and the BBC. Still on the 3 of May, the moderator of the Heute journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television— was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words:
"Test, test, test—that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.”
This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.
So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.
The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.
Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.
This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity”[1] and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available.
As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question
“How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:
"If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”
Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”
But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, “pragmatically” COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, “may be the best available ‘gold standard’.” But this is not scientifically sound.
Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us[2].
And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis — contrary to Watson’s statement — cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.
In addition, “experts” such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.
That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “may be the best available gold standard,” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn’t be the best available/possible gold standard. But she hasn’t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd: “I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.”
No proof for the RNA being of viral origin
Now the question is: What is required first for virus isolation/proof? We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.
As textbooks (e.g., White/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state, particle purification — i.e. the separation of an object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende — is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.
The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from. That has to be determined beforehand.
And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.
Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.
But not a single team could answer that question with “yes” — and NB., nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like “No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification” (see below).
We asked several study authors “Do your electron micrographs show the purified virus?”, they gave the following responses:
Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health” Nature Medicine, March 2020 Replying Author: Malik Peiris Date: May 12, 2020 Answer:“The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.”
Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020 Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han Date: May 6, 2020 Answer:“We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.”
Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020 Replying Author: Wan Beom Park Date: March 19, 2020 Answer:“We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”
Study 4: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020 Replying Author: Wenjie Tan Date: March 18, 2020 Answer:“[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”
Regarding the mentioned papers it is clear that what is shown in the electron micrographs (EMs) is the end result of the experiment, meaning there is no other result that they could have made EMs from.
That is to say, if the authors of these studies concede that their published EMs do not show purified particles, then they definitely do not possess purified particles claimed to be viral. (In this context, it has to be remarked that some researchers use the term “isolation” in their papers, but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation (purification) process. Consequently, in this context the term “isolation” is misused).
Thus, the authors of four of the principal, early 2020 papers claiming discovery of a new coronavirus concede they had no proof that the origin of the virus genome was viral-like particles or cellular debris, pure or impure, or particles of any kind. In other words, the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.
We have also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea…to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:
[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction […] tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”[3]
And that’s why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified. His answer:
I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”[4]
This actually means that one cannot conclude that the RNA gene sequences, which the scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for which the PCR tests are finally being “calibrated,” belong to a specific virus — in this case SARS-CoV-2.
In addition, there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.
In order to establish a causal connection, one way or the other, i.e. beyond virus isolation and purification, it would have been absolutely necessary to carry out an experiment that satisfies the four Koch’s postulates. But there is no such experiment, as Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei recently revealed for OffGuardian.
Re: Covid PCR tests, FDA wanting to ban important supplement, invisible quantum dots & mor
Bill Gates Funds Invisible Quantum Tattoo Hidden In
Coronavirus Vaccine For Storing Vaccination History
Great Game India
A project funded by Bill Gates aims to deliver an invisible quantum tattoo hidden in the coronavirus vaccine for storing your vaccination history. The researchers showed that their new dye, which consists of nanocrystals called quantum dots, can remain for at least five years under the skin, where it emits near-infrared light that can be detected by a specially equipped smartphone.
https://greatgameindia.com/wp-conten...ccine.jpg.webp Bill Gates Funds Invisible Quantum Tattoo Hidden In Coronavirus Vaccine For Storing Vaccination History Funded by Bill Gates, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers have developed a clandestine way to record your vaccination history: storing the data in a pattern of dye or tattoo ink, invisible to the naked eye, that is slipped under the skin hidden in your vaccine.
“This technology could enable the rapid and anonymous detection of patient vaccination history to ensure that every child is vaccinated,” says Kevin McHugh, a former MIT postdoc who is now an assistant professor of bioengineering at Rice University.
https://greatgameindia.com/wp-conten...ccine.jpg.webp
Funded by Bill Gates, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers have developed a clandestine way to record your vaccination history: storing the data in a pattern of dye or tattoo ink, invisible to the naked eye, that is slipped under the skin hidden in your vaccine. The researchers showed that their new dye, which consists of nanocrystals called quantum dots, can remain for at least five years under the skin, where it emits near-infrared light that can be detected by a specially equipped smartphone.
McHugh and former visiting scientist Lihong Jing are the lead authors of the study, which appears today in Science Translational Medicine. Ana Jaklenec, a research scientist at MIT’s Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, and Robert Langer, the David H. Koch Institute Professor at MIT, are the senior authors of the paper.
To create an “on-patient,” medical record, the researchers developed a new type of copper-based quantum dots, which emit light in the near-infrared spectrum. The dots are only about 4 nanometers in diameter, but they are encapsulated in biocompatible microparticles that form spheres about 20 microns in diameter. This encapsulation allows the dye to remain in place, hidden under the skin, after being injected along with a vaccine.
https://greatgameindia.com/wp-conten...ccine.jpg.webp A close-up microscope image of the microneedle array, which could deliver quantum dots into skin. Credit: K.J. McHugh et al. Science Translational Medicine (2019) The researchers designed their dye to be delivered by a microneedle patch rather than a traditional syringe and needle. The microneedles used in this study are made from a mixture of dissolvable sugar and a polymer called PVA, as well as the quantum-dot dye and the vaccine. When the patch is applied to the skin, the microneedles, which are 1.5 millimeters long, partially dissolve, releasing their payload within about two minutes.
By selectively loading microparticles into microneedles, the patches deliver a pattern in the skin that is invisible to the naked eye but can be scanned with a smartphone that has the infrared filter removed. The patch can be customized to imprint different patterns that correspond to the type of vaccine delivered.
“It’s possible someday that this ‘invisible’ approach could create new possibilities for data storage, biosensing, and vaccine applications that could improve how medical care is provided, particularly in the developing world,” Langer says.
In an article published in Scientific America on December 18, 2019, titledInvisible Ink Could Reveal whether Kids Have Been Vaccinated, the author, Karen Weintraub, states that in the not too distant future vaccinations will be accompanied with an invisible ink tattoo:
The dye would be expected to last up to five years, according to tests on pig and rat skin and human skin in a dish.The system—which has not yet been tested in children—would provide quick and easy access to vaccination history, avoid the risk of clerical errors, and add little to the cost or risk of the procedure, according to the study.”
Already plans are underway to use these invisible quantum tattoo hidden in coronavirus vaccine. According to a research paper titled Quantum dots as a promising agent to combat COVID‐19:
https://greatgameindia.com/wp-conten...ccine.jpg.webp Schematic representation of the actions exerted by QDs on SARS‐CoV‐2. QD, quantum dot; S protein, spike protein; SARS‐CoV‐2, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2
The development of antiviral nanomaterials by surface engineering with enhanced specificity might prove valuable to combat this novel virus. Quantum dots (QDs) are multifaceted agents with the ability to fight against/inhibit the activity of COVID‐19 virus.
#TrustStamp funded by #BillGates & implemented by Mastercard & GAVI will soon link your biometric digital identity to your vaccination records for predictive policing. Those who dont wish to be vaccinated maybe locked out of system based on trust score.https://t.co/Gnzz870DfS
The program said to “evolve as you evolve” is part of the Global War on Cash and has the potential dual use for the purposes of surveillance and “predictive policing” based on your vaccination history. Those who may not wish to be vaccinated may be locked out of the system based on their trust score.
A paper13 published in the October 2020 issue of Medical Hypotheses reviews the potential therapeutic benefits of NAC in the battle against COVID-19 specifically. According to the authors:
"COVID-19 … continues to spread across the globe. Predisposing factors such as age, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and lowered immune function increase the risk of disease severity.
T cell exhaustion, high viral load, and high levels of TNF-ɑ, IL1β, IL6, IL10 have been associated with severe SARS-CoV-2. Cytokine and antigen overstimulation are potentially responsible for poor humoral response to the virus.
Lower cellular redox status, which leads to pro-inflammatory states mediated by TNF-ɑ is also potentially implicated. In vivo, in vitro, and human clinical trials have demonstrated N-acetylcysteine (NAC) as an effective method of improving redox status, especially when under oxidative stress.
In human clinical trials, NAC has been used to replenish glutathione stores and increase the proliferative response of T cells. NAC has also been shown to inhibit the NLRP3 inflammasome pathway (IL1β and IL18) in vitro, and decrease plasma TNF-ɑ in human clinical trials.
Mediation of the viral load could occur through NAC's ability to increase cellular redox status via maximizing the rate limiting step of glutathione synthesis, and thereby potentially decreasing the effects of virally induced oxidative stress and cell death.
We hypothesize that NAC could act as a potential therapeutic agent in the treatment of COVID-19 through a variety of potential mechanisms, including increasing glutathione, improving T cell response, and modulating inflammation."
A second report14 reviewing the evidence for using NAC in the treatment of COVID-19 was published April 14, 2020, by The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford.
How NAC May Protect Against COVID-19
To fully understand how NAC might protect against COVID-19, a short lesson in biochemistry is useful. Following is a summary of Seheult's presentation, featured in the video above.
When you add an electron to an oxygen (O2) molecule, you get superoxide (O2), a reactive oxygen species (ROS). When you add another electron (for a total of two electrons), you get hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). An oxygen molecule with three electrons added becomes hydroxyl (O3), and oxygen with four electrons added becomes harmless water (H2O).
Not only does superoxide play a crucial role in the oxidative stress associated with the comorbidities for COVID-19, such as obesity, heart disease and diabetes, but superoxide-driven oxidative stress is also at the heart of serious COVID-19 infection. Now, your body has built-in defenses against oxidative stress. These defenses include:
• Superoxide dismutase (SOD), which converts damaging superoxide into hydrogen peroxide15
• Catalase, which converts hydrogen peroxide into oxygen and water
• Glutathione peroxidase (GSHPX), which does two things simultaneously: While reducing hydrogen peroxide into water, it also converts the reduced form of glutathione (GSH) into glutathione disulfide (GSSG), the oxidized form of glutathione.
In other words, as GSHPX turns hydrogen peroxide into harmless water, glutathione becomes oxidized. The oxidized GSSG is then "recharged" or regenerated by NADPH (the reduced form of NADP+), turning it back into GSH (the reduced form of glutathione). NADPH is also converted into NADP+ through an enzyme called GSH reductase.
As noted by Seheult, serious COVID-19 infection triggers a perfect storm of superoxide-driven oxidative stress, as SARS-CoV-2 attaches to the ACE2 receptor, triggering angiotensin 2 (AT-2), which stimulates superoxide. Simultaneously, there's a deficiency of AT-1,7, which inhibits superoxide. This deficiency allows superoxide to accumulate further.
SARS-CoV-2 also attracts polymorphonuclear leukocytes (PMNs), a type of white blood cell, which also produces superoxide in its efforts to destroy pathogens. All of that superoxide is then converted into other ROS that destroy endothelial cells.
This down-spiral can be inhibited by NAC, as it boosts GSSG. As illustrated in Seheult's graphic below, when you add two GSH molecules and hydrogen peroxide together, you end up with oxidized glutathione and harmless water, thereby alleviating the oxidative stress.
Previous studies have also shown NAC helps improve a variety of lung-related problems, including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS),16 both of which are common characteristics of COVID-19. It's also been shown to speed recovery, reduce intensive care unit (ICU) stays and reduce the need for mechanical ventilation among those with respiratory problems. Such studies include:
A 2017 meta-analysis,17 which found a significant reduction in ICU stays among ARDS patients treated with NAC, even though there was no significant difference in short-term mortality risk.
A 2007 study,18 which concluded that NAC improves ARDS by "increasing intracellular glutathione and extracellular thiol molecules" along with general antioxidant effects.
Research19 published in 2018 found NAC reduces oxidative and inflammatory damage in patients with community-acquired pneumonia.
Another 2018 study20 found NAC improves post-operative lung function in patients undergoing liver transplantation.
A 1994 study21 found NAC enhances recovery from acute lung injury, significantly regressing patients' lung injury score during the first 10 days of treatment, and significantly reducing the need for ventilation. After three days of treatment, only 17% of those receiving NAC needed ventilation, compared to 48% in the placebo group.
