Dec 022020
 


John French Sloan McSorley’s Bar 1912

 

 

If you’re enthusiastic about the impact of the newly arriving COVID vaccines, and you expect to “go back to normal” soon, don’t. You’re being fed fairy tales and other narratives. I won’t talk too much here, my quotes are plenty long enough as is.

After first reading an absolute decomposition of the PCR tests this morning, I figured out that the new vaccines being rolled out are equally useless. One has to wonder what goes on here. Just a few days ago, I quoted an article about a Portuguese court saying the PCR tests are 97% unreliable:

Landmark Legal Ruling Finds That Covid PCR Tests Are Not Fit For Purpose

This is not the first challenge to the credibility of PCR tests. Many people will be aware that their results have a lot to do with the number of amplifications that are performed, or the ‘cycle threshold.’ This number in most American and European labs is 35–40 cycles, but experts have claimed that even 35 cycles is far too many, and that a more reasonable protocol would call for 25–30 cycles. (Each cycle exponentially increases the amount of viral DNA in the sample).


[..] The Portuguese judges cited a study conducted by “some of the leading European and world specialists,” which was published by Oxford Academic at the end of September. It showed that if someone tested positive for Covid at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher, the chances of that person actually being infected is less than 3%, and that “the probability of… receiving a false positive is 97% or higher.”

The writer of that article, Peter Andrews, an Irish science journalist, today at RT writes an even more convincing take-down. The Corman-Drosten paper, upon which “our” entire attitude towards the PCR test is based, was written by a number of highly compromised authors, with interests in both the journal that published it, and the companies that perform the tests.

The people now criticizing the paper are a group that includes senior molecular geneticists, biochemists, immunologists, and microbiologists from Europe, the US and Japan. Not some Portuguese judges. Not that there’s anything wrong with Portuguese judges; they seem more sane to me than many other parties.

A Global Team Of Experts Has Found 10 Fatal Flaws In The Main Test For Covid And Is Demanding It’s Urgently Axed

A peer review from a group of 22 international experts has found 10 “major flaws” in the main protocol for such tests. The report systematically dismantles the original study, called the Corman-Drosten paper, which described a protocol for applying the PCR technique to detecting Covid. The Corman-Drosten paper was published on January, 23, 2020, just a day after being submitted, which would make any peer review process that took place possibly the shortest in history. What is important about it is that the protocol it describes is used in around 70 percent of Covid kits worldwide. It’s cheap, fast – and absolutely useless. Among the fatal flaws that totally invalidate the PCR testing protocol are that the test:

• is non-specific, due to erroneous primer design • is enormously variable • cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments • has no positive or negative controls • has no standard operating procedure • does not seem to have been properly peer reviewed. Oh dear. One wonders whether anything at all was correct in the paper. But wait – it gets worse. As has been noted previously, no threshold for positivity was ever identified.

This is why labs have been running 40 cycles, almost guaranteeing a large number of false positives – up to 97 percent, according to some studies. The cherry on top, though, is that among the authors of the original paper themselves, at least four have severe conflicts of interest. Two of them are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance, the sinisterly named journal that published the paper.

And at least three of them are on the payroll of the first companies to perform PCR testing! The 22 members of the consortium that has challenged this shoddy science deserve huge credit. The scientists, from Europe, the USA, and Japan, comprise senior molecular geneticists, biochemists, immunologists, and microbiologists, with many decades of experience between them. They have issued a demand to Eurosurveillance to retract the Corman-Drosten paper, writing: “Considering the scientific and methodological blemishes presented here, we are confident that the editorial board of Eurosurveillance has no other choice but to retract the publication.’’ Talk about putting the pressure on.

It is difficult to overstate the implications of this revelation. Every single thing about the Covid orthodoxy relies on ‘case numbers’, which are largely the results of the now widespread PCR tests. If their results are essentially meaningless, then everything we are being told – and ordered to do by increasingly dictatorial governments – is likely to be incorrect. For instance, one of the authors of the review is Dr Mike Yeadon, who asserts that, in the UK, there is no ‘second wave’ and that the pandemic has been over since June. Having seen the PCR tests so unambiguously debunked, it is hard to see any evidence to the contrary.

[..] Why was this paper rushed to publication in January, despite clearly not meeting proper standards? Why did none of the checks and balances that are meant to prevent bad science dictating public policy kick into action? And why did it take so long for anyone in the scientific community to challenge its faulty methodology? These questions lead to dark ruminations, which I will save for another day.

Even more pressing is the question of what is going to be done about this now. The people responsible for writing and publishing the paper have to be held accountable. But also, all PCR testing based on the Corman-Drosten protocol should be stopped with immediate effect. All those who are so-called current ‘Covid cases’, diagnosed based on that protocol, should be told they no longer have to isolate. All present and previous Covid deaths, cases, and ‘infection rates’ should be subject to a massive retroactive inquiry.

And lockdowns, shutdowns, and other restrictions should be urgently reviewed and relaxed.

Because this latest blow to PCR testing raises the probability that we are not enduring a killer virus pandemic, but a false positive pseudo-epidemic.

 

And that wasn’t enough to “make my day”. Next up, we see that the newly crafted vaccines are not only potentially dangerous, at least the Pfizer and Moderna ones, they are utterly useless too. They are not designed to keep you from being infected, they merely aim to decrease the impact of the symptoms of infections. Back in September William A. Haseltine, healthcare contributor at Forbes, wrote the following.

Where was the follow-up? Why did Britain proudly announce they’ll start using the Pfizer test by next week, with other countries soon to follow? What’s going on? Why are they all spending billions on vaccines that are utterly useless -and dangerous? The vaccines don’t even pretend to stop you from getting infected, or dying. They only pretend to make you somewhat less sick once you are infected. They fight symptoms, not the infection, not the disease.

Covid-19 Vaccine Protocols Reveal That Trials Are Designed To Succeed

Moderna, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson are leading candidates for the completion of a Covid-19 vaccine likely to be released in the coming months. These companies have published their vaccine trial protocols. This unusually transparent action during a major drug trial deserves praise, close inspection of the protocols raises surprising concerns. These trials seem designed to prove their vaccines work, even if the measured effects are minimal. What would a normal vaccine trial look like?

Prevention of infection must be a critical endpoint. Any vaccine trial should include regular antigen testing every three days to test contagiousness to pick up early signs of infection and PCR testing once a week to confirm infection by SARS-CoV-2 test the ability of the vaccines to stave off infection. Prevention of infection is not a criterion for success for any of these vaccines. In fact, their endpoints all require confirmed infections and all those they will include in the analysis for success, the only difference being the severity of symptoms between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

Measuring differences amongst only those infected by SARS-CoV-2 underscores the implicit conclusion that the vaccines are not expected to prevent infection, only modify symptoms of those infected. We all expect an effective vaccine to prevent serious illness if infected. Three of the vaccine protocols—Moderna, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca—do not require that their vaccine prevent serious disease only that they prevent moderate symptoms which may be as mild as cough, or headache.

[..] Vaccine efficacy is typically proved by large clinical trials over several years. The pharmaceutical companies intend to do trials ranging from thirty thousand to sixty thousand participants. This scale of study would be sufficient for testing vaccine efficacy. The first surprise found upon a closer reading of the protocols reveals that each study intends to complete interim and primary analyses that at most include 164 participants. These companies likely intend to apply for an emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with just their limited preliminary results.

Interim analysis success requires a 70% efficacy. The vaccine or placebo will be given to thousands of people in each trial. For Moderna, the initial interim analysis will be based on the results of infection of only 53 people. The judgment reached in interim analysis is dependent upon the difference in the number of people with symptoms, which may be mild, in the vaccinated group versus the unvaccinated group.

Moderna’s success margin is for 13 or less of those 53 to develop symptoms compared to 40 or more in their control group. For Johnson & Johnson, their interim analysis includes 77 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 18 or less developing symptoms compared to 59 in the control group. For AstraZeneca, their interim analysis includes 50 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 12 or less developing symptoms compared to 19 in the 25 person control group. Pfizer is even smaller in its success requirements. Their initial group includes 32 vaccine recipients, with a success margin of 7 or less developing symptoms compared to 25 in the control group.

The primary analyses are a bit more expanded, but need to be less efficacious for success: about sixty percent. AstraZeneca, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer have primary analyses that distribute the vaccine to only 100, 151, 154, and 164 participants respectively. These companies state that they do not “intend” to stop trials after the primary analyses, but there is every chance that they intend to pursue an EUA and focus on manufacturing the vaccine rather than further thorough testing.

The second surprise from these protocols is how mild the requirements for contracted Covid-19 symptoms are. A careful reading reveals that the minimum qualification for a case of Covid-19 is a positive PCR test and one or two mild symptoms. These include headache, fever, cough, or mild nausea. This is far from adequate. These vaccine trials are testing to prevent common cold symptoms.

These trials certainly do not give assurance that the vaccine will protect from the serious consequences of Covid-19.Johnson & Johnson is the only trial that requires the inclusion of severe Covid-19 cases, at least 5 for the 75 participant interim analysis.

One of the more immediate questions a trial needs to answer is whether a vaccine prevents infection. If someone takes this vaccine, are they far less likely to become infected with the virus? These trials all clearly focus on eliminating symptoms of Covid-19, and not infections themselves. Asymptomatic infection is listed as a secondary objective in these trials when they should be of critical importance.

It appears that all the pharmaceutical companies assume that the vaccine will never prevent infection. Their criteria for approval is the difference in symptoms between an infected control group and an infected vaccine group. They do not measure the difference between infection and noninfection as a primary motivation.

A greater concern for the millions of older people and those with preexisting conditions is whether these trials test the vaccine’s ability to prevent severe illness and death. Again we find that severe illness and death are only secondary objectives in these trials. None list the prevention of death and hospitalization as a critically important barrier.

If total infections, hospitalizations, and death are going to be ignored in the preliminary trials of the vaccines, then there must be phase four testing to monitor their safety and efficacy. This would be long term massive scale monitoring of the vaccine. There must be an indication that the authorized vaccines are reducing infection, hospitalization, and death, or else they will not be able to stop this pandemic.

 

Sometimes I just don’t get this world. If you would like to argue that all of the above is false, that PCR and vaccines are all fine, and they will lift us out of this misery, hey, I’m your man, I can do with some good news. But I’m afraid we’re being played for billions.

Are our politicians and “experts” complicit or are they simply incompetent? Why don’t I leave that choice to you as well?

 

 

 

We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, you are now not just a reader, but an integral part of the process that builds this site.

Click at the top of the sidebars for Paypal and Patreon donations. Thank you for your support.

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in virustime, election time, all the time. Click at the top of the sidebars to donate with Paypal and Patreon.

 

Home Forums PCR Tests and COVID Vaccines are Useless

Viewing 6 posts - 41 through 46 (of 46 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #66330
    V. Arnold
    Participant

    A classic false flag operation; everyone but “US” is involved.
    Sowing fear and the consequent distrust in everything, is where we are now.
    Control seems close to complete…
    I’m doing my damnedest to not buy into any of “IT”.
    At this time, Sputnik V is the only vaccine I would consider.
    Thailand has opted for the two worst; Astra-zenica (sp?) & Pfizer…
    Getting my D’s & C’s; and only listen to the news twice (morning/evening) a day; staying well clear of all print media except TAE.
    Remember, fear is a thief; don’t let it steal from you…

    #66331
    sumac.carol
    Participant

    Thank you to all who have contributed to this discussion and dug into the details and provided clarifications. As someone who has to get regular testing I am less concerned about what the test is doing. I also appreciate the info on the increase in total deaths in the US – was looking for updated figures (beyond the April figures shown earlier) but hadn’t found them.

    #66341
    CoolRunnerII
    Participant

    One control question to ask about PCR tests is: If you have a large false positive percentage, how can some areas have positive rates close to 0?

    In my area in Norway we are at about 0.5% positive tests of about 6000 a week at the moment.

    I would say that indicates that if there are no viruses going around, then there will be no positive tests. Or else the test that is used in Norway works differently from what is used by other countries.

    #66347
    HerrWerner
    Participant

    Really top-notch article, and commentary today in this entry. I’m sharing an article on accuracy of diagnostic tests I refer to often. These terms are specific to the medical profession, but statistics behind them are quite simple and this article explains it well: http://michaelandjudystouffer.com/judy/articles/specsen.htm

    The TL;DR –
    A test that is 97% accurate (which sounds terrific! and it is, high-90’s % represents the upper-bound of the best of medical tests) still results in significant false positives. In other words, your world sucks if you’re one of those 3% with a false positive. On top of that – and here’s the hard part – the accuracy of a test is specific to the population it applies to

    The author explains this way: have a theoretical AIDS test with 99% accuracy – which is a very accurate test. Take 10,000 random people and test them with it.
    * 99 people will really have AIDS and get a correct (positive) test results.
    * One unlucky bloke will have it but get an incorrect (negative) test result.
    Now the uninfected people?
    * 9,801 will get a correct (negative) test result. Cool.
    * 99 people will get an incorrect (false positive!) test result. Well, shit.
    99 false positives, 99 people in the general population will be told they have AIDS when they don’t. And that’s with an unusually accurate test, with 99% specificity and sensitivity. I did a cursory search on the Interwebs and for the PCR test it has to be minimum 90% sensitivity and 95% specificity in the USA. UK is a bit higher. Not great compared to our theoretical 99% accurate test. And those figures are end-to-end performance of the test in ideal conditions, not the real-world of goofs, human errors, barely trained and tired HCP’s.

    Throwing a test like that at the general population with a (relatively) rare condition is foolish policy. The rarer the condition, the less accurate the test. That’s why before administering and AIDS test, other risk factors are considered (lifestyle, possible exposures, etc etc) These diagnostic tests deal with probabilities. You have to get to that subset of the population that is at risk before you roll the (fairly accurate) dice of the diagnostic test.

    With COVID? The PCR test? Forget it. At least the way it is currently being used. You cannot estimate those risk factors like you can for that theoretical AIDS test. 11 months in, with the ‘Rona there are hardly any “risk factors” for exposure for the general public – it is ubiquitous in the population now. And still, as a percentage of population, relatively “rare.”

    #66351
    madamski
    Participant

    So an article says certain tests are useless for accurately telling if you have covid or not. The rebuttals to this reduce to equivocations that translate to ‘sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t’. ‘It depends’, like John McCain’s infamous underwear.

    In plain vernacular man on the street logic, the rebuttals lose. Plain vernacular man-on-the-street logic is how the public mind works.

    Me, I think this whole silly squabble revolves around the unfortunate use of the word “absolute”, which is an emotionally satisfying word to use, and closer than not to accurate* when the hard facts of the data are related to the covid phenomenon, but also easy to dismiss because absolutes are ideals not realities. Even a subatomic particle is not absolutely one thing or another. It’s a phenomenon that follows a very narrow pattern in a fairly — but not absolutely — precise range.

    Let me use more accurate language: the tests SUCK. Not absolutely but enough to be insufficiently useful to be worth messing with except, perhaps, as a stage of development in covid testing. It is the public who must trust and submit to testing for tests to be useful, and the public thinks “covid test” means, well, a test to see if you have covid. Period. How silly of them, right?

    Oh, whatever shall we do when we run out of low-hanging fruit to pick on?

    ^%*

    And I still have no patience with honorifics like M.D. in an egalitarian social setting. It’s one thing to tell us you’re a doctor. It’s another thing to use it as some kind of imprimatur or letterhead. If we were discussing gender/sex issues, it would be obnoxious if my handle were madamski, P.L. (Professional Lesbian). It’s enough to say I like vaginas when relevant to the conversation.

    closer than not to accurate* like, allegedly, the tests currently under discussion.

    #66356
    Dr. D
    Participant

    As far as I know, hospitals here don’t use PCR for exactly this reason: it doesn’t work worth a hoot. They don’t say that, they just say it “Doesn’t fit our needs” or some such.

    Presumably they are using one of the many, many tests that DOES work, like Dr. Day says, and are able to get their feedstocks.

    So…a year later, we have (many) tests that work and one test that doesn’t, and guess which one we’re using? And as noted, they are using both exactly as the inventor said not to, AND for a public-policy decision that it is illogical to use for.

    How does this work? How in other nations/locations? They simply direct the labs to run 30x not 40x. Boom. “Cases” drop. Which some are suspecting they will suddenly “discover” there are too many false positives just about the day they release the vaccine, and reduce the number from 40, to 30, to 10, or wherever they like. Yay! Vaccine works a miracle! Profits rise!!! If the Gilet Jeunes give you lip, you just “Recommend” the labs in their areas move back to 40x. Boom. Instant lockdown til they’re dead and broke.

    Meanwhile, hospitals, using a “better” test, i.e. one that works at all, are blissfully unaware, and all the medical Joes and Jeans remain compliant, and believing everything.

    So Dr. or others, look at the chart: Deaths vs Cases.
    noncases
    https://www.aier.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/casesdeaths-800×455.jpg

    If it’s NOT true, then how do we have FEWER deaths than April? And the number of cases always rises, it’s now what, 200x the number of deaths? So your “testing” for “Cases” matches exactly my theory that people are tested, and the only way they think they have Covid — because no symptoms, no deaths — is from this false positive. …The one that will kill them slowly with grinding poverty and denied access to health screenings. We have a pandemic so bad nobody knows they have the disease without a test. Few people know anyone who’s died. Homeless and drug-addicted with compromised immune systems completely untouched, happily in a box, uninfected. Yes, that’s back to your “Gold Standard” problem, another whole kettle: not only can we statistically infer it’s 90% false positives (A Pfizer epidemiologist and statistician exec published an article on this in Britain I posted) but we can’t even calibrate it AGAINST a standard. (or just refused to)

    Yes, this still leaves the door open for my theory to have other causes, but it’s not disproven in the least by a lot of squawking and handwaving. If anything, saying “Do as you’re told”/”I’m the expert” (That mis-reported H1N1, SARS, Avian, Swine, and eBola, approved AZT and Vioxx) tells me you’re all lying liars. You said no masks. You said 15 days. You said no transmission. You said 25 million dead. You said we were only going to slow it, not stop it. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. So how about some humility when you’re dead dead wrong wrong for one year and running? I’ve been right the whole time and I’m some doofus living under a bridge, so clearly it’s not that hard. Dr. Day is neck-deep and he seems to be able to hit it right all the time, even with blackmailers circling like vultures.

    So again, no additional death rate, and a disease so deadly no one can tell when they have it. Loss of all civil rights, apparently forever. Incredible, unimaginable increases in wealth for centralists, to the tune of multi-trillion$$, and a rushed vaccine that makes less medical and scientific sense than the disease. Now no Influenza deaths, no Heart Disease deaths. It’s a miracle cure! Que? Cui bono? You figure it out.

    I’m going to go worry about things that are ACTUALLY dangerous. Like governments.
    realitybites
    https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/05/Causes-of-death-in-USA-vs.-media-coverage-716×550.png

Viewing 6 posts - 41 through 46 (of 46 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.