One thing have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life (Psalm 27:4)                 Bayith Ministries

Bayith Home  |  Political Cultural and Social Issues  |  Covid-19 Home Page

Covid-19
SARS-CoV/SARS-CoV-2  /  SARS-CoV-2 Plus ACE2
aka: The Chinese Wuhan Coronavirus or WuFlu

PCR Tests, 'Cases', 'Infections'
Quotes and Comments

PCR Tests: Articles and Videos

The 'Smoking Man' Emails   |   CDC Says the PCR Tests Are Invalid   |   The PCR Test

Kary Mullis: Inventor of the PCR Test   |   The Inaccuracy of the PCR Test   |   Cycles (Ct)

Contamination of the PCR Tests   |   False Positives   |   Mass Testing Using PCR Tests

Experiences of PCR Tests   |   'Cases', 'Infections' / Symptoms   |   PCR Tests and C19 Vaccines

Asymptomatics   |   Contact Tracing / Test and Trace   |   Correct Medical Procedure   |   Lateral Flow Tests

BinaxNOWTM Covid-19 Antigen Self Test   |   Conflating Flu and Covid   |   The Omicron Variant

Recommended Actions   |   Summary Re: PCR Tests   |   A Fearful Nation   |   20 Things I've Learned...

What is Covid-19?   |   Coronavirus Act: What Are We Consenting To?   |   Bayith Articles on C19

The A-Z of Covid19   |   Covid-19 Home Page   |   Agenda 21/2030   |   Deep Ecology and Population Control

Scriptures to Strengthen Us   |   Political Cultural and Social Issues

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits"
"Prove all things: hold fast that which is good"
(1 John 4:1a; 1 Thessalonians 5:21)

THE COVID SURVIVAL RATE:
0-19yrs = 99.997%,   20-49yrs = 99.98%,   50-69yrs = 99.5%,   70+yrs = 94.6%
[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USA].

"[W]ith PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody ...
It doesn't tell you that you're sick"
[Kary Mullis, Inventor of the PCR test, source].

"These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection ...
For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures"
[product announcement for LightMix Modular Assays, TIB Molbiol, distributed by Roche, quoted at source].

"This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens"
[CDC, quoted at source].

"[P]ositive results ... do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses"
[FDA, quoted at source].

"This test is monstrously unsuitable for detecting who has live virus in their airway"
[Dr. Mike Yeadon, source].

"PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection
by a supposedly new virus called SARS-COV-2"
[source].

"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear;
but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind"
(2 Timothy 1:7)

YOUTUBE:
Peace ~ Be Still ~ Lay All Your Worries Down
"Be still, O my soul, for our God is in control"

 

 

The 'Smoking Man' Emails (March 2023)


"We were aware [in 2020] that the PCR tests could not be used to diagnose any infection of any kind"  /  "I knew this from early 2020. You cannot use PCR to test for the FLU. The entire pandemic is a gigantic lie"  /  "Considering the scientific aspect of testing, indeed, the fraudulent nature of the PCR test was evident from the beginning"
[reader's comments at source].


"Summary of the Smoking Man revelations:

  • The role of Dr Christain Drosten and the Sars-cov2 virus genomic sequencing;
  • The dodgy PCR testing that resulted and the cycle problem;
  • The Instand report, co-authored by Drosten which confirmed that PCR tests being used in labs worldwide were generating false positives of circa 9%;
  • Revealing cross reactivity and non-specificity of the PCR test, so that it picked up other coronaviruses (and the human genome!?)" [source].


"A 9% PCR false positive rate sounds pretty high, doesn't it?  Much higher than even sceptics had been postulating at the time (which was typically no higher than 5%).  To put that in Bayesian context this would mean that if, say 1 in 1000 people were genuinely infected with the Sars-cov2 virus, then a person testing positive will almost certainly (98.9% probability) NOT have the virus.  And with zero Sars-cov2 virus prevalence nobody testing positive has the virus, but we'd still see 9% of those tested, testing positive.  So, logically, you wouldn't necessarily need a deadly novel virus to give the world the impression of the widespread presence of said virus.  But something had to be causing the false positives, and if it wasn't a deadly novel coronavirus then what was it?  Well, the cross reactivity and non-specificity of the PCR test maybe tells us the answer: other coronaviruses and perhaps other pathogens" [source].


"The next chapter in the story developed in early 2021 when I discovered that the UK government had been conducting bogus PCR testing in late 2020 and used it to push the covid wave in the run up [to] the launch of the injections ... the false positive rate for covid PCR testing was much higher than anyone could ever imagine in their worst nightmare - up to 65% of positive tests were false positives, by the ONS's own published statistics.  However, this wasn't caused by high PCR cycles but was because the laboratories abandoned using the WHO guidelines and manufacturer standards for testing.  What did they do?  Rather than require two out of three gene positives to define a positive for covid, they decided only one was enough ... This evidence again pointed to cross reactivity and non-specificity of the PCR test.  It looked to be designed to pick up, well, anything that you might want it to detect.  So, rather than find residue of Sars-cov2 virus fragments perhaps it seemed to be quite brilliant at finding any coronavirus"
[source].


CT cycles:
 "It has been known since April [2020], that even apparently heavy viral load cases 'with Ct above 33-34 using our RT-PCR system are not contagious and can thus be discharged from hospital care or strict confinement for non-hospitalized patients.'  A review of 25 related papers by Carl Heneghan at the Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) also has concluded that any positive result above 30Ct is essentially non-viable even in lab cultures (i.e. in the absence of any functional immune system), let alone in humans.  However, in the US, an amplification of 40Ct is common (1 trillion copies) and in the UK, COVID-19 RT-PCR tests are amplified by up to 42Ct.  This is 2 to the power of 42 (i.e. 4.4 trillion copies), which is 4,400x the 'safe' screening limit.  The higher the amplification, the more likely you are to get a 'positive' but the more likely it is that this positive will be false"
[the Smoking Man Emails, September 2020, quoted at source].

 

CDC Says the PCR Tests Are Invalid


"After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EuA0 of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only"
[source].


"In a notice published on 20 January 2021, the WHO confirmed that PCR tests should not be used as the sole method of diagnosing Covid-19 and should only be used where symptoms are present.  If that guideline was adhered to the number of PCR tests being done each and every day could be reduced by at least 90%"
[James P. Smith, Test All Things: False/True, (Second Edition, 21 November 2021), p.22].


"There is a sequence of outright lies and fabrications used to justify far-reaching policy decisions in the course of the last 20 months.  The biggest lie, which is firmly acknowledged both by scientific opinion and the WHO is that the RT-PCR tests used to 'detect' the spread of the virus (as well as the variants) is not only flawed but totally invalid.  From the outset in January 2020, all far-reaching policy decision upheld and presented to the public as a 'means to saving lives' were based on flawed and invalid RT-PCR case positives.  These invalid Covid-19 'estimates' have been used to justify confinement, social distancing, the face mask, the prohibition of social gatherings, cultural and sports events, the closure of economic activity, as well as the mRNA 'vaccine' launched in November 2020"
[source].

 

The PCR Test


"These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection ... For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures"
[Product announcement, LightMix Modular Assays, TIB Molbiol, distributed by Roche, quoted at source].


"This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens"
[CDC, quoted at source].


"[P]ositive results ... do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of the disease"
[FDA, quoted at source].


"I do want to emphasize that I'm in the business of testing for COVID. I do want to emphasize that positive test results do not, underlined in neon, mean a clinical infection. It's simply driving public hysteria and all testing should stop. Unless you're presenting to the hospital with some respiratory problem"
[Dr. Roger Hodkinson, MA, MB, FRCPC, FCAP, CEO, Medical Specialist in Pathology/Virology, Medical Director of Western Medical Assessments, source].


"I've been involved in PCR testing for some considerable time mainly for ethnicity, forensic, cancer research and paternity testing using both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. The amplification of DNA by PCR thermal cycling is a superb methodology which was discovered by Kary Banks Mullis some years ago and works very well for DNA amplification. It was never intended for use as a mass assay tool for single stranded positive sense RNA amplifications as found in most viruses. The extra stage of using reverse transcriptase to convert the viral RNA to DNA for PCR amplification is fraught with laboratory and sampling errors, not to mention the numerous gaucheries of inexperienced and untrained people recruited for the task"
[viewer's comment at source].


"The Roche test, one of the most widely used [PCR] tests in the world, the package insert says you cannot use this test for the diagnosis of coronavirus infection.  And I would love to ask the guy, so what should we use it for? Toilet paper? What is the purpose of a test that says clearly you cannot use this test for the diagnosis of the very thing that they're testing for.  There is no PCR test that's cleared for use as a diagnosis tool.  The PCR tests is a manufacturing tool ... it's simply a way to make more genetic material ... it's been co-opted , in one of the biggest scientific fraudulent scams of all time, as a diagnostic test, which it isn't"
[source].


"This misuse of the RT-PCR technique is applied as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights ... under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients"
[source].


"Where is the evidence that the tests can measure the 'viral load'?"
[source].


"I pressed [David] one last time:  'David, in conclusion, finish this sentence: "The PCR test for Corona is as good as..."  His reply made me laugh. I didn't know I could still laugh.  'It's as good as that Scientology test that detects your personality and then tells you [that you] need to give all your money to Scientology'."
[David Crowe quoted at source].

 

Kary Mullis: Inventor of the PCR Test

Dr. Kary B. Mullis, Nobel Prize Laureate, Inventor of the PCR Technique, passed away [conveniently for the global elites] on 7th August 2019...


"[W]ith PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody ... if you can amplify one single molecule, up to something that you can really measure, which PCR can do, then there's just very few molecules that you don't have at least one single of them in your body. So that could be thought of as a misuse of PCR ... the measurement ... is not exact at all ... the results are inferred, in a sense ... [the PCR test is] just a process that's used to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn't tell you that you're sick"
[Kary Mullis, Inventor of the PCR test, source].


"'PCR is a Process.  It does not tell you that you are sick ... The measurement is not accurate'.  Mullis described the RCR-RT as a 'technique' rather than 'a test'.  It is a useful technique which allows for 'rapid amplification of a small stretch of DNA'"
[Kary Mullis, quoted at source].


"If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR"
[Kary Mullis, Inventor of the PCR test, source].


"Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it.  I don't mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it"
[Kary Mullis, quoted at source].


"I asked [David] Crowe what he thought Kary Mullis would say about this explosion of PCR insanity.  'I'm sad that he isn't here to defend his manufacturing technique.  Kary did not invent a test.  He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused.  What are the best applications for PCR?  Not medical diagnostics.  He knew that and he always said that'"
[David Crowe quoted at source].


"The PCR is currently the most commonly used COVID-19 test both in the US and Globally.  PCR was invented by Kary Mullis in 1985 but it was not invented with the purpose of detecting disease, its primary intended applications included biomedical research and criminal forensics.  It is a needle in a haystack technology that can be extremely deceptive in the diagnosis of infectious diseases and the inventor himself argued against using PCR as a diagnostic tool for infections"
{source}.

 

The Inaccuracy of the PCR Tests
 

"This test is monstrously unsuitable for detecting who has live virus in their airway" [Dr. Mike Yeadon, source].


"There are few among our political elite and the supporting Senior Civil Service who have STEM degrees and the consequence of this narrow pool is a failure to understand basic concepts, e.g. they believe 'the science is settled' when it comes to climate change, and that they're 'following the science' regarding COVID-19. What they fail to appreciate is that science is rarely settled. By its nature, it is about investigating and challenging assumptions, collecting and evaluating evidence to test hypotheses, and seeking to avoid bias and misrepresentation of results. The current narrative regarding testing and 'cases' is a classic example of this lack of numeracy and statistical knowledge. If you test more you are likely to find more occurrences and they may be actual positives or false positives"
[source].


"It is also vital that we review the accuracy of the [PCR] tests currently being deployed. Our studies show that many Covid tests are picking up virus traces long after an infection has gone. An overly simplistic testing approach has, therefore, resulted in large numbers of people being incorrectly labelled as a threat to public health"
[Professor Carl Heneghan and Dr. Tom Jefferson, source].


"[The problem] lies in the belief that there are actually a significant number of 'unsystematic infected' who can spread the virus. The reality is, they actually are very rare. Just like any flu, German studies found, an infection occurs after a longer term close contact with symptomatic (sick) individuals. And of course, even if one does contract 'The virus', then there is a question of if one will notice at all - perhaps having contracted it earlier and defeated it, gaining antibodies or having prior (yes prior) immunity in specific T cells, thanks to years of exposure to the common cold. The truth is, we are all told to panic and put on useless masks and to agree to a loss of liberty in an attempt to stop something that cannot be controlled and will go through its normal course and trajectory as a virus does. Most places have already gone over the curve swell in deaths and now have, per capita, insignificant numbers. 'Case' numbers rise, but this is meaningless as the very sensitive PCR tests only show the presence of bits of viral DNA not an actual virus present. A person could have had the virus, unknowingly, weeks or months before or indeed a closely similar common cold type coronavirus, and then test 'positive'. It should be noted that very few, if any, who test positive require any sort of medical attention"
[source].


"PCR primer design searches (called a query) for similarities between the known DNA sequence of one organism with that of another organism DNA sequence, also called the query sequence. Similarities between DNA sequences are meaningless and thereby fraught with positive results when PCR is used for the diagnosis of a disease ... Imagine criminal forensic science requiring only similarities for fingerprint identification ... just as with the false positive laden PCR test, 100% of the nation would be guilty of a crime every time a fingerprint check was run! Or how about forensic DNA matching only requiring similarities. Imagine running a forensic ballistic test and only looking for similarities in bullet striations. Now one can fully appreciate the fraud behind the PCR non-test"
[reader's comment at source].


"A positive PCR test does not tell doctors whether the person is currently ill or will become ill in the future, whether they are infectious or will become infectious, whether they are recovered or recovering from COVID, or whether that PCR test identified a viral fragment from another coronavirus infection in the past"
[source].


"Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms ... This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens"
[CDC, quoted at source].


"[P]ositive results ... do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease"
[FDA, quoted at source].


"Considering that the DNA sequences get doubled at every cycle, even a slight variation becomes magnified and can thus alter the result, annihilating the test's reliable informative value. So how can it be that those who claim the PCR tests are highly meaningful for so-called COVID-19 diagnosis blind out the fundamental inadequacies of these tests - even if they are confronted with questions regarding their validity?"
[source].


"At best all they detect are random fragments of flu and one of the many old school corona viruses that have been around for hundreds of years. Nor can the PCR test tell the difference between the poison in the Jab and 'wild' CV. This has all been written about extensively by many people. The whole [PCR test] thing is an utter scam from day 1"  /  "The 'test' can't - though PCR used properly as a DNA analysis tool can. But that's not what PCR is providing for [the] hoi polloi..."
[readers' comments at source].


"The PCR test is so well known for giving inaccurate results that the CDC warns not to give the test to asymptomatic persons 'because of the increased likelihood of false-positive results.'  In fact, there is a famous Chinese paper that stated if you're testing asymptomatic people with PCR, up to 80% of positives could be false positives"
{source}.

 

Cycles (Ct)


"If you have to go more than 40 cycles to amplify a single-copy gene, there is something seriously wrong with your PCR"
[Kary Mullis, Inventor of the PCR test, source].


"For many tests the cycle threshold is set very high - the cycle threshold is the number of amplification cycles a PCR test goes through before a target pathogen is detected. A lower cycle threshold means that a higher amount of the virus was present in the sample, a higher threshold means the machine had to work harder to detect the virus in the sample indicating a lower viral load and more likely a non-infectious patient"
[source].


"PCR is a way of testing for RNA. RNA is a virus' equivalent of DNA, it is the RNA that allows the virus to replicate. For testing to work the RNA is first converted to DNA. Because you need adequate levels of DNA to detect COVID-19, the DNA present in the sample is amplified multiple times. After every cycle of amplification the sample is tested for the presence of COVID-19. The smaller the quantity of original viral RNA, the more cycles it will take for a positive result. However, there comes a point where if you repeat cycles too many times then samples without viral RNA will also show a positive result. This is one source of error that produces a false positive"
[source].


"With 1 copy/μl of a sample (Ct 35), without cough, without symptoms, one can understand why all these doctors and scientists say that a positive RT-PCR test means nothing, nothing at all in terms of medicine and clinic! Positive RT-PCR tests, without any mention of Ct or its relation to the presence or absence of symptoms, are used as is by our governments as the exclusive argument to apply and justify their policy of severity, austerity, isolation and aggression of our freedoms ... there is no medical justification for these decisions"
[source].


"Most RT-PCR tests set the Ct at 40 ... some set it at 37. 'Tests with such high thresholds (Ct) may not only detect live virus but also gene fragments, remnants of an old infection that do not represent any particular danger' ... an RT-PCT test with a Ct greater than 35 is too sensitive. 'A more reasonable threshold would be between 30 and 35'"
[source].


"Mike Yeadon's ongoing observations about the testing system are spot on - how can it be that premier league footballers are suddenly testing 'positive' in such large numbers? But none of them have ended up at the crematorium, or even been hospitalised. (The only ones in hospital are suffering from serious adverse reactions to experimental drugs).  The answer is that the number of testing cycles guarantee more 'cases', more cases demand government 'action' and more 'cases' drive those sales figures for Big Pharma"
[reader's comment at source].


"[3]. The number of amplification cycles (less than 35; preferably 25-30 cycles):  In case of virus detection, >35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture [reviewed in 2]; if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97% [reviewed in 3]"
[source].


"PCR is really a manufacturing technique.  You start with one molecule.  You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles ... So as a manufacturing technique, it's great ... it's quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France, are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test.  So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative.  If you cut off at 50, you might have everybody positive"
[David Crowe, quoted at source].


"[I]f a country said, 'You know, we need to end this pandemic', they could quietly send around a memo saying: 'We shouldn't be having the cutoff at 37. If we put it at 32, the number of positive tests drops dramatically. If it's still not enough, well, you know, 30 or 28 or something like that.'  So, you can control the sensitivity"
[David Crowe, quoted at source].


"When [Kary] Mullis patented the process it was only intended to run to 20 cycles...

  • If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more, the chances of it being replication-confident [medical speak for accurate] are minisule [Anthony Fauci];
  • I'm shocked that people would think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positive [test result] ... A more reasonable cut off would be 30 to 35 [Dr. Juliet Morrison, virologist at the University of California];
  • The limit should be 30' [Dr. Michael Mina, Harvard School of Public Health];
  • No sample over 33 cycles could be cultured [CDC];
  • Nothing over 30 cycles is likely to be infectious [Robert Koch Institute];

"The WHO also confirmed that the PCR test can produce false positive results at high amplification cycles.  The package inserts accompanying PCR test kits state that the test should be administered only to patients with signs and symptoms suggestive of Covid-19 ... [but] all testing laboratories in America are running tests at least at 37 cycles and sometimes as high as 45.  The NHS 'standard operating procedure' for PCR tests rules set the limit at 40 cycles ... Just reducing the cycle threshold from 40 to 30 would reduce Covid 'cases' by as much as 90%; the 'pandemic' would be over.  The mass testing of people not manifesting symptoms defies all previously accepted science on the spread of viruses and merely generates a manufactured pandemic of false positives" [James P. Smith, Test All Things: False/True, (Second Edition, 21 November 2021), pp.22-23].

 

Contamination of PCR Tests


"PCR is a quite remarkable technique, which has unparalleled ability to find truly tiny quantities of a fragment of a genetic sequence, right down to the level of finding a single, broken fragment of a virus in a messy biological sample. There are notable limitations, well known to those who've personally used PCR in a research context. The most important one is its propensity to suffer from contamination, and the integrity of a PCR is very easily destroyed by invisible levels of contamination even in the hands of an expert, working alone and on a small handful of samples"
[Dr. Mike Yeadon, source].


"Kids worked out [that] a swig of OJ or coke before the test and bingo, Positive and a week off school. This was when I realised for sure this was a concerted plan to manufacture cases and to manufacture 'Covid'"
[reader's comment at source].


"[T]he problem is, as I said, the test is positive from degradation from any source. If you have diabetes, if you have heart attacks, if you have emphysema, if you have just the detoxification process that we call the flu, if you're a papaya, according to the President of Tanzania. He was suspicious of the tests so he sent off a papaya and a goat and a sheep - I think it was a pawpaw - and the pawpaw and the goat tested positive and the sheep tested negative.  So lots of things will cross-react with this test.  Anybody who is sick will typically cross-react"
[source].

 

False Positives


"The causes of false positives are myriad. From other viruses, to contaminant human DNA as well as cross contamination between cases and residual RNA fragments in patients who have cleared the virus"
[source].


"Government decided to call a person a 'case' if their swab sample was positive for viral RNA, which is what is measured in PCR. A person's sample can be positive if they have the virus, and so it should. They can also be positive if they've had the virus some weeks or months ago and recovered. It's faintly possible that high loads of related, but different coronaviruses, which can cause some of the common colds we get, might also react in the PCR test, though it's unclear to me if it does. But there's a final setting in which a person can be positive and that's a random process. This may have multiple causes, such as the amplification technique not being perfect and so amplifying the 'bait' sequences placed in with the sample, with the aim of marrying up with related SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA. There will be many other contributions to such positives. These are what are called false positives"
    [Dr. Mike Yeardon, source].


"[U]nless changes are made, the test is hopelessly unsuitable to the job asked of it ... Because of the high false positive rate and the low prevalence, almost every positive test, a so-called case, identified by Pillar 2 [community testing] since May of this year has been a FALSE POSITIVE. Not just a few percent. Not a quarter or even a half of the positives are FALSE, but around 90% of them ... the number of people Mr Hancock sombrely tells us about is an overestimate by a factor of about ten-fold. Earlier in the summer, it was an overestimate by about 20-fold"
[Dr. Mike Yeadon, source].


"One of the most troubling things I have heard this year was Mr Johnson telling us about the Moonshot, testing everybody, possibly every day, as the way out of this problem.  But I am telling you it is the way to keep us ion this problem ... the false positive rate will be far too large for us to accept.  It will produce an enormous number of false positives.  What we should do is stop mass testing - not only is it an affront to your liberty but ... it will be a pathology all of its own"
[Mike Yeadon, quoted at source].


"[T]he science is clear: The numbers generated by these RT-PCR tests do not in the least justify frightening people who have been tested 'positive' and imposing lockdown measures that plunge countless people into poverty and despair or even drive them to suicide. And a 'positive' result may have serious consequences for the patients as well, because then all non-viral factors are excluded from the diagnosis and the patients are treated with highly toxic drugs and invasive intubations. Especially for elderly people and patients with pre-existing conditions such a treatment can be fatal ... Without doubt eventual excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the lockdown measures, while the 'COVID-19' death statistics comprise also patients who died of a variety of diseases, redefined as COVID-19 only because of a 'positive' test result whose value could not be more doubtful" [source].


"[O]nly 5% of households have more than 1 person testing positive for COVID-19, This figure of 'household clustering' used to be much higher during the height of the epidemic. This suggests either that COVID-19 is no longer [September 2020] very contagious (such that in 95% of households where someone has COVID-19, no-one else is detected as having the disease) or the number of COVID-19 cases is being over-stated by false positive results"
[source].


"A false positive pseudo-epidemic is a well described phenomenon in the medical literature which results in an exponential rise in diagnosed cases and deaths but no excess deaths. PCR testing is renowned for it, and the 'second wave' of Swine Flu in 2009 was entirely a false positive pseudo-epidemic, only stopped by stopping the PCR testing [and] replacing it with antigen testing. SAGE have been focused on the constant low false positive rate of the testing equipment but the false positive rate of the whole testing process is variable and can rise. Evidence of one laboratory with a low operational false positive rate gives no indication of what the operational false positive rate is in a different laboratory or at a different point in time"
[Dr. Mike Yeadon, et al, source].


"There is an NHS staffing crisis caused by false positive test results. NHS including ambulance staff and care home staff are all being tested and made to isolate merely on the basis of a single positive test even when asymptomatic, when the evidence on spread from asymptomatic subjects is equivocal at best. This is causing a staffing crisis in the NHS which will undoubtedly result in patients dying"
[Dr. Mike Yeadon, et al, source].


"[PCR] is well known for producing a significant number of false-positive results by reacting to DNA material not specific to Covid-19 ... a Chinese study found the same patient could get two different results from the same test on the same day.  In Germany, tests are known to have reacted to common cold viruses.  A 2006 study found PCR tests for one virus responded to other viruses too.  In 2007, a reliance on PCR tests resulted in an 'outbreak' of Whooping Cough that never actually existed.  As early as February of 2020 experts were admitting the PCR test was unreliable.  Dr Wang Cheng, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences told Chinese state television that the accuracy of the PCR tests is only 30-50%"
[James P. Smith, Test All Things: False/True, (Second Edition, 21 November 2021), p.21].


"The first thing to know is that the test is not binary.  In fact, I don't think there are any tests for infectious diseases that are positive or negative.  What they do is they take some kind of continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative"
[David Crowe, quoted at source].


"It's like fingerprints.  With PCR you're only looking at a small number of nucleotide.  You're looking at a tiny segment of gene, like a fingerprint.  When you have regular human fingerprints, they have to have points of confirmation.  There are parts that are common to almost all fingerprints, and it's those generic parts in a Corona virus that the PCR test picks up.  They can have partial loops but if you only took a few little samples of fingerprints you are going to come up with a lot of segments of RNA that we are not sure have anything to do with corona virus.  They will still show up in PCR.  You can get down to the levels where its biologically irrelevant and then amplify it a trillion-fold ... PCR for diagnosis is a big problem.  When you have to amplify it these huge numbers of time, it's going to generate massive amounts of false positives.  Again, I'm skeptical that a PCR test is ever true"
[Dr. David Rasnik, bio-chemist, protease developer, former founder of Viral Forensics EM lab, quoted at source].


"[A]ll you need to be considered infected is one positive test.  They could test you 20 times and if you test positive once, then you're infected.  So, a positive test is meaningful.  A negative test.  It's like, eh.  Not so much"
[David Crowe quoted at source].


"The last two years have felt like people are living in parallel universes ... with millions having unwittingly entered it in early 2020 without noticing ... In the Metaverse, people who aren't ill can spread the illness they don't have, and so must take a test which cannot diagnose illness and which gives huge numbers of false positives, after which they must stay in their house for a prolonged period to stop the virus they don't have from spreading.  In the real world, if you're well, you go about your daily life; if you have what are called 'symptoms', you stay home and rest"
[source].

 

Mass Testing Using PCR Tests


"[M]ass testing brings with it, when using PCR as the method, a severe risk of what we call a 'PCR false pseudo-epidemic.'  This could never happen if were not using PCR mass testing of the mostly well. So, for whatever reason and against all historical precedent and immunological reasoning, a major initiative was laughed with the goal of reaching 500,000 tests a day by year's end"
[Dr. Mike Yeadon, source].

 

Experiences of PCR Tests


"I had a test for COVID 19 and the first result was positive. I was upset, then I was invited for the second and third tests. The second one showed that it is not COVID 19 but one of the other types of coronavirus. Then I had a third one for antibodies and three blood tests - they showed that I had no COVID 19, but I have all the other coronavirus types. The Doctor who was managing the test and laboratory said to me that 99% of tested patients have all varieties of coronaviruses and antibodies. And they all show on the first test as COVID infected (but it is not COVID 19). So it is widely assumed that the first test in many countries diagnoses as COVID 19 when it is not" [source].


"Out of the 19 individuals who tested positive, one had been PCR positive three months earlier and was also antibody positive. The immune system works to neutralise the virus and prevent further infection. The infectious stage lasts about a week. Inactivated RNA, however, degrades slowly: it can be detected weeks after infectiousness has gone. In one case, RT-PCR continued to pick up fragments of RNA until the 63rd day after symptom onset. The duration of faecal shedding of viral RNA in one patient was up to 47 days from symptom onset. PCR detection of viruses is helpful so long as its limitations are understood; while it detects RNA in minute quantities, caution needs to be applied to the results as it often does not detect the infectious virus. The detection problem is ubiquitous for RNA viruses detection. SARS-Cov, MERS, Influenza, Ebola, and Zika viral RNA can also be detected long after the disappearance of the virus. Why does it matter? Because when it comes to Covid-19, insufficient attention has been paid to how PCR results actually relate to disease. The harms of false-positive results can be substantial: operations can be delayed or cancelled; patients are kept in hospital, just in case; further testing is required; in some cases, it drives local lockdowns ... mass testing might cause more harm than good if the nuances of test threshold are not understood"
[Professor Carl Heneghan and Dr. Tom Jefferson, source].


"In the NYT, experts compiled three datasets with officials from the states of Massachusetts, New York and Nevada that mention [Cts]. Conclusion? 'Up to 90% of the people who tested positive did not carry a virus'. The Wadworth Center, a New York State laboratory, analyzed the results of its July tests at the request of the NYT: 794 positive tests with a Ct of 40. 'With a Ct threshold of 35, approximately half of these PCR tests would no longer be considered positive,' said the NYT.  'And about 70% would no longer be considered positive with a Ct of 30!'  In Massachusetts, between 85 and 90% of people who tested positive in July with a Ct of 40 would have been considered negative with a Ct of 30, adds the NYT. And yet, all these people had to isolate themselves, with all the dramatic psychological ad economic consequences, while they were not sick and probably not contagious all"
[source].

 

'Cases' and 'Infections' / Symptoms


"People infected with the virus are most infectious from a day or two before symptoms appear till about five days after"
[source].


"Throughout the summer deaths dropped to the point where they were statistically insignificant. Eventually, realising that the public no longer took vuvu seriously, the Government decided to start reporting daily cases rather than daily deaths to try and return it to the public psyche. Notwithstanding the fact that a positive test result and a case are not, medically speaking, the same thing"
[reader's comment at source].


"Part of the 'project fear' that is rather too obvious, involving second waves, has been the daily count of 'cases'. It's important to understand that, according to the infectious disease specialists I've spoken to, the word 'case' has to mean more than merely the presence of some foreign organism. It must present signs (things medics notice) and symptoms (things you notice). And in most so-called cases, those testing positive had no signs or symptoms of illness at all. There was much talk of asymptomatic spreading, and as a biologist this surprised me. In almost every case, a person is symptomatic because they have a high viral load and either it is attacking their body or their immune system is fighting it, generally a mix. I don't doubt there have been some cases of asymptomatic transmission, but I'm confident it's not important"
[Dr. Mike Yeadon, source].


"Pillar 2 [community PCR testing] testing has been ongoing since May but it's only in recent weeks that it has reached several hundreds of thousands of tests per day. The effect of the day by day climb in the number of people that are being described as 'cases' cannot be overstated. I know it is inducing fear, anxiety and concern for the possibility of new and unjustified restrictions, including lockdowns. I have no idea what Mr Hancock's motivations are. But he has and continues to use the hugely inflated output from a fatally flawed Pillar 2 test and appears often on media, gravely intoning the need for additional interventions (none of which, I repeat, are proven to be effective)"
[Dr. Mike Yeadon, source].


"[A] hopelessly-performing diagnostic test has been, and continues to be used, not for diagnosis of disease, but, it seems, solely to create fear. This misuse of power must cease ... the test used in Pillar 2 [community PCR testing] must be immediately withdrawn as it provides no useful information.  In the absence of vastly inflated case numbers arising from this test, the pandemic would be seen and felt to be almost over"
[Dr. Mike Yeadon, source].


"An epidemic is defined as the wide spread of an infectious disease. The final letter of COVID is 'D' for disease. A disease requires symptoms. Public Health England's National COVID-19 case definition required the presence of symptoms. Somehow symptoms have become irrelevant. We are now chasing down the healthy, immune population who are being over tested. This includes those in hospital with other symptoms and for other reasons. If we tested for influenza in the same way and with the same implications, we would have to lockdown every winter"
[Dr. Mike Yeadon, et al, source].


"A PCR false positive pseudo-epidemic looks just like a real epidemic, but isn't ... Now, in late November, we are told there are sometimes 25,000 new 'cases' daily and that several hundred daily 'COVID-19 deaths' are occurring ... A 'case' is a positive PCR test. No symptoms are involved.  A 'COVID-19 admission' to a hospital is a person testing positive by PCR before, on entry or at any time during a hospital stay, no matter the reason for the admission or the symptoms the patient is presenting.  A 'COVID-19 death' is any death within 28 days of a positive PCR test ... In the autumn, the claimed 'cases' are an artefact of a deranged testing system"
[Dr. Mike Yeadon, source].


"For all relevant data items: a confirmed COVID-19 patient is any patient admitted to the trust who has recently (ie in the last 14 days) tested positive for COVID-19 following a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Patients who have been diagnosed via X-ray and assessment rather than a positive test should be counted as suspected (and not confirmed) COVID-19 patients. So patients that have a test but no diagnosis are confirmed COVID patients. Anyone with a firm clinical diagnosis but no positive test are 'suspected'"
[source].


"There is also the lingering myth of the PCR test as a reliable standard for diagnosing Covid infections. Due to the widespread abuse of PCR, which was never designed nor intended to be relied upon as a confirmatory diagnostic tool, a growing number of medical experts argue that the US, the UK, Germany and other EU nations are facing a 'casedemic' rather than a pandemic due to a pathogenic virus. Despite PCR's high rate of misdiagnosis, positive results are still being reported as Covid cases"
[source].


"You have to have a whopping amount of any organism to cause symptoms.  Huge amounts of it.  You don't start with testing; you start with listening to the lungs.  I'm skeptical that a PCR test is ever true.  It's a great scientific research tool.  It's a horrible tool for clinical medicine.  30% of your infected cells have been killed before you show symptoms.  By the time you show symptoms, the dead cells are generating the symptoms ... Don't [be tested for COVID-19], I say, when people ask me.  No healthy person should be tested.  It means nothing but it can destroy your life"
[Dr. David Rasnik, bio-chemist, protease developer, former founder of Viral Forensics EM lab, quoted at source].


"[T]he postulate that a specific pathogenic germ is invariably associated with a given disease leaves the question of causality unanswered. 'If it is defined etymologically as any microbe capable of causing disease, a range of organisms which are habitually harmless have to be included; if at the other extreme, the definition is restricted to those microbes which invariably cause disease and are never harmless, few if any can qualify since more disease-producing organisms can be isolated at times from healthy persons.'  This ambiguity has been exploited with a vengeance in the last two years in the form of case numbers generated by Christian Drosten's clinically meaningless and possibly fraudulent PCR tests which identify the presence of microbes as opposed to disease, which by definition requires the presence of symptoms ... the relationship between disease and the presence of pathogens is complex, but from a medical perspective only disease is meaningful.  On this point it is noticeable that UK media appears to have ceased to publicise hospitalisation numbers, which remain flat, even as it broadcasts irrelevant soaring positive numbers.  Here once again the evidence suggests an intention to mislead"
[source].

 

PCR Tests and C19 Vaccines


"[D]ue to the known lack of accuracy of the PCR test in a serious study, a so-called Sanger sequencing must be used.  This is the only way to make reliable statements on the effectiveness of a vaccine against Covid-19.  On the basis of the many different PCR tests of highly varying quality, neither the risk of disease nor a possible vaccine benefit can be determined with the necessary certainty, which is why testing the vaccine on humans is unethical per se"
[Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, Lung Specialist, and Dr. Mike Yeadon, ex-Pfizer Head of Respiratory Research, source].

 

Asymptomatics


"In the history of respiratory-born viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person"
[Anthony Fauci (28 January 2020), quoted at James P. Smith, Test All Things: False/True, (Second Edition, 21 November 2021), p.21].


"The only reason one might even consider mass testing of those without symptoms is if you were convinced that those without symptoms were significant sources of transmission. This has always seemed to me to a very tenuous assumption. Specifically, respiratory viruses are spread by droplets of secretions and generally the expulsion of these is linked to the symptoms of infection - coughing in particular. Humans ... recognise threats to health by close observation of the health status of others. It works well. We're familiar with avoiding those with flu-like symptoms in winter and behaving responsibly by staying away from work and vulnerable people when we are symptomatic. The burden of proof rests with those claiming something very different in the case of SARS-CoV-2 to show conclusively that asymptomatic people are indeed major sources of transmission. I don't think that case has at all been made"
[Dr Mike Yeadon, source].
 

"The claim that the asymptomatic (i.e. those with no symptoms) are the main drivers of Covid-19 was (somewhat staggeringly) largely based on a single case report in Germany, in which an infection was attributed to contact with an apparent asymptomatic person.  However, further investigation revealed that the alleged asymptomatic person had in face been sick and had been suppressing their symptoms with medication.  In spite of this, the original misleading paper was never rectified and was still cited b 'experts' - along with a few limited and very questionable reports from China - as proof that Covid -19 behaves differently to all other respiratory viruses. It does not" [James P. Smith, Test All Things: False/True, (Second Edition, 21 November 2021), p.20].


"The fact is that we have allowed the word 'asymptomatic' to be used to describe the fit and healthy who are not spreading the virus, and as a direct result of this, a Covid-19 'case' has been defined as anyone with a positive (PCR or Lateral Flow) test result, irrespective of whether or not they are manifesting any symptoms.  There is no historical precedent for defining a symptomless infection with a respiratory virus as a medical case. Over many decades of epidemic management, a medical case has always been defined as a sick individual who is presenting a series of established clinical criteria (i.e. symptoms)"
[James P. Smith, Test All Things: False/True, (Second Edition, 21 November 2021), p.21].


"If they haven't got symptoms, they're not ill. If they're not sneezing and coughing all over everyone, they're not spreading it"
[reader's comment at source].

 

Contact Tracing / Test and Trace
 

"Test and trace was implemented at great cost ... it is entirely pointless once a disease is endemic and pervasive.  Mass-scaled PCR testing was rolled-out, spinning 45 cycles when it is openly accepted that anything over 33 is highly likely to produce a false positive by detecting old 'dead' Covid.  As a result of this thousands of healthy people were forced into 14 days self-isolation for no good reason whatsoever" [reader's comment at source].


"The Government's contact-tracing app has been hailed by its creators as instrumental in helping the country 'return to normality and beating coronavirus', but has yet to be released. It will only run on smartphones that run Apple's iOS or Google's Android operating systems, meaning non-smart mobile phones, Windows and old BlackBerry handsets will not support it. Devices need to be new enough to support Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE)4 technology, to identify passing phones also running the app, and run relatively recent software. This is iOS11 or above for iPhones, or Android8 (Oreo) or above for Android phones"
[I newspaper, 12 June 2020].


"Contact Tracing is never about controlling the spread of the virus.  It's all part of a state surveillance apparatus implemented by the government to monitor, limit and catch unsuspecting people into naming and shaming them. Look no further than Shenzhen and its Special Economic Zone in which their surveillance mechanism are in effect today by which people are ranked using social credit scores which can allow and deny them access to services ... the government ... is harvesting our personal information ... stay away from those who seek to control our lives by contact tracing ... have no part in any contact tracing or any government surveillance programs"
[viewer's comment at source].


"Every time somebody takes a swab, a tissue sample of their DNA, it goes into a government database.  It's to track us.  They're not just looking for the virus.  Please put that in your article" [Dr. David Rasnik, bio-chemist, protease developer, former founder of Viral Forensics EM lab, quoted at source].

 

Correct Medical Procedure


"[I]n medicine we always start from the person: we examine him/her, we collect his/her symptoms (complaints-anamnesis) and objective clinical signs (examination) and on the basis of a clinical reflection in which scientific knowledge and experience intervene, we make diagnostic hypotheses. Only then do we prescribe the most appropriate tests, based on this clinical reflection. We constantly compare the test results with the patient's clinical condition (symptoms and signs), which takes precedence over everything else when it comes to our decisions and treatments. Today, our governments, supported by their scientific safety advice, are making us do the opposite ands the test first, followed by a clinical reflection necessarily influenced by this prior test ... we always work in this direction: from the person (symptoms, signs) to the appropriate tests, never the other way around"
[source].

 

Lateral Flow Tests


"The only confirmatory testing carried out has shown no COVID. Army testing in Liverpool uses a different and more reliable test - the Lateral Flow Test (LFT). It has demonstrated that there is minimal COVID in the Liverpool community, the alleged hotspot. The numbers testing positive are barely above the false positive rate reported for the LFT meaning there were no real COVID cases found. In other words, the Army results confirm the fact that at least 90% of the PCR were false positives and the government is panicking on the basis of a massively exaggerated and unreliable statistic"
[Dr. Mike Yeadon, et al, source].

 

BinaxNOWTM COVID-19 Antigen Self Test


"The Reagent Solution (included in the test kit) contains a harmful chemical: Sodium Azide' ... Sodium Azide is a rapidly acting, potentially deadly chemical that exists as an odorless white solid ... Sodium azide prevents the cells of the body from using oxygen. When this happens, the cells die. Sodium azide is more harmful to the heart and the brain than to other organs, because the heart and the brain use a lot of oxygen"
[FDA, quoted at source].


"The BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Self Test does not differentiate between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 ... Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of the disease"
[FDA, quoted at source].

 

Conflating Flu and Covid


"The [UK] government's own Office for National Statistics (ONS) officially recorded that 3.9 million people attended their doctor in England with 'flu-like symptoms' during the third week in January 2021 (i.e. the peak time for seasonal flu to manifest), but only 35 were diagnosed as having the flu.  35.  That is literally impossible; medically and scientifically impossible.  The astonishing phenomena of flu vanishing has of course been put down to the success of the lockdowns and people having better health habits, but anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows this is complete and utter rubbish.  How can one virus be almost entirely eradicated from the population while at the same time another (very similar in nature) virus is running rampant?  It is clear that seasonal flu is being wrongly diagnosed as Covid-19 by a hugely unreliable test run at unrealistically high amplification cycles.  Seasonal flu has always been diagnosed not by a test, but by observing a set of symptoms.  However, patients attending their doctor with flu-like symptoms are no longer diagnosed by the doctor observing symptoms, but are instead given a PCR test, and lo and behold seasonal flu is suddenly non-existent and Covid-19 is being diagnosed everywhere!"
[James P. Smith, Test All Things: False/True, (Second Edition, 21 November 2021), p.23].

 

The Omicron Variant


"Why has the CDC waited until December 31, 2021 to enforce the suspension of the invalid and flawed PCR test?  Seasonal influenza which starts in October has contributed o driving up the number of so-called 'Confirmed Covid-19 Cases'.  And in recent developments, these PCR positive cases are routinely being categorized as 'Confirmed Covid-19 Omicron Variant Cases'.  It's also a period of the year when people catch a common cold (e.g. triggered by a corona virus) which often results in a PCR positive.  This upward movement of PCR positive cases is now being used by corrupt politicians to sustain the Omicron fear campaign as well as impose 'The Covid-19 Christmas and New Year Lockdown'.  Millions of people worldwide are lining up to be tested as well as vaccinated to 'protect themselves' against SARS-CoV-2, which cannot under any circumstances be identified by the PCR test"
[source].


"PCR positive cases (which according to the CDC could be the result of seasonal influenza) are now being routinely assigned to the Omicron Variant ... The CDC intimates that:

  • the PCR test is invalid;
  • does not differentiate between Covid-19 and seasonal influenza;
  • Does not detect or identify SARS-CoV-2 and its variants.

"If the PCR test is invalid as confirmed by the 'Horse's Mouth' (the CDC), then the 260 million so-called 'Confirmed Covid-19 Cases' collected and tabulated worldwide since the outset of the alleged pandemic are meaningless.  The official 'covid-19 consensus' collapses like a house of cards.  There is no pandemic.  And what the ongoing PCR Covid-19 testing does is to drive up the numbers and spearhead the fear campaign with a view to justifying the killer vaccine" [source].

 

Recommended Actions


"The cure, of course, as it has been in the past when PCR has replaced the pandemic itself as the menace in the land, is to stop PCR mass testing ... until we end the use of PCR mass testing, here is no chance that 'cases' willo reduce to very low levels. lateral Flow Tests must become the gold standard test for COVID with PCR only used for confirmatory diagnosis. This will minimise the number of PCR tests that need to be performed allowing testing to return to competent NHS laboratories. Without such an intervention, even if the virus stopped circulating, I believe we'll still hear of tens of thousands of 'cases' every day, and several hundred deaths"
[Dr Mike Yeadon, source].


"The following are the most important actions to be taken immediately;  (1) Stop mass testing asymptomatic individuals ... (2) Re-test a sample of hospitalised patients previously diagnosed (by PCR alone) using LFT ... (3) If PCR is to continue to be used at all, it should be at low scale ... (4) Even conducted at lower scale, it is vital that additional quality control measures for PCR testing are instituted ... (5) Hospital / NHS and care-home staff absence policies should be based primarily on LFT testing ... (6) The definition of 'an outbreak' must require subjects to have positive LFT results ... (7) Overturn the Ofcom ban on free speech in broadcast media..."
[Dr. Mike Yeadon, et al, source].


"(1) We must demand that the RT-PCR results be returned mentioning the Ct used because beyond Ct 30, a positive RT-PCR test means nothing;  (2) We must listen to the scientists and doctors, specialists, virologists who recommend the use of adapted Ct, lower, at 30. An alternative is to obtain the number of copies of viral RNA/μl or /ml sample;  (3) We need to go back to the patient, to the person, to his or her clinical condition (presence or absence of symptoms) and from there to judge the appropriateness of testing and the best way to interpret the result.  (4) Until there is a better rationale for PCR screening, with a known and appropriate Ct threshold, an asymptomatic person should not be tested in any way"
[source].


"The correct and accurate way to establish infection from Covid-19 is for doctors to diagnose through the observation of symptoms and only then should infection be confirmed by a positive test result.  Incidence of hospitalisations should be reported in the same way; people without symptoms do not get hospitalised!  The number of 'cases' is irrelevant when it includes the asymptomatic.  The number of reported positive test results depends on the number of tests being done.  When a high number of tests are being done, there will be a high number of positives, but these positive test results are not 'new medical cases' with the disease.  Up to November 2021, the UK had conducted no less than 321 million Covid tests.  Is it any wonder why we have a staggeringly high number of 'cases'?  We will never get out of this nightmare of a 'case-demic' unless we stop testing those who do not manifest symptoms"
[James P. Smith, Test All Things: False/True, (Second Edition, 21 November 2021), p.21].

 

Summary Re: PCR Tests

"Summary of important points:

  • The RT-PCR test is a laboratory diagnostic technique that is not well suited to clinical medicine;
  • It is a binary, qualitative diagnostic technique that confirms (positive test) or not (negative test) the presence of an element in the medium being analyzed. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, the element is a fragment of the viral genome, not the virus itself;
  • In medicine, even in an epidemic or pandemic situation, it is dangerous to place tests, examinations, techniques above clinical evaluation (symptoms, signs). It is the opposite that guarantees quality medicine;
  • The main limitation (weakness) of the RT-PCR test, in the current pandemic situation, is its extreme sensitivity (false positive) if a suitable threshold of positivity (Ct) is not chosen. Today, experts recommend using a maximum Ct threshold of 30;
  • This Ct threshold must be informed with the positive RT-PCR result so that the physician knows how to interpret this positive result, especially in an asymptomatic person, in order to avoid unnecessary isolation, quarantine, psychological trauma;
  • In addition to mentioning the Ct used, laboratories must continue to ensure the specificity of their detection kits for SARS-CoV-2, taking into account its most recent mutations, and must continue to use three genes from the viral genome being studied as primers, or, if not, mention it" [source].

 

A Fearful Nation

"We are become a diminished little nation, fearful and cowed, mesmerised by Newspeak and content to believe that government cares for our wellbeing.  It does not.  Nor does Big Pharma, the 'Guardians' of the World Economic Forum, or billionaires flying around in private jets warning that we must all prepare for the next global emergency.  Re-educated, we now understand that freedom is whatever the Covidocracy says it is.  Democracy is a good thing, provided you vote for the right people.  Health is what a PCR test shows, experimental gene therapies are vaccines; vaccines do not prevent you from getting a disease or passing it on; consent is doing what you are told; bodily integrity applies only to abortion; all flu is Covid, but not all Covid is flu; and the National Health Service is nothing of the kind.  Science is whatever Gates and Schwab are investing in (common cold and smallpox vaccines, synthetic 'meat' and biometric nano chips).  A man is a woman if he says so, and 2+2 does indeed, make 5" [source].

 

20 Things I've Learned...

"20 Things I've Learned (Or Had Confirmed) About Humanity During the 'Pandemic':

  • Most people would rather be in the majority, than be right;
  • At least 20% of the population has strong authoritarian tendencies, which will emerge under the right conditions;
  • Fear of death is only rivalled by the fear of social disapproval.  The latter could be stronger;
  • Propaganda is just as effective in the modern day as it was 100 years ago.  Access to limitless information has not made the average person any wiser;
  • Anything and everything can and will be politicized by the media, government, and those who trust them;
  • Many politicians and large corporations will gladly sacrifice human lives if it is conducive to their political and financial aspirations;
  • Most people believe the government acts in the best interests of the people.  Even many who are vocal critics of the government;
  • Once they have made up their mind, most people would rather commit to being wrong, than admit they were wrong;
  • Humans can be trained and conditioned quickly and relatively easily to significantly alter their behaviours - for better or worse;
  • When sufficiently frightened, most people will not only accept authoritarianism, but demand it;
  • People who are dismissed as 'conspiracy theorists' are often well researched and simply ahead of the mainstream narrative;
  • Most people value safety and security more than freedom and liberty, even if said 'safety' is merely an illusion;
  • Hedonic adaptation occurs in both directions, and once inertia sets in, it is difficult to get people back to 'normal';
  • A significant percentage of people thoroughly enjoy being subjugated;
  • 'The Science' has evolved into a secular pseudo-religion for millions of people in the West.  This religion has little to do with science itself;
  • Most people care more about looking like they are doing the right things, rather than actually doing the right thing;
  • Politics, the media, science, and the healthcare industries are all corrupt, to varying degrees.  Scientists and doctors can be bought as easily as politicians;
  • If you make people comfortable enough, they will not revolt.  You can keep millions docile as you strip their rights, by giving them money, food, and entertainment;
  • Modern people are overly complacent and lack vigilance when it comes to defending their own freedoms from government overreach;
  • It's easier to fool a person than to convince them they have been fooled" [quoted in a reader's comment at source].

 

What is Covid-19?

"Covid-19 is supposedly a pneumonia as a complication of SARS-COV-2, but ...

  • For most people, Covid-19 is a mild illness which is never confirmed as being due to SARS-COV-2, but the perception of reality is created by official general prognosis,
  • A developed SARS-COV-2 infection could be flu, or even a bacterial infection, and Covid-19, or the pneumonia associated with it, would in fact arise as a complication due to these other causations,
  • Pneumonia or severe respiratory complications can occur from a treatment for cancer - which incriminates other pre-existing conditions in combination with their medical treatments,
  • Meanwhile, quite astonishingly, there is no acknowledgement of what might be true Covid-19, which is an infection of the lungs related to the interaction between SARS-COV/SARS-COV-2 and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) that is promoted in treatment by prescribed drugs.

"[T]he UK Government's reaction to Covid-19 has been way beyond anything anyone could call proportional. It has been unnecessarily, grotesquely exaggerated, and pointlessly damaging" [source].

 

Coronavirus Act: What Are We Consenting To?

"In the UK, it is worth recapping what it is we are consenting to with the Coronavirus Act:

  • We consent to increased State surveillance of ourselves and our family;
  • We are happy that we could be detained, without charge, because some state official suspects, or claims they suspect, we may be infected;
  • It is fine with us that we or our loved ones can be sectioned under the Mental Health Act on the recommendation of a single doctor and neither we nor they need to have the protection of a second opinion we are locked up;
  • We accept that the state can retain our biometric data and fingerprints for an extended period;
  • We consent that jury trials are a bit of an anachronism and Judges can hear more evidence by video or even audio link;
  • We think it's fine that the evidence required, and processes undertaken, to determine and record our or our loved ones' deaths can be eroded to the point where they can be registered by people with no medical or legal expertise at all;
  • We don't think the NHS needs to adhere to practice standards or bother with assessing the needs of some patients, especially older people;
  • We are also fine with the complete suspension of democracy in Britain;
  • We accept all of this based upon a unique subset of scientific opinion which, contrary t every known scientific principle, can never be questioned;
  • We agree with the MSM that people who question any aspect of the stories they tell us are dangerous because these people just don't care if their own loved ones die. Only true believers care about their families;
  • We also accept the need for the State to invest considerable resources creating counter disinformation units whose purpose is to censor anything and everything which questions our firmly held beliefs. The beliefs informed by many of the same people doing the censoring..." [source].

 

Bayith Articles on C19

A Note On Face Masks  (October 2021)

Fortifying Our Immune Systems for Winter  (July 2021)

Concerning Coronavirus Vaccines  (December 2020 / January 2021)

Covid-19 Vaccines: As in the Days of Noah  (November 2020)

A Bit of Dirt...  (November 2020)

Covid Conversations: Everyone Is Out of Step But Our Jock  (October 2020)

Rules Are Rules!  (September 2020)

Covid Conversations: An Apology and An Explanation  (September 2020)

Why I Don't Wear A Face-Mask  (August 2020)

Coming Out of Lockdown - Part Two: Hugs  (May 2020)

Coming Out of Lockdown - Part One: Rebuilding Our Immune Systems  (May 2020)

Wake Up, Folks...  (May 2020)

Clapping for the NHS  (April 2020)

Our Place of Safety  (April 2020)

 

 

 

"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.
I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in Him will I trust.
Surely He shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.
He shall cover thee with His feathers, and under His wings shalt thou trust: His truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day;
Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday ...
He shall give His angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways ...
he shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble ... and show him my salvation"
(Psalm 91)

 

 

 

Please note that the inclusion of any quotation or item on this page does not imply we would necessarily endorse the source from which the extract is taken; neither can we necessarily vouch for any other materials by the same authors, or any groups or ministries or websites with which they may be associated, or any periodicals to which they may contribute, or the beliefs of whatever kind they may hold, or any other aspect of their work or ministry or position.

Elizabeth McDonald     https://www.bayith.org     bayith@blueyonder.co.uk