 On the 25th of January 2021, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) granted provisional approval to Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd for its COVID-19 vaccine, COMIRNATY, for individuals 16 years and older. The Prime Minister Scott Morrison indicated that the vaccine roll out will begin in late February, with the elderly, aged-care workers and health care workers to be amongst the first to receive the jab. The TGA have released the Australian Public Assessment Report and the Australian Product Information for the COVID-19 vaccine following its provisional approval.
The Australian Public Assessment Report states that the “duration of protection is not yet known and is to be assessed in the ongoing trial”. This is one of the many reasons why vaccine development takes 10-12 years on average. Do we need to take the vaccine every year? If someone receives the vaccine, how do we know that the individual is not transmitting the virus a few months later if we don’t know the duration of protection. Will we need to take the vaccine during the flu season? We simply do not have the answers to these very important questions at this stage. The report continues by outlining that “in addition to the unknown longer term safety and unknown duration of vaccine protection, there are other limitations with the submitted data.” We don’t know how long the vaccine will protect us for, and now we don’t know if the vaccine is safe long term. This is one of the reasons why phase 3 clinical trials are so critical, as they help to determine the long term safety of a vaccine. What will the long term side effects be? Will the vaccine create antibody dependent enhancement (ADE), resulting in an enhanced immune response to the virus? Will the antibodies created by the vaccine attack the spike protein syncytin-1, which can potentially cause infertility in females? Will we develop antibodies to polyethylene glycol (PEG), which may cause an allergic reaction to the vaccine? Will the vaccine create autoimmunity? We cannot answer any of these questions because we have no long term safety data, and the studies have not been conducted. The Australian Public Assessment Report acknowledges that “the following questions have not yet been addressed:
Although the vaccine efficacies against certain outcomes have been demonstrated in the pivotal study, the real world vaccine effectiveness when this vaccine is rolled out to a larger and more diverse population is not known. The vaccine efficacy in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population has not been studied.” Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are some of the most vulnerable people in our community. These are the people that we are trying to protect, yet we have no data on how the vaccine may affect this group of people. We don’t know if the vaccine stops transmission, and we don’t know if it protects asymptomatic people, of which there are many. At this stage, the TGA have advised against giving the vaccine during pregnancy and breast feeding, as well as to children under the age of 16. We also don’t know how the vaccine interacts with other vaccines such as the influenza vaccine, which people will begin to take as we get closer to winter, which coincidentally, will not be that long after the COVID-19 vaccine rollout begins. The Australian Product Information states that we have no data for “use in frail patients with co-morbidities (for example, COPD, diabetes, chronic neurological disease, cardiovascular disease)” or for “use in patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders”. These are two of the more vulnerable demographics, and the very people that we are trying to protect, yet we have no information on how the vaccine will affect these people. Which begs the question… Why have frail patients received the vaccine in other countries if we have no safety data? We have already witnessed the devastating consequences. The Australian Product Information also states that “neither genotoxicity or carcinogenicity studies were performed. The components of COMIRNATY (lipids and mRNA) are not expected to have genotoxic potential.” Genotoxicity refers to chemical agents that damage the genetic information within a cell causing mutations, which may lead to cancer, whilst carcinogenicity refers to the ability or tendency to produce cancer. Despite the fact that the vaccines are “not expected” to create these issues, one would assume that it would be imperative that we conduct studies in these areas before rolling out a vaccine to the entire population. The consequences could be catastrophic if the vaccine is found to cause these issues. The Pfizer vaccine is an mRNA vaccine that is new, experimental and rushed to market. It has never been used in humans previously, and it has bypassed critical animal studies. The lack of data is astounding, in particular, the lack of safety and long term data. We don’t know if it stops transmission, if it protects asymptomatic people or how long protection lasts. We have already seen a number of adverse reactions to the Pfizer vaccine in many countries around the world. The potential side effects of this vaccine may be irreversible, which makes it even more important that we rule them out rather than experimenting of the unsuspecting public.
1 Comment
 In January 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended that the cycle threshold for the PCR test be run at 45 cycles. Despite the many warnings from experts the world over, it took until December 2020 for the World Health Organisation to finally admit that they have a “problem” with the test. The WHO received “feedback on an elevated risk of false SARS-CoV-2 results when testing specimens using RT-PCR reagents in open systems”. The ‘problem’ relates to a wholly arbitrary cycling process, which “means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.”
However, more recently, the World Health Organisation finally acknowledged that the cycle threshold for the PCR test has been set too high. “WHO guidance diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed. The cycle threshold needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.” “WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of the test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases. This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.” “Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis; therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.” The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that the “detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms”. The CDC continues by saying that the “performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection” and that the PCR test “cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens”. The Corman-Drosten Review Report shows that “if someone is tested positive 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%.” In March 2020, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director General of the World Health Organisation, said that “we have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test”. The advice to test anyone and everyone, regardless of symptoms, using a flawed PCR test, has been an unmitigated public health disaster. It has resulted in the closure of businesses, the destruction of industries and the loss of life. It is time for those who are responsible to be held accountable.  The Corman-Drosten Review Report is an external peer review of the RT-PCR test to detect for SARS-CoV-2 that reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level. The report was compiled by 22 scientists who have demanded that the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted.
Dr Michael Yeardon, the ex-Pfizer Vice President and one of the authors of the report, explains that the “first and major issue is that the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 is based on in silico (theoretical) sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China”. Dr Yeardon continues by clarifying that the “functionality of the published RT-PCR Test was not demonstrated with the use of a positive control (isolated SARS-CoV-2 RNA) which is an essential scientific gold standard”. “The fact that these PCR products have not been validated at molecular level is another striking error of the protocol, making any test based upon it useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.” Dr Yeardon highlights that it is a “significant mistake that the Corman-Drosten paper does not mention the maximum Ct (cycle threshold) value at which a sample can be unambiguously considered as a positive or a negative test-result. This important cycle threshold limit is also not specified in any follow-up submissions to date.” The report states that if “someone is tested positive 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%.” Furthermore, Dr Yeardon explains that the “Ct (cycle threshold) value to indicate when a sample should be considered positive or negative is not specified. It is also not specified when a sample is considered infected with SARS-CoV viruses… The test cannot discern between virus and virus fragments, so the Ct value indicating positivity is crucially important.” As Dr Yeardon clearly explains, “these are severe design errors, since the test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. The test cannot be used as a diagnostic for SARS-viruses.” Dr Kevin Corbett, an independent research consultant and health scientist with over 30 years’ experience, is another one of 22 scientists demanding that the Cormen-Drosten paper be retracted. He explains that “every scientific rationale for the development of that test has been totally destroyed by this paper. It’s like Hiroshima/Nagasaki to the COVID test. When Drosten developed the test, China hadn’t given them a viral isolate. They developed the test from a sequence in a gene bank. Do you see? China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate. They had a code, but no body for the code. No viral morphology.” “In the fish market, it’s like giving you a few bones and saying ‘that’s your fish’. It could be any fish… The Corman-Drosten paper, there’s nothing from a patient in it. It’s all from gene banks. And the bits of the virus sequence that weren’t there they made up. They synthetically created them to fill in the blanks. That’s what genetics is, it’s a code. So, it’s ABBBCCDDD and you’re missing some, what you think is EEE, so you put it in… This is basically a computer virus.” Dr Corbett continues by explaining that “there are 10 fatal errors in this Drosten paper… But here is the bottom line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they were doing. The PCR products of the amplification didn’t correspond to any viral isolate at that time. I call it ‘donut ring science’. There is nothing at the centre of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality… There have since been papers saying they’ve produced viral isolates. But there are no controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July… where they said: ‘Here’s the viral isolate’. Do you know what they did? They swabbed one person. One person, who’d been to China and had cold symptoms. One person. And they assumed he had (COVID-19) to begin with… The PCR test is full of holes, the whole thing.” The authors of the Corman-Drosten Review Report also found “severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance”. “In light of our re-examination of the test protocol to identify SARS-CoV-2 described in the Corman-Drosten paper we have identified concerning errors and inherent fallacies which render the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test useless.” The authors conclude by stating that “the decision as to which test protocols are published and made widely available lies squarely in the hands of Eurosurveillance. A decision to recognise the errors apparent in the Corman-Drosten paper has the benefit to greatly minimise human cost and suffering going forward.” “It is not in the best interest of Eurosurveillance to retract this paper? Our conclusion is clear. In the face of all the tremendous PCR-protocol design flaws and errors described here, we conclude: There is not much of a choice left in the framework of scientific integrity and responsibility.”  Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, stated repeatedly that the PCR test should not be used as a diagnostic tool for the simple reason that it is “incapable of diagnosing disease”. Experts the world over have been questioning the validity of the PCR test for some time, and now the judicial system in Portugal is bringing the legality of the PCR test into question.
The Lisbon Court of Appeal in Portugal recently ruled that the PCR test is “unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that a positive result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”. The judges quoted a study published in The Lancet, which stated that “any diagnostic test result should be interpreted in the context of the pre-test probability of disease. For COVID-19, the pre-test probability assessment includes symptoms, previous medical history of COVID-19 or presence of antibodies, any potential exposure to COVID-19, and likelihood of alternative diagnosis. When low pre-test probability exists, positive results should be interpreted with caution and a second specimen tested for confirmation.” “Prolong viral RNA shedding, which is known to last for weeks after recovery, can be a potential reason for positive swab tests in those previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2. However, importantly, no data suggests that detection of low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equates with infectivity unless infectious virus particles have been confirmed with laboratory culture-based methods.” The judge in this particular court case concluded that the “problem is that this reliability is shown, in terms of scientific evidence, as being more than debatable”. The World Health Organisation (WHO) have finally acknowledged what many have been saying, including the judge in this court case. “WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed. The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.” “WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of the test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases. This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.” “Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.” Dr Joseph Mercola has been highlighting this point for a long time. “Medically speaking, a “case” refers to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness. Now all of a sudden, this well-established medical term, “case”, has been completely are arbitrarily redefined to mean someone who tested positive for the presence of viral RNA.” Dr Mercola continues by saying that if “you’re asymptomatic, your odds of a positive PCR test being accurate is therefore virtually non-existent”. Another important distinction to make is that if someone tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 using the PCR test, this does not mean that this person has COVID-19. For the person to be diagnosed with COVID-19, they must exhibit the symptoms associated with the disease. Global Research explains that in the “case of certain infections, particularly viral infections, we use RT-PCR technique to confirm a diagnostic hypothesis suggested by a clinical picture. We do not routinely perform RT-PCR on any patient who is overheated, coughing or has an inflammatory syndrome.” “Positive RT-PRC cases = COVID-19 patients. This is the starting postulate, the premise of all official propaganda, which justifies all restrictive government measures: isolation, confinement, quarantine, mandatory masks, colour codes by country and travel bans, tracking, social distances in companies, stores and even, even more importantly, in schools.” “This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.”  One of the most disputed aspects of the Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test is the cycle threshold. In our previous article, we discussed how the PCR test works. In summary, the swab collects RNA from your nasal cavity and the back of your throat. This RNA is then reverse transcribed into DNA. The snippets of DNA are so small that they must be amplified to make them detectible. Each round of amplification is called a cycle. The number of amplification cycles is called the cycle threshold. A study published in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Disease showed that at a cycle threshold of 17, 100% of the positive results were confirmed to be accurate. According this study, 17 cycles would be the ideal cycle threshold. However, when the test was run at 33 cycles, 20% of the positive results were confirmed to be accurate, meaning that 80% of the positive results were in fact false positives. The Corman-Drosten Review Report shows that “if someone is tested positive 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%.” Dr Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in the U.S., stated that if “you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more… the chances of it being replication-confident are miniscule… You almost never can culture a virus from a 37 threshold cycle… (or) even 36”. According to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), it is extremely unlikely that the PCR test will detect live viruses in samples that have gone through more than 33 cycles. Further research concluded that patients with positive PCR tests that had a cycle threshold above 33 were not contagious, and could safely be discharged from the hospital or home isolation. Dr Joseph Mercola explains that “when you go above 30 cycles, insignificant sequences of viral DNA are magnified to the point where they produce a positive test result, even if your viral load is extremely low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat to you or anyone else”. In addition to this, Dr Mercola explains that the “chances of getting a true positive on the first day of COVID-19 symptom onset is approximately 40%. Not until Day 3 from symptom onset do you have an 80% chance of getting an accurate PCR result. By Day 5 the accuracy shrinks considerably and by Day 8 the accuracy is nil. Now, these are symptomatic people. When you’re asymptomatic, your odds of a positive PCR test being accurate is therefore virtually non-existent.” According to the Vaccine Reaction, numerous experts have stated that anything higher than 30 cycles should not be used. Changing the cycle threshold from 40 cycles to 35 cycles eliminated approximately 43% of the positive results. Furthermore, changing the cycle threshold from 40 cycles to 30 cycles eliminated roughly 63% of the positive results. Dr Michael Mina, MD, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, stated that “in Massachusetts, from 85 to 90% of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles”. Reiner Fuellmich, a founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee, states that the “consensus is that anything over 35 cycles is scientifically indefensible… and would be considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified”. The graph below shows the percentage of positive results for each cycle threshold.  In the U.S., the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) have recommended running the PCR test up to 40 cycles, whilst the World Health Organisation (WHO) previously recommended testing at 45 cycles.
However, according to Principia Scientific International, the World Health Organisation has finally admitted that the PCR test has a “problem”, and that they have received “feedback on an elevated risk of false SARS-CoV-2 results when testing specimens using RT-PCR reagents in open systems”. The authors continue by stating that the “crux of the “problem” is a wholly arbitrary cycling process which “means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain”.” As the inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, stated, the PCR test was “never designed to diagnose diseases”. “Clear and conclusive scientific evidence proves that these tests are not accurate and create a statistically significant percentage of false positives. Positive results more likely indicate “ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold”.” If the inventor of the PCR test clearly stated that the test should not be used to diagnose infection, and the cycle threshold is set so high that the false positive rate is up to 97%, then one must ask… Why are we using the PCR test to detect for SARS-CoV-2 and to diagnose COVID-19? If we have a test that is quite clearly flawed, do we really have a pandemic? And if don’t have a pandemic, why have our governments enforced border closures, hotel quarantine, mask mandates, lockdowns, social distancing, and school and business closures that has ultimately led to the destruction of the economy and the loss of life?  The Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test is the test that has been used to detect SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The PCR test works by using a swab to collect RNA from your nasal cavity and the back of your throat. An enzyme called reverse transcriptase is used to change the piece of RNA into a matching piece of DNA. A fluorescent signal can then be attached to the copies of DNA. However, the snippets of genetic material are so small that they must be amplified to make them detectible. Each round of amplification is called a cycle. The number of amplification cycles required for the fluorescent signal to cross a certain threshold is called the cycle threshold. In January 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended that the cycle threshold be set at 45 cycles. Different tests have been developed in different countries, so there may be some variations in how the test works. Different countries are also using different cycle thresholds.
Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, stated repeatedly that the PCR test should not be used as a diagnostic tool for the simple reason that it is “incapable of diagnosing disease”. The PCR test cannot distinguish between inactive and reproductive viruses, which means that the PCR test cannot detect infection. The test may pick up dead debris or inactive viral particles that pose no risk to that particular individual or to others. The test can also pick up the presence of other coronaviruses, so a positive result may simply indicate that you have recovered from a previous infection. According to Dr Joseph Mercola, “It cannot tell you whether you’re currently ill, whether you’ll develop symptoms in the near future, or whether you’re contagious”. A publication by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the coronavirus and PCR testing states that “detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms… The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection… This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” It is important to note that a person is only infectious if the virus is replicating within a cell. If the virus is not replicating (inactive), it is harmless to that individual and to others. If you don’t have symptoms, a positive test would most likely mean that the PCR test has detected inactive viral DNA in your body. This means that you are not contagious, and that you do not pose a risk to others. The British Medical Journal published a study of a “mass screening programme of more than 10 million residents in Wuhan, China, performed after SARS-CoV-2 was brought under control, (that) has identified 300 asymptomatic cases of covid-19, none of which was infectious”. Experts all over the world are calling for an end to PCR testing. According to Dr Joseph Mercola, “Positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have been used as the justification for keeping large portions of the world locked down for the better part of 2020.” Dr Michael Yeadon, former Chief Science Officer for Pfizer, has stated that false positive results from unreliable PCR tests are being used to “manufacture a second wave based on new cases”. It is important to note that, in medical terminology, a case refers to someone who has symptoms of a disease. A positive test simply means that an individual has tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. In order for that person to be diagnosed with COVID-19, he or she must have symptoms of the disease. Asymptomatic people should not be counted as cases. Reiner Fuellmich is leading “an international class-action lawsuit that will be filed against those responsible for using fraudulent testing to engineer the appearance of a dangerous pandemic in order to implement economically devastating lockdowns around the world”. He goes on to say that “reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests have several weaknesses that appear to be taken advantage of to create needless fear”. Fuellmich and his team are “primarily focused on the PCR test issue because erroneous reporting of positive tests as cases makes the pandemic appear magnitudes worse than it actually is. They’ve taken testimony from a number of well-respected immunologists from around the world, all of whom agree that the PCR test is incapable of telling us anything about the transmission of COVID-19.” According to Fuellmich, the “sole reason the PCR test is used, and used in an incorrect way, is to create enough fear that no one will question the pandemic measures being put into place and simply do as they’re told”. Michael Levitt, Nobel Prize winner and professor of structural biology at Stanford University, stated that mass testing is a “huge waste of money which could much better go to helping people who have lost their jobs… It’s great for the pharmaceutical companies selling test kits, but it’s not doing anything good”. According to Global Research, “Positive RT-PRC cases = COVID-19 patients. This is the starting postulate, the premise of all official propaganda, which justifies all restrictive government measures: isolation, confinement, quarantine, mandatory masks, colour codes by country and travel bans, tracking, social distances in companies, stores and even, even more importantly, in schools.” “This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.” Read more on PCR tests later this week. |
AuthorOur articles and rebuttal pieces are written by our writers on our volunteer team Archives
April 2023
Categories |
RSS Feed
