The way that covid ‘cases’ have been identified, recorded and reported during the so-called pandemic has almost always been controversial, and those who push the agenda of ‘asymptomatic’ cases, knowing full well there is no such thing, are culpable of fraud, and through the use of case statistics (resulting in ‘casedmics’) to drive lockdowns and vaccine uptake, they are also guilty of crimes against humanity.
The so-called ‘gold standard’ test for SARS-CoV-2 “infection” is the RT-PCR test, the specifications of which were outlined by a paper co-authored by Corman and Drosten et al, in January 2020. This paper has been heavily criticised by International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICSLS) for its significant and numerous flaws, resulting in them also requesting that the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted, and yet this method of identifying coronavirus ‘cases’ went ahead worldwide and is still used to this day. Other testing methods include the Lateral Flow Test (the so-called ‘quick tests’) which are compared to RT-PCR tests, as evidence that they work.
ICSLS have published the Corman-Drosten Review Report, which states:
“[The] “Corman-Drosten paper”, published by “Eurosurveillance” on 23 January 2020, describes an RT-PCR method to detect the novel Corona virus (also known as SARS-CoV2). After careful consideration, our international consortium of Life Science scientists found the Corman-Drosten paper is severely flawed with respect to its biomolecular and methodological design. A detailed scientific argumentation can be found in our review “External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results”, which we herewith submit for publication in Eurosurveillance.”
See the Corman-Drosten Review Report, as well as their request for retraction letter, here: https://cormandrostenreview.com/ [published 27/11/2020 to January 2021, accessed 25/06/2021], or download a copy of the Review Report here [PDF, 32 pages].
A summary and comment article on the Corman-Drosten Review Report appears here: https://dreddymd.com/2020/12/12/scientists-show-covid-tests-are-useless-are-based-on-flawed-science/ [published 12/12/2020, accessed 25/06/2021], or read a copy of the article here [PDF, 4 pages]. From this article:
“Speaking to UncoverDC.com about the Corman-Drosten paper, Dr. Kevin Corbett from the ICSLS report said, “Public Health England is a co-author on it. All the public health authorities across the EU have co-authored this 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 center of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality, or the actual person, the patient.”
Responding to the point that advocates of the PCR test claim the virus has, as a matter of fact, been isolated, Corbett said, “Yes, 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, I think it was, 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 it to begin with. So it’s all full of holes, the whole thing.””
FierceBiotech.com reports that on 10 June 2021, the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) sent a warning letter to Innova Medical Group, inc, manufacturers of the most commonly used rapid antigen tests (Lateral Flow Tests, or LFTs), as the products are unauthorised and have allegedly violated various accuracy and performance requirements. According to the FierceBiotech.com article, the FDA’s advice to consumers is:
“Stop using the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test. Destroy the tests by placing them in the trash or return the tests to Innova using the FedEx return label that was included with the recall letter that Innova sent to customers.”
See: https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/place-them-trash-fda-warns-against-using-innova-s-rapid-covid-19-antigen-tests [published, accessed 25/06/2021], or download a copy of the article here [PDF, 2 pages].
The FDA’s letter to Innova states:
FDA is advising consumers not to purchase or use certain products that are not in compliance with FDA requirements and are being misleadingly represented as safe and/or effective for the mitigation, prevention, treatment, diagnosis, or cure of COVID-19. Your firm will be added to a published list on FDA’s website of firms and websites that have received warning letters from FDA concerning the sale or distribution of COVID-19 related products in violation of the Act. This list can be found at https://www.fda.gov/consumers/health-fraud-scams/fraudulentcoronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-products. Once you have taken actions to address the sale of your unapproved, uncleared, and unauthorized products for the mitigation, prevention, treatment, diagnosis, or cure of COVID-19, and any appropriate actions have been confirmed by the FDA, the published list will be updated to indicate that your firm has taken such corrective actions.
You can view the official warning letter from the FDA here: https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/innova-medical-group-inc-614819-06102021 [published 10/06/2021, accessed 25/06/2021], or download a copy of the FDA letter here [PDF, 6 pages].
As reported by off-guardian.org, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) in the USA has changed the way they expect covid cases to be recorded, from April/May 2021. The two changes they are instituting are:
- Organisations should use Ct thresholds of 28 or less in PCR tests for ‘breakthrough cases’ (covid cases in fully vaccinated people which appear 2 weeks or more after vaccination), which will essentially lower the numbers of vaccinated individuals appearing to have caught covid, while NOT changing the number of Ct cycles for unvaccinated individuals,
- The CDC only wants covid cases amongst vaccinated individuals (‘breakthrough cases’) reported if they are hospitalised or die, thus ignoring covid cases amongst vaccinated individuals who are asymptomatic or who have mild covid symptoms – again in order for it to appear that vaccinated individuals have fewer cases of covid than unvaccinated individuals.
Read the article here: https://off-guardian.org/2021/05/18/how-the-cdc-is-manipulating-data-to-prop-up-vaccine-effectiveness/#clar [updated 28/05/2021 , accessed 25/06/2021], or download a copy of the article here [PDF, 3 pages].
And now, from June 2021, the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK has also decided to change the way covid cases are recorded in hospitals – with a clear distinction between those ill with symptoms of covid, and those admitted for other reasons who just happened to test positive for covid while in hospital.
The interesting and alarming fact is that they do NOT intend to retrospectively correct cases prior to this, so essentially we will be comparing apples to bananas when it comes to statistics. Why might they do decide to do this, out of the blue, and not change their previous data so that it’s scientifically comparable?
According to the Independent newspaper, as reported by Off-Guardian.org:
“One NHS source said the new data would be “more realistic” as not all patients were sick with the virus, adding: “But it will make figures look better as there have always been some, for example stroke [patients], who also had Covid as an incidental finding” …
[The NHS said] the move was being done to help analyse the effect of the vaccine programme and whether it was successfully reducing Covid-19 sickness.”
In other words, they are changing the way covid cases are reported, to massage the number of serious covid cases down to a smaller number, in order to make it appear that the covid vaccine programme is working.
See: https://off-guardian.org/2021/06/11/the-nhs-just-changed-how-they-count-covid-cases-heres-why/?s=09 [published 11/06/2021, accessed 24/06/2021], or download a copy of the article here [PDF, 4 pages].