March 16, 2020 By Joe Martino

• The Facts: Study suggests that COVID-19 testing may be returning a great deal [80%] of false-positive results. [False positive means the test appears like a positive presence of a given virus, but is not. It is not a "confirmed case" at all, it is a false positive result.] 

In a PubMed study out of China published March 5th, 2020 titled Potential False-Positive Rate Among the ‘Asymptomatic Infected Individuals’ in Close Contacts of COVID-19 Patients [Maybe the "covid patient" was also falsely tested and is not a covid patient at all.] researchers found that there may be a substantial issue with testing methods that is leading to a high number of false-positive readings. As indicated in the abstract of the study, those who were asymptomatic, which means showing no signs of illness or disease, and who were in close contact with CVOID-19 patients, were likely to be tested positive falsely. As outlined in the study:   

“In the close contacts of COVID-19 patients, nearly half or even more of the ‘asymptomatic infected individuals’ reported in the active nucleic acid test screening might be false positives.”

“Results: When the infection rate of the close contacts and the sensitivity and specificity of reported results were taken as the point estimates, the positive predictive value of the active screening was only 19.67%, in contrast, the false-positive rate of positive results was 80.33%. The multivariate-probabilistic sensitivity analysis results supported the base-case findings, with a 75% probability for the false-positive rate of positive results over 47%.”

[In other words, 80% of the alleged "confirmed cases" are not infected people with no symptoms, they are healthy people who are not infected at all. 80% !  The "confirmed cases" numbers are false, and a hoax.]

... It is possible that the reason for poor accuracy in testing is due to the fact that the virus itself was not properly isolated and purified to create accurate testing. [See Dr. Kaufman on Alternative Views Page] This would be in accordance with Koch’s postulates which suggest that in order to accurately identify a virus and test for it one must follow 4 key steps.

• Purify the pathogen (e.g. virus) from many cases with a particular illness.
• Expose susceptible animals (obviously not humans) to the pathogen.
• Verify that the same illness is produced.
• Some add that you should also re-purify the pathogen, just to be sure that it really is creating the illness.

A major study published in the New England Journal of Medicine discussing the COVID-19 virus does, in fact, admit that it did not follow Koch’s postulates:

“Although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates,”

 [What? These have been the gold standard for over a century, and now simply dismissed, resulting in high "confirmed case" numbers to portray a "pandemic".]

As outlined in an opinion piece on GreenMeedInfo:

“A paper from Singapore by doctors and public health officials provides a revealing look at the inner guts of coronavirus testing. Hidden away in the supplementary material of reference [24], where few people will see it, it exposes some important issues with tests:

• The test is not binary (negative/positive) and has an arbitrary cutoff.
• The quantity of RNA does not correlate with illness.
• If negative means uninfected and positive means infected, then people went from infected to uninfected and back again, sometimes several times.
• Results below the cutoff are not shown, are treated as negative, but if PCR continued past the cutoff and was eventually positive, would indicate presence of small quantities of the RNA which is supposedly unique to the coronavirus.”  

[ Dr. Kaufman and others say that the alleged Covid virus is identical to natural appearing exosomes. See this video before Google bans it.]

An interesting post from Dr. Paul Offit on his Facebook page outlines some interesting statistics I feel people should consider. While I feel Paul is not very well informed on the subject of vaccines, he makes some interesting observations here.

“According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as of March 7, 2020, 36 million to 51 million people have suffered from influenza, 370,000 to 670,000 have been hospitalized, and 22,000 to 55,000 have died from the disease. To put these numbers in perspective, let’s look at countries that have dealt with COVID-19.

China, where COVID-19 originated, has reported roughly 3,000 deaths. The population of China is about 1.4 billion, three times greater than ours (United States). If we suffer an equivalent proportion of deaths, then 1,000 Americans will die from COVID-19, one-twentieth to one-fiftieth of the number who have died from influenza.

Italy has reported roughly 2,000 deaths from COVID-19 and, as a result, has shut down the country; only grocery stores and pharmacies remain open. Italy has a population of 60 million, about one-fifth of the U.S. population. If we suffer an equivalent proportion of deaths, then 10,000 Americans will die of COVID-19, about one-half to one-fifth of the number of deaths from influenza.”

New Research Reveals Between 12 Million and 33 Million Americans Were Infected [tested positive] by Coronavirus – Mortality Rate Similar to Seasonal Flu

By Jim Hoft
Published April 23, 2020

A study by Dr. Justin Silverman estimates that there were 8.7 million coronavirus infections [with 80% false positives?] between March 8 and March 28.

And as of April 17, 2020, 10% of the US population has been infected [tested positive] or around 33 million Americans.

Via Andrew Bostom.

Dr. Silverman says 10% of the US population is already infected [tested positive] with the virus.

A second study by Fivetran estimates that from March 1 and April 4th 12 million Americans were infected [tested positive] with the coronavirus.

"Between Mar 1 & April 4, there were 311,000 confirmed cases [tested positive]  of COVID19 in U.S. We estimate an additional 1.3 million COVID19 patients visited their docs during this time period but were not able to get tested, & additional 10.7 million people were infected [tested positive] " https://t.co/yuZbf0neKZ

— Andrew Bostom (@andrewbostom) April 23, 2020

A third study finds that 25% of residents at homeless shelters tested positive [correct, they tested positive, but were not "infected"] for the virus.

And 66% of those residents tested at San Francisco homeless facilities tested positive for the coronavirus!

Despite downplaying significance of data on actual covid19 positivity vs. previously "confirmed cases" among homeless, latest MMWR rpt provides more evidence of vastly increased SARS-Cov2 infection rates [tested positive rates]  https://t.co/w8KLY2iV81 pic.twitter.com/TceSqIs8VV
— Andrew Bostom (@andrewbostom) April 23, 2020

Posted by: Exosome RNA Administrator in Presentations April 17 

This is a technical discussion by experts in the research of Exosomes

https://youtu.be/UY4pJaGJgkA

Canadian author and independent researcher, David Crowe, has spent several decades analyzing and torpedoing SPECIFICS of conventional medical research. At the deepest level.

I’m talking about, for example, the mainstream claims of discovering new viruses.

Crowe doesn’t lay on vague brushstrokes. He goes to the core of fabrications and exposes them, chapter and verse.

His new paper, which he continues to update and expand, is: “Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory”.

Here I quote from the section of his paper where he takes up the question of discovery—have researchers actually found a new virus which they assert is the cause of a new pandemic, COVID-19?

At the end of this article, I list the published papers Crowe refers to by number, as he takes apart the very basis of the COVID illusion.

David Crowe: “Scientists are detecting novel RNA in multiple patients with pneumonia-like conditions, and are assuming that the detection of RNA (which is believed to be wrapped in proteins to form an RNA virus, as coronaviruses are believed to be) is equivalent to isolation of the virus. It is not, and one of the groups of scientists was honest enough to admit this”:

“’we did not perform tests for detecting infectious virus in blood’” [2]

“But, despite this admission, earlier in the paper they repeatedly referred to the 41 cases (out of 59 similar cases) that tested positive for this RNA as, ‘41 patients…confirmed to be infected with 2019-nCoV’.”

“Another paper quietly admitted that”:

“’our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates’” [1]

“Koch’s postulates, first stated by the great German bacteriologist Robert Koch in the late 1800s, can simply be stated as”:

“* Purify the pathogen (e.g. virus) from many cases with a particular illness.
* Expose susceptible animals (obviously not humans) to the pathogen.
* Verify that the same illness is produced.
* Some add that you should also re-purify the pathogen, just to be sure that it really is creating the illness.”

“Famous virologist Thomas Rivers stated in a 1936 speech, ‘It is obvious that Koch’s postulates have not been satisfied in viral diseases’. That was a long time ago, but the same problem still continues. None of the papers referenced in this article have even attempted to purify the virus. And the word ‘isolation’ has been so debased by virologists it means nothing (e.g. adding impure materials to a cell culture and seeing cell death is ‘isolation’).”

“Reference [1] did publish electron [microscope] micrographs, but it can clearly be seen in the lesser magnified photo, that the particles believed to be coronavirus are not purified as the quantity of material that is cellular is much greater. The paper notes that the photos are from ‘human airway epithelial cells’. Also consider that the photo included in the article will certainly be the ‘best’ photo, i.e. the one with the greatest number of particles. Lab technicians may be encouraged to spend hours to look around to find the most photogenic image, the one that most looks like pure virus.”

“There is no way to tell that the RNA being used in the new coronavirus PCR test is found in those particles seen under the electron micrograph. There is no connection between the test, and the particles, and no proof that the particles are viral.”

“A similar situation was revealed in March 1997 concerning HIV, when two papers published in the same issue of the journal ‘Virology’ revealed that the vast majority of what had previously been called ‘pure HIV’ was impurities that were clearly not HIV, and the mixture also included microvesicles that look very similar to HIV under an electron microscope, but are of cellular origin.” [5][6]

References:

1. Zhu N et al. A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019. N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan 14.
* https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2001017

2. Huang C et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet.2020 Jan 24.
* https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30183-5/fulltext

3. Chan J F-W et al. A familial cluster of pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus indicating person-to-person transmission: a study of a family cluster. Lancet. 2020 Jan 24.
* https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30154-9/fulltext

4. Rivers TM. Viruses and Koch’s Postulates. J Bacteriol. 1937 Jan; 33(1): 1-12.
* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC545348/

5. Gluschankof P et al. Cell membrane vesicles are a major contaminant of gradient-enriched human immunodeficiency virus type-1 preparations. Virology. 1997 Mar 31; 230(1): 125- 133.
* http://davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/papers/277-Microvesicles-Gluschankof.pdf

6. Bess JW et al. Microvesicles Are a Source of Contaminating Cellular Proteins Found in Purified HIV-1 Preparations. Virology. 1997 Mar 31; 230(1): 134- 44.
* http://davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/papers/278

—end of Crowe article excerpt—

In a half-sane world, David Crowe’s analysis would provoke an open honest discussion and debate among all sorts of scientists and researchers, and the repressed truth would tumble out and be confirmed.

Of course, we do not live in that world.

Instead, we have mistake-prone researchers and outright liars welcomed into the hallowed pages of medical journals. They are enabled by editors who look the other way.

The consequences, of course, aren’t merely academic.

A planet can be placed on lockdown.

 [And strangled to death in order to de-populate and centralize the technocracy.  See World Economic Forum page.]

Do I really need to say this at this late date

—     without the discovery of an actual disease-causing virus, the whole “pandemic” falls apart. The whole “spreading virus” assertion falls apart.

‘A Swiss Doctor on Covid-19’and the articles/videos

‘Corona: creating the illusion of a pandemic through diagnostic tests’,

‘12 Experts Questioning the Coronavirus Panic’,

‘Can We Trust the WHO?’,

‘How deadly is the coronavirus? It’s still far from clear’,

‘Perspectives on the Pandemic II: A Conversation with Dr. Knut Wittkowski’,

‘Never Has So Little Done So Much Harm to So Many:

The Latest Coronavirus Attack Is A Cover for Restricting Our Health Freedoms’,

‘Covid19 Death Figures “A Substantial Over-Estimate”’  

‘Dr Scott Jensen Reveals “Ridiculous” Covid-19 Guidance’.