Bombshell study (meta review) from Oxford just published on PCR testing, Ct and virus viability.
💥This study completely invalidates the current c19 PCR test data💥
Recall that invalid test results also flow into hospitalization and fatality stats.
For key takeaways, read on
No viable virus at >7days from symptom onset.
Yet at this time Median Ct was still 26.5- MUCH lower than used in widespread testing.
And at 21 days, 2 weeks beyond transmissibility Ct was still 35! Still below that required to test positive most everywhere!
The chances of detecting live virus decreased by 33% with each increment in Ct.
Notice the “No growth” (=not infectious) Ct values in their table
So what’s the key point here? If you are being tested with PCR (the great majority of C19 tests) and the lab uses a Ct (sensitivity) of greater than ~27 to 34 they are not detecting live virus. You are not infected= false positive! Check out a sample of Ct values used by labs👇
All of our data and policies - cases, hosps, and fatalities are built on this bogus foundation of overly sensitive tests detecting viral fragments, not illness. Refuse PCR testing at Ct > low 30s. Which is pretty much all of them. Nothing is as it seems or is being reported.
PCR test issues, summarized from our Twitter Spaces yesterday:🧵
👉PCR was never designed to diagnose a disease - it’s a lab test to find tiny amounts of rna for research purposes, and without clinical observations it is useless for diagnosis.
From the ThermoFisher manual:
👉 PCR test results drive all the other pandemic statistics: Cases, hospitalizations, fatalities, vax “efficacy.” They are also used to force quarantine, restrict travel, and shut down schools. Yet they were never meant to be used for broad surveillance.
👉 High CT PCR positives detect as little as a single copy of RNA - far higher amounts are required for a culturable or replication-competent infection. Presence of a tiny amount of RNA implies nothing about infection or infectiveness. “Asymptomatic infection” = oxymoron 🤡🌎
My colleagues @ClareCraigPath and Dr Andrew Bostom (banned from Twitter) warned about the concerning heart damage signals a year ago. Key points apply to the recent Nature study too -> dailysceptic.org/archive/raisin…
“A 4x increase above baseline was evident in the seven days after the first dose for under-24 yo rising to over 27x for the 7days after the 2nd dose. The rate/M in males 12-17 was 17x higher than in men >50, 7days after the 1st dose, rising to 74x 7days after the second dose.”->
“For young and old it is not a clinically obvious diagnosis and it is likely that milder cases will have gone undiagnosed. Even for these mild cases, the long term outcome is unknown...Currently, more than half of the reports in VAERS are from patients under the age of 30. ->
Do not arouse the wrath of the great and powerful FAUCI!
Terrifying!
But what is behind that green curtain?
Wait - who could it be?
Holy flying monkeys - it's NIH Head of Clinical "Bioethics" - Fauci's WIFE Christine Grady - in place for 12 years. Hmm, who knew? And why didn't we? It's not like there is any conflict there, right?
💥State (RI) pediatric hospitalization data analyzed:
👉Only 1/3 of 0-18yrs Covid19 hospitalizations could possibly have been DUE TO C19.
@andrewbostom@ifihadastick and I have been looking at this ICD code data and there will be much more analysis to come. 1/6
Pop of RI 0-18 is ~220k. We also looked at flu hosps with primary dx of flu vs C19 hosps w primary dx U071 (=+C19 test). 100% of flu hosps had codes consistent w flu while only 56% of C19 primary dx were even possibly hosp DUE TO C19. 2/6
Looking at the ICD codes of these supposed pediatric C19 hospitalizations is shocking. There are children there w primary dx for attempted suicide, abuse, severe trauma, poisoning, cancer etc with a U071 Covid code thrown in.
💥folks these kids are not hospitalized for Covid 3/6
These are the kinds of clowns that want to shut up anyone who dares question their approved narrative. Fact: a free society is built on open debate and free speech - never in history have the censors been the good guys. Censorship has never been for anyone’s good but the censors.
Gavin Yamey (Prof MD MPH!) is the poster boy for zero Covid nut jobs who have spent the last 2 years grifting for funds at your expense. He blocks anyone who disagrees rather than debating. He lies incessantly and moves to the next lie. No accountability in his echo chamber.
2 lies in that single tweet. Characterizing PANDA as “anti v” because we are are critical of the data and the unsupported assertions. 2nd, the GBD authors are not scientific advisors. Par for the course for these folk. Which is exactly why they love censorship. But looky here ->
Fun math exercise via El Gato Malo, prompted by the @CDCgov 's "adjustment" of it's C19 mortality data.
If the avg person gets 2x colds per year, even just mild feeling crappy stuff, if we were mass PCR testing >35Ct for "colds", How many "cases" do you think we would get? ->
Well now what if we counted any death for a month after your "+ cold PCR" as a "Cold death?"
That means for every person, there are 2 months out of 12 where they will flag as a "cold death." 17% of the year.
Since 2.9M die in the US annually, x17% equals 490k "cold deaths" ->
Now those are just 490,000 deaths, WITH a "positive cold test" in the past month. How many actually died FROM a cold? Some, but nowhere near all. This leaves out skewed risk in older folks, seasonality etc, but you get the point. ->