Sorry for your mother
(Note: Irish people say ma, mam, mammy, mum or mummy - mom is particular to USA and is only used in this country by Dublin teenagers hoping to sound cool; if in doubt, say mammy)
Sorry for your mother
Sorry for your double loss.
Former VP & Chief Scientist with Pfizer calls for an end to PCR testing
Here is the unroll of that tweet:
Yardley Yeadon @MichaelYeadon3
BSc biochem tox, PhD respiratory pharmacol. 32y new meds research. Left Pfizer 2011 as VP Respiratory. 2012 founded biotech Ziarco, sold to Novartis 2017.
I demand we halt mass PCR testing. Everyone should campaign for this. It’s the single action needed to save our society.
It’s untrustworthy. Govt admits it’s out of control: basic QC hasn’t been done, ever. If was a diagnostic test in the NHS, it would immediately be stopped.
It’s not necessary. Track, trace & isolate might once have been useful but it’s proven to be a hopeless flop. It finds few contacts & far too late. Only a small minority of contacts are reacted. Of those contacts, 90% don’t do what was asked of them. It helps no one.
It only causes damage. Because of a positive test, almost all of which now aren’t of live virus, it damages lives & livelihoods for no gains. “Cases” aren’t true but drive lethally bad adaptations like restrictions to NHS, leading to excess deaths.
It blinds us to what’s true. (A) I’ve known for >5mo that the main pandemic was over by June as immunology & observation shows. Viruses don’t do waves. The daily diet of “cases” persuade even doctors that patients are dying of covid19 when they’re not.
It blinds us…(B). When 60,000 ‘pregnancy-style’ tests in Liverpool, UK’s hotspot, show us there’s no virus in the city, the media just misses it & moves on. I’ve reviewed the spec. These are very sensitive tests. False negatives are relevant only at high virus prevalence.
There are reliable alternatives. Why use “industrialised molecule biology” in a crisis, never used in this scale in history, when we’ve reliable & rapid tests instead, tests not subject to potential for huge errors? Such tests used in Liverpool show they work well.
Even if I’m wrong, it’s the right thing to do. Mass PCR testing should cease immediately, pause for 1mo if you prefer. Use lateral flow tests in hospital instead & on people with symptoms.
Shut off fake “cases” & the country will begin to recovery immediately, became there…
…isn’t anything much unusual going on in U.K. apart from our extreme & damaging responses to a health emergency which has passed.
There aren’t excess respiratory deaths. Or even many excess deaths. Despite thousands of Covid19 deaths. If you have the strong feeling that…
…things are very wrong, your instincts are sound.
And it’s surprisingly simple to fix. Campaign relentlessly to immediately halt mass PCR testing for reasons above. There is absolutely no risk & only gains. One gain will be the rapid re-emergence of our country. It must be now.
So, “Mass PCR test? Best not to test. Use better alternatives only”.
Because there are those who even though vaccinated are not protected, getting a high enough percentage of the population vaccinated protects them.
Using that source you’ve given, that gives approximately a 45% higher death rate in the US (about 246,000 deaths for a population of 328 million, as against a population of 515m for the EU/EEA + UK).
The article refers to corruption in procurement, and warns against basing mass testing policy on tests that don’t work well enough. It doesn’t mention lockdowns, masks, or many of the other favourite topics on this board. What do you mean by your “beginning of the end” comment?
It’s used in Kerry also.
As Cilla used to say…“Surprise, Surprise”…
(And given the incubation period, time taken for tests, results and reporting those figures to the HSE, surely this “increase” goes back up to ten days ago…barely two weeks into Level 5?)
NY TIMES: Up to 90% Who’ve Tested COVID-Positive Wrongly Diagnosed! TRUTH: A Whole Lot Worse! (Pt 3/3)
By Michael Thau | Sep 03, 2020 11:30 AM ET
AP Photo/Andrew Harnik
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it.”
― H.L. Mencken
In the previous entry, we learned how a process invented to increase the size of research samples of DNA called polymerase chain reaction is used to test for viruses even though the guy who received a Nobel Prize for inventing it said using it that way doesn’t work.
Kary Mullis’s PCR process takes segments of DNA through a “cycle” that doubles the amount. If you run a single segment of DNA through just 40 cycles, you’ll end up with 1 x 240, which is over a trillion copies. Remember that number, it’s going to be important later.
We also saw that the COVID-19 virus, like any other virus, is just some genetic code surrounded by a shell that acts as a “Trojan horse,” allowing the virus to invade the cells of living organisms. Once inside, the genetic code exits the shell, hijacking the cell’s functions to make it produce more copies of the virus.
The genetic code inside the COVID-19 virus’s shell is RNA. So, since the PCR cycle only works on DNA, before a sample is tested for COVID-19 another process is used to convert the former into the latter. Once that’s done, the sample is run through a number of PCR cycles to amplify the amount of any converted-viral-RNA that was originally in it so there’s enough be detected.
But two factors are responsible for creating the massive unreliability of PCR testing that, as we saw in part 1, the New York Times reported on but downplayed to push for mass testing of a different kind without discrediting the whole concept.
- The bits of genetic material whose amount is being amplified ARE NOT viruses. They’re just small segments of inert genetic material found inside a virus’s shell. Without the shell, they don’t have any ability to infect a cell and reproduce. The PCR test doesn’t detect “live” viruses, at best it only detects their “remains.”
- The detection of viral remains involves massively amplifying the amount in the original sample by running it through successive PCR cycles. And nothing about the PCR test itself will tell you if there was actually any “live” virus in the original sample.
The number of PCR cycles it takes to amplify a sample containing viral remains to the point where they can be detected is called its cycle threshold.
And if the New York Times were interested in producing journalism rather than shilling for mandatory testing, they would have focused their whole story on something you have to read three-fourths of the way in to even find out.
The Food and Drug Administration said in an emailed statement that it does not specify the cycle threshold ranges used to determine who is positive, and that “commercial manufacturers and laboratories set their own.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it is examining the use of cycle threshold measures “for policy decisions.” The agency said it would need to collaborate with the F.D.A. and with device manufacturers to ensure the measures “can be used properly and with assurance that we know what they mean.”
So the FDA and CDC have spent months hyping a test that involves amplifying tiny samples of viral remains until there’s enough to detect. But, according to the New York Times, there are no rules or even any guidelines for how much amplification the testing companies do…
@jmc 's post is the earliest post among the many that deals with the accuracy concerns and implications around PCR testing.
An excited video cast outlining some of the AstraZeneca’s vaccine ingredients.
“…Is everybody ok with having that (MRC-5) injected into themselves or their children…”
Video Link: https://www.instagram.com/p/CHoImiCDX81/
Wiki’s entry on MRC-5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MRC-5 (Medical Research Council cell strain 5) is a diploid human cell culture line composed of fibroblasts, originally developed from research deriving lung tissue of a 14-week-old aborted Caucasian male fetus. The cell line was isolated by J.P. Jacobs and colleagues in September 1966 from the seventh population doubling of the original strain, and MRC-5 cells themselves are known to reach senescence in around 45 population doublings.
Also links to this tender at the end of the video which Ivor Cummins linked ot on Nov 11th:
II.1)Scope of the procurement
SafetyConnect — AI
II.1.2)Main CPV code
48000000 Software package and information systems
II.1.3)Type of contract
The MHRA urgently seeks an Artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs) and ensure that no details from the ADRs’ reaction text are missed.
II.1.6)Information about lots
Full tender doc here: https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:506291-2020:TEXT:EN:HTML&tabId=1
Turns out I was only half right back then. The actual story is much much worse. In fact RT/PCR fails all the basic requirements of a reliable medicinal diagnostic screening test. Which is why the guy who invented it said so.
First problem. Its a molecular test. And it was already well know that human corona-viruses only produce enough of a molecular footprint for about 2 or 3 days of the 10 to 15 day infection cycle to have any chance of getting above a 50% detection rate when using nasal swabs. Its mostly somewhere between 0% and 20%. During the SARs 1 outbreak in 2003 only antigen and antibody test were considered reliable. Not the rapid tests, which are even less reliable than RT/PCR for detecting true positives.
Second problem. The prevalence problem. If the prevalence of what you are testing for is one order of magnitude less than the error rate of the test then almost all positives are false positives. For SARs CoV 2 the test would have to have a complete testing cycle failure rate of less than 0.2% to 0.4% for the majority of all positives to be true positives. Its more in the 2% to 5% range. On a good day. The upshot is that unless at least 10% of the population at any given time have a SARs CoV 2 infections all current tests are meaningless for epidemic management or public health policy.
Third problem. The false negative rate. For all rapid tests the false negative rate with human corona-viruses starts at about 50%. So at least 50% of those tested who actual have a SARs CoV 2 infection will not test positive. And the more times you test a person the detection rate gets halved every cycle.
So with RT/PCR due its inherent test error rate, the low prevalence of what they are testing for, and the high false negative rate, by the time you get the Type II Error rate down to 5%, which is the lowest considered acceptable for a medically significant diagnostic test, the Type I Error Rate is over 90%. In other words the RT/PCR fails to detect over 90% of those with an active SARs CoV 2 infection at the normal minim acceptable error rate for these sort of medical diagnostic tests.
In case you are wondering the numbers with the immunochromatographic strip rapid antigen test are just as bad. For pretty much the same reasons. High error rate, low prevalence, and in this case much lower sensitivity than RT/PCR.
These tests should only ever be used for initial screening of people who already show active symptoms. Where the probability of a high prevalence rate is good. So far far fewer false positives. For mass screening these tests are both irresponsible and very dangerous given just how many people will die due to the severe disruption caused by the lock-downs and lives ruined by the overwhelming number of false positives.
Mass testing is a political stunt. Nothing more.
TBH I do not believe most of the Irish population in normal times apply quite that level of rational, because I do not believe they are aware vaccinations are not 100% effective per application , i.e. not everyones dose/inoculation sticks as such - a crude perhaps facetious guess would be 111+% or higher application of a vaccination might guarantee real world 99% protection, because even close to 99% is not infallible afaict.
Meanwhile, the Danes have taken a very different and pro-active view on the subject it appears Denmark - The people resist Medical Tyranny with 9 Days of protest
Exactly and I created a dedicated topic on the matter in April of this year_ Coronavirus Testing - Reliable and Accurate? - linking to a story covering the inventors intentions and dire warning that it was only ever designed to be Manufacturing process not a diagnostic test, which originates from it’s early use to diagnose an AIDS virus.
Here is an outtake from an article I published in SPIN, in 1994, about Kary Mullis, PCR, HIV and…Tony Fauci…
“PCR has also had a great impact on the field of AIDS, or rather, HIV research. PCR can, among other things, detect HIV in people who test negative to the HIV antibody test.
…Kary Mullis was a scientist. He never spoke like a globalist, and said once, memorably, when accused of making statements about HIV that could endanger lives: “I’m a scientist. I’m not a lifeguard.” That’s a very important line in the sand. Somebody who goes around claiming they are “saving lives,” is a very dangerous animal, and you should run in the opposite direction when you encounter them. Their weapon is fear, and their favorite word is “could.” They entrap you with a form of bio-debt, creating simulations of every imaginable thing that “could” happen, yet hasn’t. Bill Gates has been waiting a long time for a virus with this much, as he put it, “pandemic potential.” But Gates has a problem, and it’s called PCR.
Kary Mullis, inventor of PCR.
If it quacks like a duck, then…
Some might find this a useful resource:
In a rapid review report, Professor Mills argues, ‘Online scare stories and misinformed concern over a COVID-19 vaccination are a threat to take-up, but open dialogue and public engagement can help fill ‘knowledge voids about vaccines’ and ensure confidence.’
Professor Mills argues good communications are essential to build public support and beat an ‘infodemic’ of misinformation, and she calls for influencers and local ambassadors to spearhead a campaign aimed at encouraging support for the vaccine, so the community achieves 80% protection.
Professor Mills, who produced a key report earlier in the year, on the wearing of face coverings, says, ‘There needs to be a frank conversation with the public about just how long it will take and that things will not immediately go back to normal when vaccines arrive.
‘We need to move away from the one-way provision of information and generate an open dialogue that addresses misinformation and does not dismiss people’s real vaccine concerns and hesitancy. And, critically, when the time comes, we need to make vaccination itself convenient.’
… gee I wonder where I heard this before, oh yea back in Feb on this thread from the 2019 preparation during the Attack of the Virus global LARP aka EVENT 201
Interestingly enough, such moves were very aptly provided for or suggested as being problematic and outlined in Event 201 documentation.
COMMUNICATION IN A PANDEMIC
Prepared by Marc Trotochaud and Divya Hosangadi
Effective communication during public health events can be critical to public health response efforts. Public health messages help inform the public about risks and protective actions and, done correctly, are a critical component of community en> gagement and the buildup of public trust. Yet, true information about public health concerns is increasingly competing with false messages that can damage public confidence in health interventions and health authorities. These false messages are often defined as misinformation, erroneous information shared through various channels, and disinformation, purposefully spread false or misleading information. The information environment is increasingly made up of a mix of information coming from web sources and other media, in addition to historical sources such as print and TV news media. However, the influence of social media has made the spread of false information even more pernicious.
Over the past 15 years, there has been a global surge in the adoption of social media technologies. In 2019, 6 social media companies had more than 1 billion active monthly users.1 Although originally designed for virtual engagement with personal networks, social media platforms have grown rapidly to share major roles in the economy and the transfer of information. According to the Pew Research Center, social media officially outpaced print newspaper as a source of news among the entire United States population.2 Furthermore, across countries, regardless of a nation’s socioeconomic status, younger populations rely even more heavily on social media as a news source.3
Disinformation campaigns are widely recognized in the political world but have been identified in the public health realm as well.
In the fall of 2018, a team of researchers systematically identified a concerted effort to spread disinformation and discord about vaccine safety.4 Public health response efforts for the currently ongoing Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) have been challenged by disruptive rumors that have occasionally targeted public health responders.5,6 Misinformation during a public health emergency is a particularly concerning threat, because of the time-dependent nature of outbreak response and the corrosive effect misinformation can have on public trust. Current solutions to the spread of mis- and disinformation are limited. Social media platforms have attempted to change their algorithms to limit the spread of false
information and promote correct information, but the problem of misinformation continues.7,8 Many misinformation response actions have been developed to be used against political misinformation and disinformation but may be applied in response to an epidemic. More than 50 countries globally have taken different government-led actions that, in theory, aim to combat misinformation.9 These actions can range from media literacy campaigns and fact-checking websites to more extreme measures, such as jailing users for publishing content deemed to be misinformation. In some cases, authorities have shut down social media sites or the internet entirely.10-12
However, censoring social media content and denying a population access to the internet has serious consequences. In addition to ethical considerations, there is mounting evidence to suggest that there are serious economic consequences to shutting down the internet. According to the Indian Council for Research on International Economic relations, the estimated 16,000 hours of international internet shutdown in India resulted in around US$3 billion in economic losses.12
Misinformation and disinformation are likely to be serious threats during a public health emergency. Unfortunately, thus far, there are limited ways to control the propagation of misinformation, leading to potentially draconian methods to manage this problem.
Remember folks, the internet and all the wonderful freedom of information and revolutionary benefits of human connectivity is as or more dangerous than the dangerous things lurking out in the big bad scary real world, so dangerous in fact it is really a very bad thing, the worst… so we need to join in the fight and stop this open borders “infodemic” to save lives! "Cause it’s about Saving lives. Ok. Lives SAVED is a LIFE Saved.
RTE pumpin’ the Bill & Melinda Gates mRNA final solution.
Archived link - https://archive.is/iyX2C
“Moderna Therapeutics’ research has considerable potential for the development of an effective prevention intervention for HIV, and potentially other infectious diseases that disproportionately affect the world’s poorest people.” – Trevor Mundel, president of Global Health at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
In January 2016, we entered a global health project framework agreement with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to advance mRNA-based development projects for various infectious diseases. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has committed up to $20.0 million in grant funding to support our initial project related to the evaluation of antibody combinations in a preclinical setting as well as the conduct of a first-in-human Phase 1 clinical trial of a potential mRNA medicine to help prevent human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, infections. Follow-on projects which could bring total potential funding under the framework agreement up to $100.0 million (including the HIV antibody project) to support the development of additional mRNA-based projects for various infectious diseases can be proposed and approved until the sixth anniversary of the framework agreement, subject to the terms of the framework agreement, including our obligation to grant to the Bill &Melinda Gates Foundation certain non-exclusive licenses.
Warp factor 11!
I thought from interviews on the BBC earlier two of the three vaccines then announced i.e. Johnson & Johnson and Oxford University/AstraZeneca are ‘traditional’ technology. Effectively described as a ‘common cold’ coronavirus that has been disarmed.
So presumably the ‘frontline’ workers who will be forced into taking one of these in the coming months can try to reduce their risks by going for a plain vanilla jab. Why run additional risks with Bill Gates DnA altering jabs if you don’t have to.
I’m sure the usual earlier adaptors can sign up to the ‘new tech’ to their hearts content.