CONTACT   SEARCH

Covid Panic Driven by PCR Test with 97% False Positives

Plus Relabeling Death from Other Causes as Covid Deaths

LOGIN

Breaking: On US Inauguration Day, Jan 20, 2021 the WHO issued a statement acknowledging that a PCR test is mostly an "aid" in diagnosing [i.e. not a determinant] and that "clinical presentation" and several other factors must be considered, including the cycle threshold used in the test. In other words, if a person "presents" as healthy, then a positive PCR is most likely a false positve, especially if the cycle threshold was high. These new diagnostic instructions will effectively end the pandemic as 97% of people testing positive are asymptomatic [i.e. not sick]. Bravo Joe Biden for ending the "pandemic" on your first day in offce!

"If someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe and 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 [PCR] virus detection, more than 35 cycles only detects signals which do not correlate with infectious virus as determined by isolation in cell culture." -Dr Michael Yeadon, et. al. Full report with references

"It's outrageous! This is the Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetrated on an Unsuspecting Public." "Positive test results DO NOT indicate a clinical infection. It's simply driving public hysteria and all testing should stop unless you're being admitted to a hospital with some respiratory problem." "Everything should open tomorrow." -Dr Roger Hodkinson, top Canadian Pathologist/Professor/CEO and Medical Director

Dr Fauci admits that the PCR test is not able to tell if a person is sick or can transmit a virus, especially at amplification above 35 cycles when the test detects miniscule particles which are not a threat to anyone. The CDC is now using and recommending 45 cycles to analyze tests. This is giving the impression of a pandemic. Dr Fauci also admits that the rate of transmission among asymptomatic individuals is unknown. It's "guesswork." As Dr Kaufman points out, it's impossible to determine a rate of transmission with no valid test. Dr Fauci says, "We can guess, as long as we don't take our guesses too seriously." Excuse me? We are closing down businesses, and gatherings of all kinds... based on guesswork that Dr Fauci says we should not take too seriously? Dr Fauci admits, "The answer is, we don't know."

Coronavirus Cases Plummet When PCR Tests Are Adjusted

WHO (finally) admits PCR tests create false positives

Best Summary of the Virus Hoax Explained by David Icke

Former London Call Center Worker Speaks With David Icke About the Hoax. Are Hospitals Inflating Covid Numbers to Get Gov Cash?

Covid-19 Test False Positives: An Intentional Deception?
Dr Andrew Kaufman, MD Goes Deeper Into the Science


Dr Fauci Admits PCR Test has a Fatal Flaw Driving False Positives

by John Rappoport

OK, here we go. Smoking gun. Jackpot.

Right from the horse’s mouth. Right from the man we’re told is the number-one COVID expert in the nation. What Fauci says is golden truth.

Well, how about THIS?

July 16, 2020, podcast, “This Week in Virology”: Tony Fauci makes a point of saying the PCR COVID test is useless and misleading when the test is run at “35 cycles or higher.” A positive result, indicating infection, cannot be accepted or believed.

Here, in techno-speak, is an excerpt from Fauci’s key quote (starting at about the 4-minute mark [1]):

“…If you get [perform the test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”

Each “cycle” of the test is a quantum leap in amplification and magnification of the test specimen taken from the patient.

Too many cycles, and the test will turn up all sorts of irrelevant material that will be wrongly interpreted as relevant.

That’s called a false positive.

What Fauci failed to say on the video is: the FDA, which authorizes the test for public use, recommends the test should be run up to 40 cycles. Not 35.

Therefore, all labs in the US that follow the FDA guideline are knowingly or unknowingly participating in fraud. Fraud on a monstrous level, because…

Millions of Americans are being told they are infected with the virus on the basis of a false positive result, and…

The total number of COVID cases in America—which is based on the test—is a gross falsity.

The lockdowns and other restraining measures are based on these fraudulent case numbers.

Let me back up and run that by you again. Fauci says the test is useless when it’s run at 35 cycles or higher. The FDA says run the test up to 40 cycles, in order to determine whether the virus is there. This is the crime in a nutshell.

If anyone in the White House has a few brain cells to rub together, pick up a giant bullhorn and start revealing the truth to the American people.

“Hello, America, you’ve been tricked, lied to, conned, and taken for a devastating ride. On the basis of fake science, the country was locked down.”

If anyone in the Congress has a few brain cells operating, pull Fauci into a televised hearing and, in ten minutes, make mincemeat out of the fake science that has driven this whole foul, stench-ridden assault on the US economy and its citizens.

All right, here are two chunks of evidence for what I’ve written above. First, we have a CDC quote on the FDA website, in a document titled [2]: “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel For Emergency Use Only.” See page 35. This document is marked, “Effective: 07/13/20.” That means, even though the virus is being referred to by its older name, the document is still relevant as of July 2020. “For Emergency Use Only” refers to the fact that the FDA has certified the PCR test under a traditional category called “Emergency Use Authorization.”

FDA: “…a specimen is considered positive for 2019-nCoV [virus] if all 2019-nCoV marker (N1, N2) cycle threshold growth curves cross the threshold line within 40.00 cycles (< 40.00 Ct).”

Naturally, MANY testing labs reading this guideline would conclude, “Well, to see if the virus is there in a patient, we should run the test all the way to 40 cycles. That’s the official advice.”

Then we have a New York Times article (August 29/updated September 17) headlined: “Your coronavirus test is positive. Maybe it shouldn’t be.” [3] Here are money quotes:

“Most tests set the limit at 40 [cycles]. A few at 37.”

“Set the limit” would usually mean, “We’re going to look all the way to 40 cycles, to see if the virus is there.”

The Times: “This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients…”

Boom. That’s the capper, the grand finale. Labs don’t or won’t reveal their collusion in this crime.

Get the picture?

I hope so.

If a lawyer won’t go to court with all this, or if a judge won’t pay attention and see the light, they should be stripped of their jobs and sent to the Arctic to sell snow.

Source with reference links

Court Finds That a Positive Test Cannot Determine a "Case" with only a 3% Chance of Accuracy.

Four German vacationers who were illegally quarantined in Portugal after one was judged to be positive for Covid-19 have won their case, in a verdict that condemns the widely-used PCR test as being up to 97% unreliable.

Earlier this month, Portuguese judges upheld a decision from a lower court that found the forced quarantine of four vacationers to be unlawful. The case centred on the reliability (or lack thereof) of Covid-19 PCR tests.

The verdict, delivered on November 11, followed an appeal against a writ of habeas corpus filed by four Germans against the Azores Regional Health Authority. This body had been appealing a ruling from a lower court which had found in favour of the tourists, who claimed that they were illegally confined to a hotel without their consent. The tourists were ordered to stay in the hotel over the summer after one of them tested positive for coronavirus in a PCR test – the other three were labelled close contacts and therefore made to quarantine as well.

Covid PCR test ruled to be "Unreliable, with a strong chance of false positives"

The deliberation of the Lisbon Appeal Court is comprehensive and fascinating. It ruled that the Azores Regional Health Authority had violated both Portuguese and international law by confining the Germans to the hotel. The judges also said that only a doctor can “diagnose” someone with a disease, and were critical of the fact that they were apparently never assessed by one.

They were also scathing about the reliability of the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test, the most commonly used check for Covid.

The conclusion of their 34-page ruling included the following: “In view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”  

In the eyes of this court, then, a positive test does not correspond to a Covid case. The two most important reasons for this, said the judges, are that, “the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used’’ and that “the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.’’ In other words, there are simply too many unknowns surrounding PCR testing.

There could be as little as a 3% chance that the test is correct.

This is not the first challenge to the credibility of PCR tests. Many people will be aware that their results have a lot to do with the number of amplifications that are performed, or the ‘cycle threshold.’ This number in most American and European labs is 35–40 cycles, but experts have claimed that even 35 cycles is far too many, and that a more reasonable protocol would call for 25–30 cycles. (Each cycle exponentially increases the amount of viral DNA in the sample).

Earlier this year, data from three US states – New York, Nevada and Massachusetts – showed that when the amount of the virus found in a person was taken into account, up to 90 percent of people who tested positive could actually have been negative, as they may have been carrying only tiny amounts of the virus.

The Portuguese judges cited a study conducted by “some of the leading European and world specialists,” which was published by Oxford Academic at the end of September. It showed that if someone tested positive for Covid at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher, the chances of that person actually being infected is less than three percent, and that “the probability of… receiving a false positive is 97% or higher.”

While the judges in this case admitted that the cycle threshold used in Portuguese labs was unknown, they took this as further proof that the detention of the tourists was unlawful. The implication was that the results could not be trusted. Because of this uncertainty, they stated that there was “no way this court would ever be able to determine” whether the tourist who tested positive was indeed a carrier of the virus, or whether the others had been exposed to it.

Sshhh – don’t tell anyone

It is a sad indictment of our mainstream media that such a landmark ruling, of such obvious and pressing international importance, has been roundly ignored. If one were making (flimsy) excuses for them, one could say that the case escaped the notice of most science editors because it has been published in Portuguese. But there is a full English translation of the appeal, and alternative media managed to pick it up.

And it isn’t as if Portugal is some remote, mysterious nation where news is unreliable or whose judges are suspect – this is a western EU country with a large population and a similar legal system to many other parts of Europe. And it is not the only country whose institutions are clashing with received wisdom on Covid. Finland’s national health authority has disputed the WHO’s recommendation to test as many people as possible for coronavirus, saying it would be a waste of taxpayer’s money, while poorer South East Asian countries are holding off on ordering vaccines, citing an improper use of finite resources. 

Testing, especially PCR testing, is the basis for the entire house of cards of Covid restrictions that are wreaking havoc worldwide. From testing comes case numbers. From case numbers come the ‘R number,’ the rate at which a carrier infects others. From the ‘dreaded’ R number comes the lockdowns and the restrictions, such as England’s new and baffling tiered restrictions that come into force next week. 

The daily barrage of statistics is familiar to us all by this point, but as time goes on the evidence that something may be deeply amiss with the whole foundation of our reaction to this pandemic – the testing regime – continues to mount.

by Peter Andrews of RT

Johns Hopkins Study Explodes CoVID Death Hoax: It's re-Labeling on a Grand Scale

by Jon Rappoport

“This patient who died had an ordinary heart attack.”

“Not anymore. We’re repackaging it as COVID.”

Months ago, I told you this, in a number of articles: The overwhelming percentage of people who are “dying from the virus” are actually dying from traditional diseases.

These people have been relabeled and repackaged as “COVID-19.”

It has nothing to do with “the virus.”

A new analysis from Johns Hopkins confirms this in spades.

The Johns Hopkins News-Letter article, in a student publication, is headlined, “A closer look at US deaths due to COVID-19.” It lays out the case made by “Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins.”

As you keep reading, keep this in mind: If the so-called increase in mortality from COVID is offset, almost exactly, by a decrease in deaths from all other major diseases…

Indicating that the so-called COVID deaths are nothing more than an exercise in re-labeling, then…

You can say there is a new coronavirus, but it’s even less harmful than flu, because virtually everybody recovers…

Or you can say the whole story of a new coronavirus is a fake narrative. There is no new virus.

My readers know I’ve been offering much evidence for the latter conclusion.

Here are key quotes from the Johns Hopkins News-Letter article:

“These data analyses suggest that in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.”

“This comes as a shock to many people. How is it that the data lie so far from our perception?”

“When Briand looked at the 2020 data during that seasonal period, COVID-19-related deaths exceeded deaths from heart diseases. This was highly unusual since heart disease has always prevailed as the leading cause of deaths. However, when taking a closer look at the death numbers, she noted something strange. As Briand compared the number of deaths per cause during that period in 2020 to [deaths per cause in] 2018, she noticed that instead of the expected drastic increase across all causes, there was a significant decrease in deaths due to heart disease. Even more surprising, as seen in the graph below, this sudden decline in deaths is observed for all other causes.”

“This trend is completely contrary to the pattern observed in all previous years. Interestingly, as depicted in the table below, the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19. This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading. Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be [may have been] recategorized as being due to COVID-19.”

“The CDC classified all deaths that are related to COVID-19 simply as COVID-19 deaths. Even patients dying from other underlying diseases but are infected with COVID-19 count as COVID-19 deaths. This is likely the main explanation as to why COVID-19 deaths drastically increased while deaths by all other diseases experienced a significant decrease.”

“’All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths. Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary,’ Briand concluded.”

More

Americans Are Suffering "Delusional Psychosis" About CCP Virus, Psychiatrist Claims

by Mark Tapscott, Epoch Times

So much misinformation and exaggeration about the lethality of the CCP virus—also known as the novel coronavirus—has been broadcast by government officials and the media that many Americans are suffering from a “delusional psychosis,” according to Los Angeles child and adolescent psychiatrist Dr. Mark McDonald.

What began as fear of a then-unknown disease called COVID-19 has since evolved into what McDonald described to The Epoch Times on Dec. 1 as a national condition in which “there is a delusional psychosis that has taken over where people are impervious to rational thinking.”

“They don’t want to give up the mask, they don’t want to give up the social distancing,” he said. “[People] are impervious to reason, to logic, to education at this point. They are psychotically managed by their fear.”

McDonald says the condition is most prevalent in Los Angeles, where he practices, and New York, places that he described as “ground zero for this.”

The government-imposed controls that were initially temporary in March have been repeatedly extended for months and have now “become social controls exercised by us,” he said.

“It’s actually coming from us, our parents, our children, our neighbors; it’s coming from businesses, corporations.”

McDonald noted that several of his friends were banned out of fear of the contagion from being with their families during Thanksgiving and will be at Christmas as well, despite having no symptoms of the disease.

“I have shopkeepers who have assistants who will not step forward to the counter to hand food to people, including me if I’m not wearing a mask.”

More

Masking Your Child is Child Abuse.

Officials Admit Closing Schools was a Horrible Mistake; Based on Data that was Known Eight Months Ago

Covid Vaccine Appears Designed to Cause Infertility. Dr Wodarg and Dr Yeadon Petition to Stop of All Corona Virus Vaccination Studies

"New to us is the information that the spike protein on a coronavirus contains the protein syncytin-1, vital for the formation of human placenta in women. If the vaccine works so that we form an immune response AGAINST the spike protein, we are also training the female body to attack syncytin-1, which could lead to infertility in women of an unspecified duration." Sperm also contains syncytin-1, therefore men also could also become infertile. Source

On December 1, 2020, the ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon and the lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg filed an application with the EMA, the European Medicine Agency responsible for EU-wide drug approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42).

Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon demand that the studies – for the protection of the life and health of the volunteers – should not be continued until a study design is available that is suitable to address the significant safety concerns expressed by an increasing number of renowned scientists against the vaccine and the study design.

See Drs. Yeadon & Wodarg’s Application with the European Medicines Agency, which lays out their case to halt covid vaccine studies.

On the one hand, the petitioners demand that, due to the known lack of accuracy of the PCR test in a serious study, a so-called Sanger sequencing must be used. This is the only way to make reliable statements on the effectiveness of a vaccine against Covid-19. On the basis of the many different PCR tests of highly varying quality, neither the risk of disease nor a possible vaccine benefit can be determined with the necessary certainty, which is why testing the vaccine on humans is unethical per se.

Furthermore, they demand that it must be excluded, e.g. by means of animal experiments, that risks already known from previous studies, which partly originate from the nature of the corona viruses, can be realized. The concerns are directed in particular to the following points:

  • The formation of so-called “non-neutralizing antibodies” can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, “wild” virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus.
  • The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
  • The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
  • The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020.

CALL FOR HELP: Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon ask as many EU citizens as possible to co-sign their petition here: e-mail prepared here to the EMA.

Source

Nurse: Patients are Being Killed by Improper Medical Intervention, not from Covid. Hospitals Are Aware, but Silencing Those Who Speak Up

Tested Positive For COVID-19? Be Sure To Ask This Question

This concise article from ZeroHedge clearly explains the cycle threshold issue with PCR testing. In addition there is a list of links to supporting articles. Highly recommended!

Article by ZeroHedge author Tyler Durden

Immunologist Dr Mike Yeadon on why Lockdown was a Mistake!

"Covid" Patients Being Purposely Murdered, Says NY Frontline Nurse

Nurse Erin Marie Olszewski has spent her life fighting for the freedom of everyday Americans. As a young woman, she joined the U.S. Army to fight overseas in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Returning home, she turned her focus, drive, and dedication to defending our most deeply-held values on American soil. Erin has spent years fighting for medical freedom. In 2020, Erin volunteered for the frontlines yet again as a traveling nurse assigned to New York's Elmhurst hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic. What she found there horrified her and inspired a new focus to her advocacy. Erin's newly published book, The Undercover Epicenter Nurse, reveals how gross negligence, insurance fraud, medical malpractice, and good old-fashioned greed are killing everyday Americans at Elmhurst and beyond. Her new fight is a fight or a return to ethics, transparency, and respect for the truth--values sorely needed in the medical field today, and in our country at large. Everyday Americans are needed in that battle as well. Join her!

Full interview (70 min) with Erin Marie Olszewski, Epicenter Nurse

Florida Department Of Health Now Requires Labs To Report Cycle Threshold of Troubled PCR Test

The Florida Department of Health has announced a new update requiring all laboratories conducting polymerase chain reaction (PCR) COVID-19 tests to repory the cycle threshhold. The announcement came via an email update from the Medical Quality Assurance division of the Florida DOH addressed to all licensed health care practitioners.

The update, Mandatory Reporting of COVID-19 Laboratory Test Results: Reporting of Cycle Threshold Values, notes that all Florida “laboratories are subject to mandatory reporting to the Florida Department of Health (FDOH),” including for “PCR, other RNA, antigen and antibody results.” The update adds new requirements for the PCR test, asking labs to record the “cycle threshold” (CT) values for the process.

On August 31, I attended a press conference in Houston and had a chance to ask Houston Health Authority Dr. David Persse about concerns around the test used to detect COVID-19. Dr. Persse said when the labs report numbers of COVID-19 cases to the City of Houston they only offer a binary option of “yes” for positive or “no” for negative.

“But, in reality, it comes in what is called cycle-thresholds. It’s an inverse relationship, so the higher the number the less virus there was in the initial sample,” Persse explained. “Some labs will report out to 40 cycle-thresholds, and if they get a positive at 40 – which means there is a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of virus there – that gets reported to us as positive and we don’t know any different.”

[CORRECTION: The test is NOT actually looking for or detecting a virus. It's looking for a tiny fraction of what is assumed to be a viral genome, and if that fraction is found, a positive test is reported. So not only is the PCR amplifying harmless genetic material or cellular waste products, it is also assumming that such material is of viral origin. Even worse, no complete SARS-Cov2 viral genome has ever been fully isolated, mapped, or proven to be the cause of any human disease. It is only theorized to exist and to cause Covid-19.]

Source

Belgian Doctors: "Covid is a Not a Killer Virus, but a Treatable Condition"

Deutsche Bank, VW in Crosshairs Over COVID-19 PCR Test Scandal

The crime against humanity is coming to light.

As it becomes increasingly clear that the PCR test for COVID is able to be controlled to give the testers the results they want, a few brave souls are looking for answers. PCR Testing was developed in Germany and became the base of its pandemic response. Because of the German people’s well known tendency to follow rules (How did that work out for you last time meine damen und herren?) the world adopted the German model. Essentially, the Berlin pandemic response model went viral–potentially doing infinitely more damage than the COVID-19 virus itself.

Who’s behind this action? Leading the decision-makers in Berlin were board members of Deutsche Bank and VW–both known for egregious machinations of all kinds. A lawsuit is being assembled charging the companies, and the German equivalent of the CDC, and the entire World Health Organization with crimes against humanity.

The concept is this: If you run the PCR test at 10 cycles you get no positive COVID results. If you run it at 60 cycles you get ALL positives. Running it at 45 cycles gives a ton of positives, without giving up the game that it’s all a scam. The goal is to keep the fear up so that draconian lock down measures and travel restrictions can be enforced, people can be submitted to constant testing, and entire economies can be destroyed.

“Take off your masks,” says Greek billionaire Alki David, who is considering joining the legal action against Deutsche Bank. “It’s all a scam!”

More

Understanding the PCR Test

PCR tests authorized by the F.D.A. provide only a yes/no answer to infection and will identify as positive non-contagious patients with miniscule amounts of certain nucleic acids in their bodies.
 
“This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus (or small fragments of the virus’ DNA), called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are”
 
“In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus.”
 
“Officials at the Wadsworth Center, New York’s state lab identified 872 positive tests, based on a threshold of 40 cycles. (BUT) With a cutoff of 35, about 43 percent of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. (And) About 63 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30,”
 
“In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles…I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one.” Said Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
 
Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.
 
The most widely used diagnostic test for the new coronavirus, called a PCR test, provides a simple yes-no answer to the question of whether a patient is infected. But similar PCR tests for other viruses do offer some sense of how contagious an infected patient may be: The results may include a rough estimate of the amount of virus in the patient’s body.
 
“We’ve been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus — that’s all,” Dr. Mina said. “We’re using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making.”
But yes-no isn’t good enough, he added. It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient’s next steps. “It’s really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,” Dr. Mina said.
 
The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.
 
This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.
 
In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.

Dr Sam Bailey: How Covid Death Figures Are Manufactured

Dr Bailey begins with a brief explanation of how tests of HCQ were designed to fail by administering much higher than known safe dosages. This caused deaths which where then used to claim that HCQ is dangerous. But with proper dosages, HCQ has been used for decades worldwide with no such adverse events. The reason HCQ and other safe therapeutics were all of a sudden being denigrated  is becasue the coming vaccines could only recieve emergency authorizaiton if there were no effective  treatments available. So for many months, doctors caused patients to die by withholding HCQ and other effective therapeutics; all at the orders of higher ups who were acting on behalf of vaccine makers.

Excess Mortality;  What You Aren't Being Told

Source with reference links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw5ldWr9QD0

Every Scary Thing You're Being Told Depends on Unreliable PCR

For sources/references for the clips included in this compilation, click "More" under video on Brighteon