Dr Mike Yeadon touches on many important points:
- Coronaviruses don’t have second waves
- Cross T-cell immunity has been an ignored reality from the start
- PCR testing is causing tons of false positives
Search: “t-cell”
We found 25 results for your search.
4 different factors contributing to poor PCR results for Covid-19
Mass PCR testing is creating a casedemic, that is, a pandemic of allegedly Covid-positive people, the overwhelming majority of which isn’t actually ill.
There are four main factors contributing to poor performance of PCR testing:
1. Low prevalence of disease. This is the case in the UK and most of Europe. «When virus levels in the population are very low, the chances of a test accurately detecting Covid-19 could be even less than 50 per cent»
2. High cycle threshold. 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. Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, and yet most Covid-19 tests have a CT of 40, with some with a CT as high as 47, and just few with a CT of 37. 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. This was observed and published about already in May: Predicting Infectious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 From Diagnostic Samples.
3. Cross T-cell immunity. There’s mounting evidence of cross T-cell immunity for coronaviruses, meaning that even exposure to common cold viruses (these, too, are coronaviruses) trains the immune system to respond to more dangerous coronaviruses (SARS 1 and 2, MERS). See, amongst others:
- Nasal priming by a murine coronavirus provides protective immunity against lethal heterologous virus pneumonia
- Clinical, immunological and virological characterization of COVID-19 patients that test re-positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR
- The impact of host resistance on cumulative mortality and the threshold of herd immunity for SARS-CoV-2
- Presence of SARS-CoV-2 reactive T cells in COVID-19 patients and healthy donors
4. Lack of specific RNA sequences required by testing. There is no guidance providing details on the specific RNA sequences required by testing, a threshold for the test result and the need for confirmatory testing. It is therefore not clear what constitutes a positive result.
All this is creating a wave of cases, which in most part are people who are not actually sick. The pandemic seems to be over, and it also seems that many don’t want it to be.
This is clear from WHO guidance on what constitutes a positive case, which are pretty much followed in most of the western world:
- A suspect case has clinical symptoms of respiratory disease, perhaps with other associated presentations.
- A probable case is a suspect case for whom laboratory testing was inconclusive or not possible.
- A confirmed case is “A person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms.”
Notice how suspect and probable rely on a broader clinical picture, whereas the confirmed relies solely on the PCR test, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms. This is very bad, since asymptomatic people are by and large not actually ill. This is why:
The one thing historically people need to realise [is] that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there is a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.
Dr ANthony Fauci
Italian — Covid-19, bugie, studi e rimedi: un riassunto
Il prof Harvey Risch della Yale School of Medicine ha pubblicato una recensione estesa di svariati trial con HCQ (Idrossiclorochina) + AZ (Azitromicina) + Zinco che abbassano il tasso di mortalitĂ di quasi oltre il 70%. Si veda anche quest’altro articolo meno tecnico, mirato al pubblico.
Si noti che tra i vari trial recensiti c’è anche quello del Dr Zelenko, che persino in Italia era stato preso in giro, ma che in realtà ha curato centinaia di pazienti col suo protocollo.
Cosa non sorprendente visto che CQ (clorochina, di cui HCQ è una variante meno tossica) già nel 2005 fu trovata essere un potente inibitore di SARS-CoV-1 (che ricordiamo essere 79.1% simile geneticamente alla SARS-CoV-2).
La pazzia attuale di non usare questi medicinali ha una radice politica anziché scientifica ed è diventata mainstream con lo studio del Lancet, poi ritrattato causa utilizzo di dati fraudolenti forniti da un’azienda sospetta. Stiamo parlando di una delle più antiche e rinomate riviste scientifiche mediche, che ha pubblicato dati falsi pur di gettare fango su medicinale sicurissimo ed efficace.
In Italia il dott. Moreno Ferrarese aveva fino a maggio curato oltre 160 pazienti con un protocollo a base di HCQ, di cui solo 7% è finito in ospedale, senza però mai sviluppare complicanze gravi. E nessun decesso o altro effetto collaterale.
Lui ed altri mostrarono subito preoccupazione a seguito della pubblicazione (poi ritrattata) del Lancet.
Didier Raoult aveva dichiarato giĂ a Febbraio che Covid-19 non sarebbe stato un problema grazie a HCQ.
Negli ultimi due mesi le pubblicazioni a favore di HCQ si sono moltiplicate. Le bugie sulla non sicurezza del farmaco sono cadute in frantumi (ma ovviamente i media non ne parlano – e non dicono che gli studi che avevano trovato la HCQ tossica avevano usato dosi tossiche di 2400mg al giorno sui pazienti). Così come le bugie sulla sua inefficacia (gli studi confermano che il farmaco va usato presto ed è lì che funziona, non quando è troppo tardi e i pazienti hanno raggiunto la fase critica).
A tutto questo si è aggiunto il prof. Thomas Borody col suo protocollo a base di Ivermectin. Dopo essere andato finalmente in onda su Sky News Australia, YouTube non ha potuto più censurarlo (lo aveva fatto precedentemente). Guarda caso due giorni dopo è partita una macchina del fango contro l’ennesimo professionista di fama internazionale.
Tutta questa ostinazione a voler trascinare tutto alla nuova stagione dell’influenza, così si potranno mescolare le carte tra influenza e Covid. Tutta questo voler negare l’efficacia di HCQ dimostrata sul campo da dozzine di dottori. Tutta questa manipolazione sociale mai vista prima, su basi scientifiche praticamente inesistenti (pubblicazioni dimostrano anche l’inutilità del lockdown e di mascherine).
Poi c’è il negare l’evidenza della T-cell immunity ormai dimostrata da una recente ricerca di Oxford. Il che sta facendo raggiugnere immunità di gregge a 20% — ultima di tante regioni, la Florida proprio di recente.
Tutto questo puntare irrazionalmente sul vaccino; vaccino per un RNA virus? Quand’è l’ultima volta che si e scommesso su un tale vaccino? Vaccini tradizionali per RNA virus di solito non funzionano. A meno che non si stia puntando su vaccini DNA/RNA.
Tutto questo negare (o non dire affatto) che aumentare il PCR testing quando c’è meno malattia in giro aumenta i falsi positivi.
Tutto questo non spiegare a nessuno che gli asintomatici sono sostanzialmente una barzelletta e la ragione per cui si hanno PCR tests positivi su persone senza sintomi è, molto probabilmente, perché il virus è stato contratto da una persona immune che lo ha sconfitto. Certo una percentuale di queste persone potrebbe essere qualcuno ancora in fase di incubazione, ma la T-cell immunity spiega l’alta percentuale di “asintomatici”, ovvero persone immuni in cui si trova un virus morto che però viene rilevato dal test PCR, che non distingue tra virus vivo e attivo, e virus morto e sconfitto dal sistema immunitario. Questo spiegherebbe anche coloro che sono risultati positivi per mesi dopo essere guariti dall’effettiva malattia. Non erano più malati.
Coloro che hanno appoggiato tutta questa pazzia, in un modo o nell’altro, ne dovranno fare i conti.
Perpetuating the pandemic
All over you’re hearing news of “new wave of Covid cases”. And yet you’re not hearing of hospitals collapsing, people dying by the dozens, etc. That’s because it’s not happening.
What’s going on?
Notice one thing: almost every country has increased its test capacity way after the peak was reached in their midst. There’s way more testing now than there ever was.
You might say “good”. I say “not good”.
Beda M Stadler, former director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Bern, a biologist and professor emeritus, explains:
if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left. Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected]. That’s exactly what happened, when there was the global news, even shared by the WHO, that 200 Koreans who already went through Covid-19 were infected a second time and that there was therefore probably no immunity against this virus. The explanation of what really happened and an apology came only later, when it was clear that the immune Koreans were perfectly healthy and only had a short battle with the virus. The crux was that the virus debris registered with the overly sensitive test and therefore came back as “positive”. It is likely that a large number of the daily reported infection numbers are purely due to viral debris.
If you add to that:
- There’s now good evidence of previous immunity in population (called T-cell immunity, coming from exposure to previous coronavirus); see also: The impact of host resistance on cumulative mortality and the threshold of herd immunity for SARS-CoV-2;
- There’s also evidence of reached herd immunity because of that; notice that because of pre-existing immunity, herd immunity has been reached around 10-20% instead of 60% or more like many said, simply because it is a lie that this Coronavirus is a completely new virus.
then the obvious consequence is that there isn’t much disease around.
What happens when there isn’t much disease around? You get more false positive:
Mark Woolhouse, Prof of infectious disease epidemiology, University of Edinburgh, said: “This is the public health version of the Prosecutor’s Fallacy where just because a rare event has happened, such as testing positive for coronavirus, we think it can only have one cause.
“But at low prevalence we actually face a high probability that other factors can be involved, such as false positives and given the volume of testing we would expect some false positives to occur.
“The positive predictive value is much lower where there is not a lot of disease around and for any diagnostic test that is potentially a concern and can lead to misdiagnosis, hence clinicians are very concerned about false positives.”
This way the “pandemic” will never end
If we keep ramping up testing when there’s no disease around, we’ll continue to have “cases” without having actual disease. But the governments will continue to use “cases” to restrain our personal liberty, and impose a level of control on society that—this time—is truly unprecedented.
What’s the solution?
Prof Sheila Bird, formerly programme leader, MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, said: “The answer to false positives is to repeat swab tests for a sufficient random sample of positives to find out, or to offer antibody tests four weeks after the first positive swab date.
I personally disagree with this, and I agree with Prof. Risch (already author of “The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It” and “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis”): forget the testing, and just treat people early at the first show of symptoms, whether they are COVID-19 positive or not. First, because tests take too long to come back and, second, because they are likely to be wrong.
Risch suggests to do that only for high risk patients. God forbid I should elevate myself above an expert such as Risch, but in light of the fact that many (even young and healthy, allegedly) that have “rode” Covid have ended up with permanent damage (the so called “long haulers”), I would say that anyone that shows symptoms should just be treated with the Zelenko protocol and be done with it.
HCQ works and it is safe
Have a look at my first article regarding my recent discoveries about HCQ being safe and effective. And also remember that countries that have decided to use HCQ for early treatment have an incredibly lower death rate.
The real pandemic is “fear”
It should be blatantly obvious by now that the “pandemic” is being perpetuated on purpose, and off the back of this, a number of social engineering experiments are being carried out.
The reason for this is perfectly clear under the Christian worldview: globalists are rehearsing techniques and ways to impose a global government on the world. To usher in the new world that eventually will be ruled by what is going to look like a saviour, but would instead be the anti-Christ.
JCI Insight - A majority of uninfected adults show preexisting antibody reactivity against SARS-CoV-2
JCI Insight – A majority of uninfected adults show preexisting antibody reactivity against SARS-CoV-2
— Read on insight.jci.org/articles/view/146316
The “new virus”. I predicted pre existing immunity to it ages ago. Both B and T cells immunity, even cross reactive, is now a fact. The mass vaccination programme makes no sense, unless other reasons for it are taken into account.