Wake Up NZ | 8 Oct 2021
The PCR test converts the viral RNA into DNA and then, over multiple cycles (CTs) – makes copies of the DNA (amplification/replication), till there’s a detectable amount of virus.
The Cycle Threshold (CT) at which NZ considers a test positive for COVID is 40.MOH letter attached, under OIA.
Related:Delta Variants, PCR Tests, Isolation Of The Virus: A Deliberate Worldwide Operation In “Cognitive Dissonance” & Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI): “SARS-CoV-2 Has Never Been Isolated Or Purified”
The more cycles needed to detect the virus, the lesser the viral load. The World Health organization in January 2021, warned against false positives, saying ” as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases”.
This study at IHU-Méditerranée Infection, examined 3790 positive samples with known CT values to see whether they had viable virus, indicating the patients were infectious.
It found that 70% of samples with CT values of 25 or less could be cultured, compared with less than 3% of those with CT values above 35.
So, how truly infectious are those who are locked down due to testing positive at the NZ cycle threshold of 40?
As seen , towards the right of the graph, at cycle threshold 35, there’s virtually no viral load.
The authors state that cycles over 35 should NOT AFFECT public health measures.
Related:The COVID-19 RT-PCR Test: How To Mislead All Humanity – Using A “Test” To Lock Down Society + Former Pfizer Science Officer Reveals Great COVID-19 Scam
Here in NZ, we declare a positive PCR test to be 40 cycles. Why do we need so many cycles of amplifications to detect the virus?
Simply because there was very little viral load. So, our positives at 40 cycles are of no concern as they have little / no viral load to transmit.
Weird. Yet, here we are – in a lockdown ‘cycle’.
Column Author: Jaspreet Boporai: A 42 year old wife, mum of two kids (6,4) and a dairy farmer. She and her husband manage 1,500 cows over two farms in Western Southland for a large equity partnership.
Jaspreet got her degree in accounting from Massey and has also been book keeping for the last decade.
She and her husband moved to NZ in 2009, swapping 80 hour weeks in corporate banking for prob longer weeks in farming! (her husband has done his MBA and Jaspreet was a mortgage underwriter in India).
Hailing from Punjab (the epicentre of Indian farmer protests), India’s wheat basket, the love of land runs strong in the couple and wanting to go large scale farming got them to New Zealand.
Jaspreet’s family has been serving in the Indian army for many generations and nearly 30 years ago, her dad served in the Indian army contingent under the aegis of the United Nations in Africa. Thus, began her interest in all things UN related!
Click on the image above to view a larger version in a new window
Related: New Zealand Industry Support Groups
THE PCR DECEPTION | Short Documentary About the Test Used for Covid-19
Related Articles:
Shameless Manipulation of Positive PCR Tests
Video: Dr. Kary B. Mullis. “No Infection or Illness Can be Accurately Diagnosed with the PCR Test”PCR: The Good, The Bad and The Bustin
PCR Sales Soared in Wuhan Before 1st Official COVID-19 Cases Publicized: Report
Published official literature on PCR test
Spoiler alert: the admitted holes and shortcomings of the test are devastating.
From “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel” [1]:
“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”
Translation: A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID virus might not be in the patient’s body at all, either.
From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans” [2]:
“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”
Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.
The WHO document adds this little piece: “Protocol use limitations: Optional clinical specimens for testing has [have] not yet been validated.”
Translation: We’re not sure which tissue samples to take from the patient, in order for the test to have any validity.
From the FDA: “LabCorp COVID-19RT-PCR test EUA Summary: ACCELERATED EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) SUMMARYCOVID-19 RT-PCR TEST (LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA)” [3]:
“…The SARS-CoV-2RNA [COVID virus] is generally detectable in respiratory specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status…THE AGENT DETECTED MAY NOT BE THE DEFINITE CAUSE OF DISEASE (CAPS are mine). Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.”
Translation: On the one hand, we claim the test can “generally” detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient. But we admit that “the agent detected” on the test, by which we mean COVID, “may not be the definite cause of disease.” We also admit that, unless the patient has an acute infection, we can’t find COVID. Therefore, the idea of “asymptomatic patients” confirmed by the test is nonsense. And even though a positive test for COVID may not indicate the actual cause of disease, all positive tests must be reported—and they will be counted as “COVID cases.” Regardless.
From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit” [4]:
“Regulatory status: For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures.”
Translation: Don’t use the test result alone to diagnose infection or disease. Oops.
“non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”
Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.
“Application Qualitative”
Translation: This clearly means the test is not suited to detect how much virus is in the patient’s body. I’ll cover how important this admission is in a minute.
“The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in combination with their symptoms/signs, history, other laboratory tests and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis, and are only for the reference of clinicians.”
Translation: Don’t use the test as the exclusive basis for diagnosing a person with COVID. And yet, this is exactly what health authorities are doing all over the world. All positive tests must be reported to government agencies, and they are counted as COVID cases.”
Those quotes, from official government and testing sources, torpedo the whole “scientific” basis of the test.
And now, I’ll add another, lethal blow: the test has never been validated properly as an instrument to detect disease. Even assuming it can detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient, it doesn’t show HOW MUCH virus is in the body. And that is key, because in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world, not in a lab, the patient would need to have millions and millions of the virus actively replicating in his body.
Proponents of the test assert that it CAN measure how much virus is in the body. To which I reply: prove it.
Prove it in a way it should have been proven decades ago—but never was.
Take five hundred people and remove tissue samples from them. The people who take the samples do NOT do the test. The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they’re in.
The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and HOW MUCH of it they found.
“All right, in patients 24, 46, 65, 76, 87, and 93 we found a great deal of virus.”
Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. Are they sick? Are they running marathons? Let’s find out.
This OBVIOUS vetting of the test has never been done. That is an enormous scandal. Where are the controlled test results in 500 patients, a thousand patients? Nowhere.
The test is an unproven fraud.
And, therefore, the COVID pandemic, which is supposed to be based on that test, is also a fraud.
“But…but…what about all the sick and dying people…why are they sick?”
I’ve written thousands of words answering that question, in past articles. A NUMBER of conditions—none involving COVID, and most involving old traditional diseases—are making people sick.
