It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
... De Becker’s article, as the Johns Hopkins data, necessarily relies on reports that are fraught with much difficulty, for the reasons I review below, primarily the wildly misapplied PCR “test” to COVID diagnosis. However, because that alleged test is primarily how the world has evaluated and tallied COVID cases and deaths for three years, we are necessarily dependent on and limited to the derived data from this alleged test for any meaningful assessment of COVID epidemiology.
COVID-19 diagnoses have been troublesome from the beginning. It has been noted, including at Johns Hopkins University, which produces the most university-based statistical data on COVID, that reported deaths from flu, pneumonia, heart disease and diabetes decreased significantly in 2020, while COVID-19 deaths became the cause of death listed for now over six million lost lives around the world. Flu and pneumonia as primary causes of death nearly disappeared. ... Cardiovascular mortality reports also dropped precipitously, without any credible reason for the change. Another unexplained surprise to epidemiologists was that those deceased with a COVID cause of death exceeded the average age of life expectancy in the US. Genevieve Briand of Johns Hopkins University discusses these anomalies.
... The first was a manufacturing technique that wound up being wildly misappropriated as a diagnostic test, despite the prior protests of its inventor, the late Kary Mullis, PhD. [6] The essence of the world’s confusion and fear of COVID stems from the testing itself. Reverse-transcriptase, polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is a method for producing more RNA nucleic acid sequences. Essentially, PCR does what it was designed by Mullis to do: It matches or aligns specific genetic signatures between a given test reagent and a sample. As the test is run in consecutive cycles, each cycle multiplies the sample. So that sample then grows exponentially. The PCR is simply incapable to determine if the introduced sample contains adequate viral particles or virions to rise to the threshold of causing an infection.
For those who have worked with PCR, it is understood that any PCR process run through 20 or more cycles is useless for detection. The CDC acknowledged that 33 cycles or more are unlikely to detect active virus. Yet for all of 2020, throughout the US, the number of cycles used in “COVID-19 testing” have been above 37 and often well into the 40’s. ...
originally posted by: Kenzo
a reply to: Maxmars
Yep, it's hard to believe people still claim testing being accurate.