False Positive | Totality of Evidence https://totalityofevidence.com COVID-19 pandemic timeline and research resource links Fri, 12 May 2023 03:31:05 +0000 en-AU hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7 https://totalityofevidence.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/TE-favicon-150x150.png False Positive | Totality of Evidence https://totalityofevidence.com 32 32 PCR testing timeline https://totalityofevidence.com/pcr-testing-timeline/ Thu, 09 Jun 2022 08:25:04 +0000 https://totalityofevidence.com/?p=6273 This page will pull from the full COVID-19 TIMELINE all data points relating to PCR testing for ease of scanning the history. For all articles and links relating to RT-PCR Tests used to “Diagnose” COVID-19 go HERE PCR evidence you…

The post PCR testing timeline first appeared on Totality of Evidence.

]]> This page will pull from the full COVID-19 TIMELINE all data points relating to PCR testing for ease of scanning the history.

For all articles and links relating to RT-PCR Tests used to “Diagnose” COVID-19 go HERE

PCR evidence you will discover in the timeline:

  • Increased PCR Testing was the main metric to justify lockdowns.
  • Increases in case statistics did not correlate with hospital admissions.
  • The PCR tests were never intended to be used on ‘well’ people with no clinical symptoms.
  • Cycles of amplification (Ct) >24 shows no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus

PCR specific data points from the Pandemic Timeline

2007
January 22 2007

PCR test causes pseudo-epidemic chaos

By 2007 the PCR test is increasing in usage to diagnose disease and is instrumental in escalating the incidence of pseudo-epidemics.  In 2006 the PCR test was relied upon for its speed and highly sensitive nature, and led epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists to use it’s positive result to diagnose what initially was suspected whooping cough epidemic.   [1] The 2006 coughing spree at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center caused officials to PCR test all staff, furloughing and quarantining them until their PCR test was returned.  When results came in 142 people tested positive for Whooping Cough, and thousands were “treated” with antibiotics and vaccines.  The hospital ICU was closed. Eight months later, by January 22, 2007, the hospital staff were informed it was a false alarm. [2] “Not a single case of whooping cough was confirmed with the definitive test, growing the bacterium, Bordetella pertussis, in the laboratory.”
“It’s a problem; we know it’s a problem,” … “My guess is that what happened at Dartmouth is going to become more common.” said Dr. Perl
The tests’ “very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are [mass] tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic.”  
2008
May 19 2008

WHO launches GISAID online database platform

On May 19, 2008, the WHO officially launched the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID) online genetic code database platform at the 61st WHA as a public online database for H5N1 avian influenza viruses data.  Avian influenza had been getting attention from 2003, with increasing media attention. [1, 2, 3]  The initial funding to kickstart the development of GISAID’s EpiFlu™ database application was provided by US HHS.

The GISAID consortium was formed 2 years earlier on August 24, 2006.  The new partnersip was for greater transparency in the sharing H5N1 genetic data amongst more than 70 flu scientist Partnership. [5]

On April 15, 2010 a public-private partnership was made with the German government where they became the “official host of the GISAID platform and EpiFlu™ database”.  The goal is to have “free worldwide exchange of genetic and epidemiological data on known and newly discovered influenza viruses”.

Melbourne’s Doherty Institute has members on the GISAID governance bodies.

Around April 2020 Coronaviruses began being surveilled by the newly established GISAID EpiCoV platform, which CSIRO uses to track COVID-19 genomes. [4]

The CSL company Seqirus a vaccine manufacture and a “leading innovator in influenza vaccine technologies and pandemic response solutions, is [also] a contributor to the GISAID public-private partnership.”

2019
August 7 2019

Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, passes away

Kary Banks Mullis, who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993 for his invention of PCR, died on August 7, 2019 of pneumonia at the age of 74. [1, 2, 3]

Kary was clear that PCR tests are not a diagnostic tool, they can’t tell you that you’re sick. [5]

“PCR is just a process that is used to make a whole lot of something out of something” because there’s “very few molecules that you don’t have at least one single one of in your body.”

The intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.[4]

Mullis once stated that Dr Anthony Fauci “doesn’t know anything about anything” and because of this “he should not be in the position he’s in”.

More on PCR >>

2020
January 10 2020

Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) genome sequence is made public

The sequence of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) was posted to a public web server on January 10, 2020 [6]

Following China’s Jan 7, 2020 announcement a “viral genome sequence was released for immediate public health support via the community online resource virological.org on 10 January (Wuhan-Hu-1, GenBank accession number MN908947), followed by four other genomes deposited on 12 January in the viral sequence database curated by the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID)”, according to Drosten et al. [4]

According to WHO  on 12 January 2020, “China shared the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus for countries to use in developing specific diagnostic kits.”

The genetic sequence of 2019–nCoV (now SARS-CoV-2), a new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in Wuhan, China (collection date 26/12/2019), was published on GISAID for countries to use in developing specific diagnostic kits. [3]

The virus is closely related genetically to SARS-CoV (82%) and to SARS-related bat and civet coronaviruses within the family Betacoronavirus, subgenus Sarbecovirus. [1, 2]  The epidemiology of this subgenus is largely unknown, especially outside China.

China’s CDC report that on “January 3, 2020, the sequence of novel β-genus coronaviruses (2019-nCoV) was determined from specimens collected from patients in Wuhan by scientists of the National Institute of Viral Disease Control and Prevention (IVDC), and three distinct strains have been established.”

The genome sequence was published by China’s CDC. [5]  The new Betacoronavirus genome sequence was deposited in GISAID (www.gisaid.org) under the accession numbers:

  • EPI_ISL_402119
  • EPI_ISL_402020 
  • EPI_ISL_402121
January 13 2020

WHO releases PCR “diagnostic” protocol – The catalyst for pandemic “cases”

On January 13, 2020 the “WHO publishes the protocol for RT-PCR assay designed by a WHO partner laboratory to diagnose the novel coronavirus”. [ updated V2] Target PCR gene primers and probes from 7 world labs, reinforcing up to 45 cycles of amplification.

WHO “immediately began working with companies to produce high-quality PCR kits that were shipped to laboratories worldwide in early February 2020” [1]

This PCR test protocol was developed by Dr Drosten under “sever time constraints” and was in turn adopted by WHO without any clinical testing to then became the foundation for “diagnosing” COVID-19, and 17 days later generated the “case data” that justified declaring a PHEIC. [2]

PCR is a laboratory technique, also referred to as a Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT).

The WHO protocol references Christian Dorsten et al, of which their paper was published 10 days later on 23 Jan, after less than 24 hours in peer review, in a journal that Drosten is an editorial member!

By Nov 2020, this paper had been externally peer review finding 10 major scientific flaws, and major conflicts of interest. [3]

WHO released Diagnostic Testing for SARS-CoV-2 – 17 Jan, 19 Mar, 11 Sept 2020.  It wasn’t until the September edition before “clinical” criteria became part of the diagnosis on top of PCR.

Drosten also raced to design the diagnostic test protocol for 2003 SARS and 2009 H1N1 swine flu. [CV]

PCR tests have been the driver of “diagnosing” an “infected case” and to justify the “quarantining” of healthy people referred to as “asymptomatic carriers”.

PCR test with up to 40 cycles of amplification is recommended by CDC and AU health to “avoid false positives”, Dorsten’s paper references 45 cycles, yet in 2014 he stated PCR is not suitable for mass testing and turns healthy people into “statistically ill”.

Kary Mullis, PCR inventer, his patent used 20 cycles as each cycle doubles the initial sample.

WHO pushes “test, test, test” even though they know the PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection of SARS-CoV-2.

WHO knows “the cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load.”  This means when virus levels are low a high Ct is required to detect it (>35) and vice versa.

By Jan 2020 WHO reported the CDC had “developed a rRT-PCR test that can diagnose 2019-nCoV.” CDC rushed to produce the test kit and applied for FDA EUA, for a product that states “this test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” [4]

“Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed…for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA… characterized stocks [computer generated sequences were used] of in vitro transcribed full length RNA”. [2020, 2021]

Watch >>

January 24 2020

CDC publish instructions for use of RT-PCR test

On January 24, 2020 the CDC provided information for laboratories and  publish their instructions for use of Real-Time RT-PCR Panel for Detection 2019-Novel Coronavirus  along with publishing initial PCR “Primers and Probes” sequences [1, 2, 3, 4]

The charts indicated amplifying cycles up to 45, but stated Under Interpreting Test Results tht “RP should be positive at or before 35 cycles for all clinical samples and HSC, thus indicating the presence of sufficient nucleic acid from human RNase P gene and that the specimen is of acceptable quality.”  Their graph indicated the Cycle Threshold (Ct) before the “exponential PCR phase” was between 22 to 28 cycles of amplification.

January 24 2020

Paper describing Wuhan virus sequencing

A paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine entitled “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019” describes how China CDC scientists took “lower respiratory tract samples…from patients with pneumonia of unknown cause” and “who had been present at the Huanan Seafood Market”.

“Extracted nucleic acid samples [RNA] were tested for viruses and bacteria by polymerase chain reaction” (PCR).  RNA extracted from lung fluid and culture supernatants was used as a template to clone and sequence the genome using genomic software.”  This paper references China’s PCR test.

“Primers were subsequently designed for PCR“.

“Although our study does not fulfill Koch’s postulates, our analyses provide evidence implicating 2019-nCoV in the Wuhan outbreak”.

The resultant genetic sequence that will become known as SARS-CoV-2.  A computer generated sequence of a virus not isolated and purified. [1, 2]

January 30 2020

WHO declares COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency of International Concern

The International Health Regulations (IHR) Emergency Committee for COVID-19 held its first meeting on January 22 & 23, 2020 [found COVID-19 not an emergency], then 7 days later on January 30, 2020 they met again and upon the committee’s advice, the WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesuss declared that the novel coronavirus outbreak constituted a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC), the “WHO’s highest level of alarm“. [1, 3]

  • “The Committee also acknowledged that there are still many unknowns, cases have now been reported in five WHO regions in one month, and human-to-human transmission has occurred outside Wuhan and outside China.”
  • “The Committee believes that it is still possible to interrupt virus spread, provided that countries put in place strong measures to detect disease early, isolate and treat cases, trace contacts, and promote social distancing measures commensurate with the risk.”
  • “The Committee agreed that the outbreak now meets the criteria for a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.”
  • The Committee emphasized that the declaration of a PHEIC should be seen in the spirit of support and appreciation for China, its people, and the actions China has taken on the frontlines of this outbreak, with transparency, and, it is to be hoped, with success. In line with the need for global solidarity, the Committee felt that a global coordinated effort is needed to enhance preparedness in other regions of the world that may need additional support for that.

“A key factor in reaching their decision – which the WHO had initially been reluctant to make – was that the outbreak was no longer limited to China but had spread rapidly to 18 other countries. Among them, Australia, Vietnam and South Korea which all announced new infections today, while India and the Philippines reported their first cases, and the CDC announced the first person-to-person transmission of the virus in the U.S.” [2]

  • Australia is represented by Professor John Mackenzie of Curtin University on the Emergency Committee.
  • At the time PHEIC was declared 171 people were determined to have died globally from the novel coronavirus. [4]
  • Is this the mark for the start of a technocratic “new economic model”?

Only 5 times before has the WHO declared a PHEIC, since its power to do so was established in 2005 with the IHR:

  • 2009 pandemic influenza
  • 2014 polio resurgence
  • 2014 Ebola epidemic in West Africa2016 Zika virus outbreak
  • 2019 Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo
January 31 2020

WHO releases COVID-19 Case Definitions

On January 31, 2020 the WHO released their interim guidelines for Case Definitions for Surveillance purposes:

  • Suspected case
  • Probable case
  • Confirmed case

A confirmed case: “A person with laboratory confirmation of 2019-nCoV infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms”

WHO Dec 2020 update:  A Confirmed Case: “A person with a positive Nucleic Acid Amplification Test (NAAT)”, which is simply a positive RT-PCR test,  no symptoms necessary.  A positive PCR result makes a healthy person “statistically ill”.

February 4 2020

CDC release their PCR test to diagnose COVID-19

On Monday, February 3, 2020, CDC submitted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) their own product package to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to expedite FDA permitted use in the United States.”  This is to “authorize the use of unapproved, but potentially life-saving medical or diagnostic products during a public health emergency.”

The next day on February 4, 2020, the FDA issued the EUA and the CDC release their  “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-RCR Diagnostic Panel” which is “intended for the presumptive qualitative detection of nucleic acid from the 2019-nCoV…Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses.”

During the following 21 days after release of the CDC “exclusive” kit, “performance issues were identified related to a problem in the manufacturing of one of the reagents which led to laboratories not being able to verify the test performance.”  By then the virus had spread across the country.  The CDC test kit fiasco had hindered the public health response to the virus.

Which in May 2021 a FOIA revealed that the tests were “poorly designed and came with erroneous instructions that made it doubly difficult for labs to rely on the test’s results” and the CDC lab scientists knew that the tests failed 33% of the time but didn’t stop it’s release.

The post PCR testing timeline first appeared on Totality of Evidence.

]]>