Serial key cAD Forum - download Patches + updates
This program *is* a clean download and virus-free; it should be safe to run. Clean uninstall of Inventor 2020 browse this site. My app causes a virus warning. Part two of a three part series on free will. It's been my experience that AVG can give. Fix VCRUNTIME140.DLL is Missing Error on Windows (2020. AutoCAD 2020 Installation and Activation Guide https://ya-pilot.ru/download/?file=2630.
Keygen download X-force 2020 - All Product key for Autodesk 2020
Scientists Emmanuelle Charpentier, 51, and Jennifer Doudna, 56, have won the 2020 Nobel prize in chemistry for the development of Crispr-Cas9, a powerful gene-editing tool. The 6 Ballsiest Inventors Of All Time pop over to these guys. The biggest difference between a keygen and a virus is the intent. Free Download Inventor - PCB 3D. Please follow these steps. Inventor 2020 keygen no virus. Download and install language packs.
Inventor View 2020 Silent Install
On May 4, 2020, the first patient enrolled in Pfizer's vaccine trial was given the shot at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. Dr. Fauci admits the PCR test for coronavirus is all but https://ya-pilot.ru/download/?file=2639. I recently got AVG warnings about a Trojan in a [HOST] file. Most anti-virus use what is called heuristic analysis to find viruses. It opens like normal and gets through the splash screen.
Activation code installing App Inventor 2 Setup on Windows
We still working out the details but we are moving forward with August 22nd. Problem with evo-gen virus - MIT App Inventor Help https://ya-pilot.ru/download/?file=2623. Antivirus Software Free Reading Skagen Free Books How To Remove Activities Username Dungeon Keeper Computers. Malware Hunter Pro 220.127.116.115 Crack Plus License Code All. Daniel Gold, who led the team that invented Israel's Iron Dome missile defence system, has a history of safeguarding the country against what he identifies as existential threats. A model that is based on the premise of war, not on the premise of symbiosis, as is the real workings of. I am having so many problems with installing inventor.
The retired inventor of N95 masks is ... - Washington Post
On the other hand, a keygen is not necessarily a malicious software as it is not the main purpose of the software. Tutorial Files Download the tutorial data files referenced in the Inventor Tutorials, and the instructions to install them. The most popular versions of the Autodesk Inventor Professional are 2020, 2020.3 and 2020.1. Student and Education Software. A convicted murderer, who killed a journalist on board his submarine, has been surrounded by police and arrested after trying to escape from prison. It is also useful for paid games like Assassins Creed and War Dogs. Download a free AutoCAD LT trial for Windows or Mac.
"За/Против Маски" - SARS-CoV-19 - Мнение
Ако не ви мързи, ето защо аз съм против носенето на маски:
Source 1: US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) SARS-CoV-2 RNA, Qualitative Real-Time RT-PCR (Test Code 39433) - това е package insert-а, бележките, които поставят във всяка опаковка с лекарства, медицински уреди и т.н.
Link - https://www.fda.gov/media/136231/download
- Page 1, Paragraphs 4-5-
Source 2 : Illinois Dept. of Public Health (IDPH), Dr. Ngozi Ezike
Dr. Ngozi Ezike is a board-certified internist and pediatrician who joined IDPH from Cook County Health where she had served for over 15 years promoting the organization's mission of delivering integrated health services with dignity and respect regardless of a patient’s ability to pay.
Source 3: Dr. Ngozi Ezike | How COVID Deaths are Classified
Накратко тя казва, че дори и тези които са умрели, но не са тествани се причисляват към "умрелите от SARS-CoV-19". А този метод на броене на хората умрели и/или заразени излишно "надува" официалните бройки, който после новинарските емисии и новини цитират на нас.
Source 4: New York Times - Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn't
Последния параграф от статията - цитат от Др. Кати А. Пети:
"Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.
“The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,” Dr. Petti said. “No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R."
Ако се опитвам да обобщя статията - много доктори в болница в Нови Хемпшир (New Hampshire, US) започнали да имат симптоми на коклюш (whooping cough), тествали се всички с PCR теста - preliminary test, взели антиобитици и т.н. След време се оказало, че всички са били болни от обикновенна настинка - след като направили допълнителни (definitive tests). Като се има на предвид, че много от симптомите на коклюша са много подобни на грип и обикновенна настинка.
Source: 5 The Corona Simulation Machine: Why the Inventor of The “Corona Test” Would Have Warned Us Not To Use It To Detect A Virus
Ако не ви се чете цялата статия, поне разгледайте текста, който започва горе-долу от средата на страницата. Може да направите едно Ctrl+F и пейстнете това " I conducted a two-hour interview with David Crowe– Canadian researcher, with a degree in biology and mathematics, host of The Infectious Myth podcast, and President of the think-tank Rethinking AIDS. He broke down the problems with the PCR based Corona test in great detail, revealing a world of unimaginable complexity, as well as trickery. ", за да прочетете за това как точно се получават резултатите от ПЦР-а.
Ако можеше да се обобщи - Теста прави копия в хиляди пъти на дадена проба (дори да е един белтък? (viral protein, дори може да е само една РНК-а). Това се прави в поредица от много цикли на умножение на тази дадена проба. След, да речем 35-40 цикъла, пускат светлина и гледат за определено ниво на светлина (fluorescence - вид luminescence. Пример - различни крушки са мерени колко лумена са, интензитета на излъчената светлина). Ако нивото на луминсцентност не е покрива даден стандард (който стандард е различен за всяка лаборатория, държава), правят още няколко цикъла. Ако пак нивото на светлина не покрива стандартите на тази дадена лаборатирия, водят резултата на пробата за отрицателен.
А тъй като стандартите за това колко цикли на умножение са различни за всяка лаборатирия във всяка държава, това означава, че една проба след 20-цикъла може да покаже достатъчно ниво на лумисцентност - положителен, докато същата тази проба след 35-цикъла, може да има по-ниско ниво на лумисцентност, т.е. - отрицателен. Така както лабораториите са кръвни изследвания имат различни граници на измервания...
- Самата листовка, която идва с ПЦР теста, казва, че теста не е изключва зараза (инфекция) с други вируси. Засечения "агент"/вирус не е означава, че е причината за болеста (ако човек изобщо изпитва симптоми на болест). И не бива да бъде едиственият метод/начин за определяне на диагноза. Другото е, че е теста не е одобрен от амер. министерство за храни и лекарства (FDA).
- Властите броят "кьорово и сляпо" за заразени от SARS-CoV-19. Някой умрял от удар, диабет, грип, настинка т.н. не биват изследвани, а само предполагат, че е умрял от вируса. А пък тези, които решат да тестват, ги тестват с ПЦР теста, което не означава със сигурност, че е вируса е причината. И дори човека да е имал вируса, но да не е причината (така както бележката на всеки вирус кит изрично казва) за смъртност, пак е причисляван към категорията "умрели от SARS-CoV-19. За да се установи със сигурност кое-какво, трябва по-задълбочени изследвания (описани във статията - Source 4), но доколкото разбирам това не се прави.
- Статията от вестника във Source 4 показва, как тези тестове водя до излишна паника. В случая хората разбрали, че е всичко е било излишно, след като решили да направят допълнителни, по-задълбочени резултати с култури на вируса причиняващ коклюша. Т.е. ползата на ПЦР-а е било аналогично на това да си оближеш пръста и да го вдигнеш над теб да кажеш какво е времето ...
- Последната статия разказва малко за изобретателя на ПЦР теста и, че оригиналната/първоначалната замисъл на теста е за изучаване/изследване, не за диагноза на болест/вирус. И също за това как използват теста сега, за да видят дали уж някой е болен - даване на диагноза.
Та ако спрем за малко да помислим, може би не е толкова налудничева идеята, че бройките на положителните резултати не означават нищо съществено, освен да плашат хората. А целта за този срах е друга тема...
Искам да кажа, че да - има хора които са умрели от самия вирус, но колко са също умрелите чиято смърт е причинена от грип, настинка, диабет, удар, рак, туберкулоза, алергия към природа, животни.... Симптомите на SARS-CoV19 сравнени с тези на настинка и разчлините видове грипове може лесно да бъдат объркани, те са често подобни, което може да доведе до грешна диагноза...
Маските задушават едни, други не, трети им дразни зад ушите, там където ластиците притискат.
За да разбереш колко пази маската от пренос на въздух и частици, вземи един дръп с вейп, и издишай дима/изпаренията. Измери каква част от изпаренията са "хванати" от маската и каква част е изляза. Маската добавя допълнителен товар на диафрагмата ни (тове което ни издува и свива белите ни дробве). Няма официален научен документ, който да казва със сигурност, че препазва от вирусови частици. Първоначалната идея на маските е да спира слюнки и подобия от устата на хирурга да не попаден в разпрания пациент под него на опер. маса.
На няколко пъти ходя до болница, за да си правя медицнски изследвания ( част от изискванията да работиш на търговски кораби, тва е като изследвнията дето ни правят преди да отидеш в казарма) и питам мед. сестри. - Добре де, не изпитвате ли трудност при дишане с маски? Техния отговор е - да, трудно, но нямаме избор, тук работим и ни казват, че без тях не можеш. В магазини съм задавал същия въпрос, със същият или подобен отговор...
Другото нещо е, че всеки трябва сам да реши дали е изложен на риск от какъвто е да е било вирус. Всеки е различен, с различно ниво на здравина на имунна система. Има хора боледуват от най-обикновенна настинка, друго трябва да ги вкараш в няква био-лаборатиря да им стане нещо.
Всеки трябва да носи за себе си отговорност, идеята за общото благо лесно води до диктатури - дали ше е култ на нацията и лидера ѝ, култ към чистота или икономическа система.
Източник: Скоро в едно съдебно решение в щата Пенсилвания, беше отредено че затвярането на щата от губернатора е противоконституционно. Сега губеранотора ще обжалва във върховния съд на Америка, не щата. В решението, на страница 15, 3-ти абзац, е добавен цитат от друго скорошно съдебно решение от съдия Alito, в което се казва следното "But a public health emergency does not give Governors and other public officials carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists". Подобно решение беше взето и от върхновния съд на щата Мичиган...
Тоест, дори извънредни здравни ситуации не извинява държавата да прави каквото си иска. Много опасно може да стане, ако всички хора са съгласни със "крайни, без-да-задаваш въпроси" решения - диктатурка. Никога, в която и да е история на дадена цивилизация, държава или империя, населението не е било подложено на такива мерки, каквито са ни наложени сега.
Хората са умирали, умират и ще умират от хиляди причини. Било то вирус, войни, (около периода на втората световна - около 100 милиона - воени, цивилни, лагери, болести), безпаричие, глад, наркотици, пиене, пушене, сърдечен удар, диабет, рак, туберкулоза, някой таралясник може да те смаже на пътя, грипа, настинка... Но това не трявба да ни вкарва в паника, живота е такъв - раждаш се, рискуваш, радваш се на живота, намираш някаква цел - работа, семейство, наслада - и караш вперьод, не мисли за това как можеш да умреш - това е все едно да питаш какво следва след 1,000,000,000,000,000...
Страха е по-опасен от смъртта защото кара хората да правят неща, който води до ограничения от често до масово избиване - конц. лагери, Гулаг-лагерите.В режим на страх, хората лесно биват убеждаване, да набедят друга група хора, за техните проблеми и лишавания - Немците цигани, еврей, славяни, комунистите заможните земеделци, дето са блъскали, за да са богати, англичаните немците за това, че уж намушквали бебета на байонетите и хората наистина вярвали това.
А в наши времена този модел на страх и сочене на пръст/линчуване е следния - хората с маски хората без маски. Не казвам, че ше има масово избиване, но със сигурност го има това рязко разделение на хората, а подобно делене не води до нищо хубаво.
Това са мойте доводи (горе-споменати) за това защо аз не искам да нося маска.
COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless
Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose
Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin DemeterLockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “positive” patients, whereby “positive” is usually equated with “infected.”But looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2.
UNFOUNDED “TEST, TEST, TEST,…” MANTRAAt the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:
“We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.”The message was spread through headlines around the world, for instance by Reuters and the BBC.Still on the 3 of May, the moderator of the heute journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television— was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words:
“Test, test, test—that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.”This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.But it is well known that religions are about faith and not about scientific facts. And as Walter Lippmann, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th century said: “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection.The reason is that 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.How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.
LACK OF A VALID GOLD STANDARDMoreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity” and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available.As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:
“If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, “pragmatically” COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, “may be the best available ‘gold standard’.” But this is not scientifically sound.Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us.And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis — contrary to Watson’s statement — cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.In addition, “experts” such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “may be the best available gold standard,” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn’t be the best available/possible gold standard. But she hasn’t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd: “I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.”
NO PROOF FOR THE RNA BEING OF VIRAL ORIGINNow the question is: What is required first for virus isolation/proof? We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.As textbooks (e.g., White/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state, particle purification — i.e. the separation of an object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende — is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from. That has to be determined beforehand.And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.But not a single team could answer that question with “yes” — and NB., nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like “No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification” (see below).We asked several study authors “Do your electron micrographs show the purified virus?”, they gave the following responses:Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health” Nature Medicine, March 2020 Replying Author: Malik Peiris Date: May 12, 2020 Answer: “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.”Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020 Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han Date: May 6, 2020 Answer: “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.”Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020 Replying Author: Wan Beom Park Date: March 19, 2020 Answer: “We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”Study 4: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020 Replying Author: Wenjie Tan Date: March 18, 2020 Answer: “[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”Regarding the mentioned papers it is clear that what is shown in the electron micrographs (EMs) is the end result of the experiment, meaning there is no other result that they could have made EMs from.That is to say, if the authors of these studies concede that their published EMs do not show purified particles, then they definitely do not possess purified particles claimed to be viral. (In this context, it has to be remarked that some researchers use the term “isolation” in their papers, but the procedures described therein do not represent a proper isolation (purification) process. Consequently, in this context the term “isolation” is misused).Thus, the authors of four of the principal, early 2020 papers claiming discovery of a new coronavirus concede they had no proof that the origin of the virus genome was viral-like particles or cellular debris, pure or impure, or particles of any kind. In other words, the existence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA is based on faith, not fact.We have also contacted Dr Charles Calisher, who is a seasoned virologist. In 2001, Science published an “impassioned plea…to the younger generation” from several veteran virologists, among them Calisher, saying that:
“[modern virus detection methods like] sleek polymerase chain reaction […] tell little or nothing about how a virus multiplies, which animals carry it, [or] how it makes people sick. [It is] like trying to say whether somebody has bad breath by looking at his fingerprint.”And that’s why we asked Dr Calisher whether he knows one single paper in which SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated and finally really purified. His answer:
“I know of no such a publication. I have kept an eye out for one.”This actually means that one cannot conclude that the RNA gene sequences, which the scientists took from the tissue samples prepared in the mentioned in vitro trials and for which the PCR tests are finally being “calibrated,” belong to a specific virus — in this case SARS-CoV-2.
In addition, there is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.In order to establish a causal connection, one way or the other, i.e. beyond virus isolation and purification, it would have been absolutely necessary to carry out an experiment that satisfies the four Koch’s postulates. But there is no such experiment, as Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei recently revealed for OffGuardian.The necessity to fulfill these postulates regarding SARS-CoV-2 is demonstrated not least by the fact that attempts have been made to fulfill them. But even researchers claiming they have done it, in reality, did not succeed.One example is a study published in Nature on May 7. This trial, besides other procedures which render the study invalid, did not meet any of the postulates.For instance, the alleged “infected” laboratory mice did not show any relevant clinical symptoms clearly attributable to pneumonia, which according to the third postulate should actually occur if a dangerous and potentially deadly virus was really at work there. And the slight bristles and weight loss, which were observed temporarily in the animals are negligible, not only because they could have been caused by the procedure itself, but also because the weight went back to normal again.Also, no animal died except those they killed to perform the autopsies. And let’s not forget: These experiments should have been done before developing a test, which is not the case.Revealingly, none of the leading German representatives of the official theory about SARS-Cov-2/COVID-19 — the Robert Koch-Institute (RKI), Alexander S. Kekulé (University of Halle), Hartmut Hengel and Ralf Bartenschlager (German Society for Virology), the aforementioned Thomas Löscher, Ulrich Dirnagl (Charité Berlin) or Georg Bornkamm (virologist and professor emeritus at the Helmholtz-Zentrum Munich) — could answer the following question I have sent them:If the particles that are claimed to be to be SARS-CoV-2 have not been purified, how do you want to be sure that the RNA gene sequences of these particles belong to a specific new virus?Particularly, if there are studies showing that substances such as antibiotics that are added to the test tubes in the in vitro experiments carried out for virus detection can “stress” the cell culture in a way that new gene sequences are being formed that were not previously detectable — an aspect that Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock already drew attention to in her Nobel Lecture back in 1983.It should not go unmentioned that we finally got the Charité – the employer of Christian Drosten, Germany’s most influential virologist in respect of COVID-19, advisor to the German government and co-developer of the PCR test which was the first to be “accepted” (not validated!) by the WHO worldwide – to answer questions on the topic.But we didn’t get answers until June 18, 2020, after months of non-response. In the end, we achieved it only with the help of Berlin lawyer Viviane Fischer.Regarding our question “Has the Charité convinced itself that appropriate particle purification was carried out?,” the Charité concedes that they didn’t use purified particles.And although they claim “virologists at the Charité are sure that they are testing for the virus,” in their paper (Corman et al.) they state:
“RNA was extracted from clinical samples with the MagNA Pure 96 system (Roche, Penzberg, Germany) and from cell culture supernatants with the viral RNA mini kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany),”Which means they just assumed the RNA was viral.Incidentally, the Corman et al. paper, published on January 23, 2020 didn’t even go through a proper peer review process, nor were the procedures outlined therein accompanied by controls — although it is only through these two things that scientific work becomes really solid.
IRRATIONAL TEST RESULTSIt is also certain that we cannot know the false positive rate of the PCR tests without widespread testing of people who certainly do not have the virus, proven by a method which is independent of the test (having a solid gold standard).Therefore, it is hardly surprising that there are several papers illustrating irrational test results.For example, already in February the health authority in China’s Guangdong province reported that people have fully recovered from illness blamed on COVID-19, started to test “negative,” and then tested “positive” again.A month later, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Virology showed that 29 out of 610 patients at a hospital in Wuhan had 3 to 6 test results that flipped between “negative”, “positive” and “dubious”.A third example is a study from Singapore in which tests were carried out almost daily on 18 patients and the majority went from “positive” to “negative” back to “positive” at least once, and up to five times in one patient.Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February that the PCR tests are “only 30 to 50 per cent accurate”; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the WHO’s coronavirus response team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that:
“It has been widely reported in the social media that the RT-qPCR [Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases.”In other words, even if we theoretically assume that these PCR tests can really detect a viral infection, the tests would be practically worthless, and would only cause an unfounded scare among the “positive” people tested.This becomes also evident considering the positive predictive value (PPV).The PPV indicates the probability that a person with a positive test result is truly “positive” (ie. has the supposed virus), and it depends on two factors: the prevalence of the virus in the general population and the specificity of the test, that is the percentage of people without disease in whom the test is correctly “negative” (a test with a specificity of 95% incorrectly gives a positive result in 5 out of 100 non-infected people).With the same specificity, the higher the prevalence, the higher the PPV.In this context, on June 12 2020, the journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt published an article in which the PPV has been calculated with three different prevalence scenarios.The results must, of course, be viewed very critically, first because it is not possible to calculate the specificity without a solid gold standard, as outlined, and second because the calculations in the article are based on the specificity determined in the study by Jessica Watson, which is potentially worthless, as also mentioned.But if you abstract from it, assuming that the underlying specificity of 95% is correct and that we know the prevalence, even the mainstream medical journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt reports that the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests may have “a shockingly low” PPV.In one of the three scenarios, figuring with an assumed prevalence of 3%, the PPV was only 30 percent, which means that 70 percent of the people tested “positive” are not “positive” at all. Yet “they are prescribed quarantine,” as even the Ärzteblatt notes critically.In a second scenario of the journal’s article, a prevalence of rate of 20 percent is assumed. In this case they generate a PPV of 78 percent, meaning that 22 percent of the “positive” tests are false “positives.”That would mean: If we take the around 9 million people who are currently considered “positive” worldwide — supposing that the true “positives” really have a viral infection — we would get almost 2 million false “positives.”All this fits with the fact that the CDC and the FDA, for instance, concede in their files that the so-called “SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests” are not suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.In the “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel“ file from March 30, 2020, for example, it says:
“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms”And:
“This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”And the FDA admits that:
“positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”Remarkably, in the instruction manuals of PCR tests we can also read that they are not intended as a diagnostic test, as for instance in those by Altona Diagnostics and Creative Diagnostics.To quote another one, in the product announcement of the LightMix Modular Assays produced by TIB Molbiol — which were developed using the Corman et al. protocol — and distributed by Roche we can read:
“These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection”see comment below for MORE