Little over a month ago I could travel the world but this easter weekend I can be fined for visiting my family, courtesy of the 2015 Biosecurity Act.
On 18 March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 outbreak in Australia, the Governor-General declared that a human biosecurity emergency exists. The declaration gives the Minister for Health expansive powers to issue directions and set requirements in order to combat the outbreak. This is the first time these powers under the Biosecurity Act have been used.
I imagine the time will soon come when we look back and shake our collective heads in disbelief as to why they imposed these draconian measures on us because of an irrational fear of a virus.
Whenever there is a new disease, whether it exists or not, scientists and medical experts seek a cure. They have to bring any perceived disorder under their control using unnecessary public hysteria, inappropriate prevention measures, and toxic therapies – all of which are the price for misidentifying a noncontagious disease for one that is contagious.
This drama is playing out right now and includes a mistaken belief in a test for COVID-19.
Just how many people are being tested and incorrectly labelled as positive for the presence of this coronavirus?
The more the merrier is seems for this enables and furthers the shutdown of our lives. No wonder the WHO is ramping up the testing regime.
The World Health Organisation has recently called on all countries to ramp up their testing programs for coronavirus. But does this make any sense when according to researcher David Crowe the test for COVID-19 is flawed?
There is no proof that a virus is being detected by the test and there is absolutely no concern about whether there are a significant number of false positives on the test. Even a small false positive rate is critically important. A 99% accurate test would produce 100,000 false positives in a city of 10 million, like Wuhan. And if the number of positives in sampling is around 4% (which it appears to be from early statistics), then 1 out of 4 positives would be false.
He states that the test:
is based on PCR, a DNA manufacturing technique. When used as a test it does not produce a positive/negative result, but simply the number of cycles required to detect sufficient material to beat the arbitrary cutoff between positive and negative.
Thomas Cowan M.D describes what actually happens during the test for COVID-19.
They take a piece of what is supposedly unique to the virus and accentuate it through 20-40 cycles. (They can’t find it in just one cycle.) By doing up to 60 cycles they will find it in everybody. So, it is not unique to the virus. If you only take it through 35 cycles you won’t find the virus in anyone.
According to Crowe: The definitions of important diseases are surprisingly loose. Just a couple of symptoms, maybe some contact with a previous patient, and an unproven test is all they need.
How should we test for a virus? Crowe writes:
The way to prove that a particular virus exists is to purify viral particles. From these particles, RNA can be extracted and should match the RNA used in this test. Until this is done it is possible that the RNA comes from another source, which could be the cells of the patient, bacteria, fungi etc. Without purification and characterization of virus particles, it cannot be accepted that an RNA test is proof that a virus is present. The ‘gold standard’ in testing for COVID-19 is laboratory isolated/purified coronavirus particles free from any contaminants and particles that look like viruses but are not, that have been proven to be the cause of the syndrome known as COVID-19 and obtained by using proper viral isolation methods and controls (not the PCR that is currently being used or Serology /antibody tests which do not detect virus as such).
And consider this: We all have viruses circulating in our bodies most of which will not cause us illness because they are small in number and hopefully our immune system will keep us healthy. Note that PCR tests do not test viral load and therefore can’t determine if the virus is there in numbers resulting in illness.
Meanwhile scientists are detecting novel RNA in multiple patients with influenza or pneumonia-like conditions, and are assuming that the detection of RNA (which is believed to be wrapped in proteins to form an RNA virus, as coronaviruses are believed to be) is equivalent to isolation of the virus. It is not, and one of the groups of scientists was honest enough to admit this: “we did not perform tests for detecting infectious virus in blood”
But, despite this admission, earlier in the paper they repeatedly referred to the 41 cases (out of 59 similar cases) that tested positive for this RNA as, “41 patients… confirmed to be infected with 2019-nCoV.”
What happens when people test positive?
Crowe suggests that the treatments will be similar to SARS which may lead to the use of invasive ventilation and oxygenation, high dose corticosteroids, antiviral drugs and more.
In this case, some populations are older and sicker than the general population and much less able to withstand aggressive treatment. After the SARS panic had subsided doctors reviewed the evidence, and it showed that these treatments were often ineffective, and all had serious side effects, such as persistent neurologic deficit, joint replacements, scarring, pain and liver disease. As well as higher mortality.
A world economic shutdown and a draconian curtailing of civil liberties is an unacceptable price to pay for a virus that has not been purified and proven to be the cause of recent deaths worldwide.