PCRTests

INTRODUCTION
Kary B. Mullis, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1993 for inventing the PCR test.

The practical application of the PCR test involves a sterile swab being placed at the back of a patient’s nasal passage, at the point where it connects to the throat via the nasopharynx. Any viral RNA is then processed to form a complimentary strand of DNA that the RT-PCR technique then amplifies. Different test kits can test for different sequences of coronavirus genes.

ISSUES
The PCR test does not measure viral load so the subject could be asymptomatic with a very small load.

Depending on the processing of the DNA sample the rate of false positives can be as high as 97%. Even the WHO has recently admitted the unreliability of the test for diagnostic purposes.

An Appeals court in Portugal has already found the RT PCR test to be unsuitable as a diagnostic tool and that decisions made on the basis of a so called positive test to be unlawful.

NSW police, have questioned the reliability of the PCR test, sending an open letter to the police commissioner, stating that we cannot prosecute motorists using faulty speed cameras, so we shouldn't do it with unreliable PCR tests. The Barrington declaration, from a group of concerned doctors, also opposes the disproportionate lockdown regime.

The World Health Organisation has admitted the flaws of the PCR Test

More and more information is being revealed about the dangerous of using the test.

Vaccination can actually be carried out through Nasal swabs used in PCR tests. In principle a persons DNA could also be obtained from the PCR test.

Serene Teffaha has located a contract between the Australian Government and the Chinese Government to undertake DNA profiling from these test results and strongly recommends that Australians refuse to take the tests.

There are also antibody tests to see if you may have been infected by Covid-19 in the past. It states though for antibody tests: "...there is a chance that a positive result means you have antibodies from an infection with a different virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses)."

International Treaties
Under the following International Treaties to which Australia is a signatory forcing a medical procedure is a breach of human rights: Nuremberg Code, International Charter of Human Rights and the Australian Constitution.

The Human Rights Act 2004 :


Excerpts from various letters preempting legal action

Letter to PM re coerced vaccines/ medical procedures/ policies in conflict with the Australian Constitution

“The letter is to illustrate to you, the Commonwealth legislature, and the Australian community, the constitutional protection afforded to each Australian, against any legislature seeking to advance a health policy through civil conscription. Health policies come and go, and legislation that is enacted to advance a particular health policy is always subordinate to the Constitution. Health policies are always subordinate to each Australian’s constitutional guarantee to not have medical procedures forced upon them by government.

Being injected with a vaccine is an assault, made lawful by consent. The decision to be injected with a vaccine occurs within the confidential, consensual and contractual relationship that exists between a health practitioner and their patient. This freedom of consent as to medical procedures is enshrined in our Constitution. A number of areas of law prohibits third party interference in the private contractual doctor/patient relationship, and the prohibition on such interference is expressly stated in s51(xxiiiA) of our Constitution. In Australia people must freely consent to being injected with a vaccine. Freely given consent means freedom from coercive and punitive laws that interfere with the doctor/patient relationship. S51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution expressly prohibits the provision of medical and dental services in circumstances that amount to any form of civil conscription. This includes the coercive and punitive No Jab laws, and the laws that compel private medical information to be conscripted onto the Australian Immunisation Register. S51(xxiiiA) states: 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: … (xxiiiA) the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances; … S51(xxiiiA) provides an express constitutional protection against forced medication. This protection prohibits State, Territory and Commonwealth legislators from enacting laws to conscript people into undergoing medical procedures. The injecting of a patient by their doctor with a vaccine is a medical service. Any laws that operate to civilly conscript a patient to be injected with a vaccine are expressly prohibited by the Constitution. What is shown in the following is that the current operation of Australia’s suit of No Jab laws, and the Australian Immunisation Register amounts to a form of civil conscription.

Constitutional guarantee against civil conscription into medical services. The High Court has stated that the s51(xxiiiA) prohibition against civil conscription is a constitutional guarantee. This constitutional guarantee operates to protect personal liberty and freedom, and to ensure that people are not conscripted into medical and dental treatments against their will, or absent their consent. In Wong v Commonwealth, 1 a case concerning s51(xxiiiA), Heydon J at 252 clearly states that the prohibition on any form of civil conscription concerns the protection of individual freedom: “the phrase "any form of civil conscription" operates to confer a type of constitutional guarantee. It creates a deliberate constitutional restraint on a head of Commonwealth legislative power. It relates to individual freedom. It should thus be treated as a matter of substance. It should be read purposively. It should not be construed narrowly. The Commonwealth accepted this ... “ Also in Wong, Kirby J at 127 describes each individual’s constitutional protection from medical and dental conscription. ‘the prohibition on "any form of civil conscription" is designed to protect patients from having the supply of "medical and dental services", otherwise than by private contract, forced upon them without their consent’. This statement of law makes clear that any infringement upon a person’s ability to freely consent to a medical procedure is prohibited by our Constitution. French CJ and Gummow J at 60 in Wong described civil conscription as involving practical compulsion and coercion. ‘The legislative history and the genesis of s 51(xxiiiA) supports a construction of the phrase "(but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription)" which treats "civil conscription" as involving some form of compulsion or coercion, in a legal or practical sense, to carry out work or provide services ...’. The numerous judgements of High Court Justices’ concerning s51(xxiiiA) are clear; s51xxiiiA expressly guarantees an individual’s constitutional right to not be coerced or compelled into receiving medical services.”

Taken from the letter from Concerned Lawyer Network:
The Concerned Lawyers Network has charged Scott Morrison and other Australian Politicians with Crimes Against Humanity. These excerpts are taken from the letter.

OPENING STATEMENT (Excerpts)

9. failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians of, or take into account in their

decision making, the true nature of the covid19 tests being used, that they are not

reliable, focusing instead on numbers of “positive cases” including false positives and

undiagnosed positives when the tests are deemed by the governments own TGA

standards not reliable and there has to date not been any credible isolation of Covid19

in any case; and

10. failed to properly inform Victorians and Australians of, or take into account in their

decision making, the fact that the covid19 tests being used were manufactured and

distributed to countries around the world (with Australian purchasing great quantities)

since at least 2017 over 3 years before the surprise outbreak of Covid19 in late 2019,

4

and that patents specifically for the Covid19 test kits were already applied for in 2015

some 5 years ago which gives rise to suspicions of a planned pandemic;

FACTS AND EVIDENCE (excerpts)

COVID19 TEST KITS PRODUCED AND SOLD- YEARS BEFORE COVID19 WAS

SUPPOSEDLY “DISCOVERED”.

 Of the most disturbing pieces of evidence is the fact that the Covid19 Tests were

manufactured and sold around the world (including to Australia), more than 3 years

before Covid19 was named as a disease. Do any of you have an explanation for this?

 Robert Rothschild applied for patents for Covid19 tests in 2015 and 2017

https://www.sgtreport.com/2020/10/atomic-bombshell-we-have-proof-that-rothschildspatented-

covid-19-biometric-tests-in-2015-and-2017/

 COVID-19 19 tests were manufactured and sold around the world from at least as far

back as 2017 perhaps earlier. Australia was one of many nations that purchased the

covid19 tests at that time.

https://wits.worldbank.org/tariff/trains/en/country/AUS/partner/ALL/nomen/h5/product/

902780# see EXHIBITS-TESTING

 As we know from the media, the new “novel” coronavirus COVID-19 disease appeared

discovered in China towards the end of 2019. It was named COVID-19 which is an

acronym for Corona Virus Disease 2019. Data from the World Integrated Trade

Solution (WITS), however, shows that in 2017 and 2018 - hundreds of millions of test

kits for COVID-19 were distributed worldwide. This baffling data was discovered online

by someone on 5 September, 2020 from the list of tariffs on the WITS site, who then

posted screen shots on social media. The next day it went viral all over the world. On

6 September the WITS suddenly changed the original designation 'COVID-19' on its

website into the vague term 'Medical Test Kits'. Using general terms to describe a

commodity in the medical/pharmaceutical trade for international distribution is not

normal industry practice. There are just too many types of medical test kits for different

diseases so they must be specifically named and distinguished from each other.

 The fact that WITS removed the specification 'COVID-19', after this data became

known worldwide, raised suspicion immediately. The administrators of the WITS site

however forgot to delete one detail: the product code for these 'Medical Test Kits' is

300215 (which means: 'COVID-19 Test Kits') The fact that WITS removed the

specification 'COVID-19', after this data became known worldwide, indicates

concealment. See screen shots in EXHIBITS – TESTING KITS

TEST KITS FOR COVID19 UNRELIABLE (& NOT BASED ON TRUE ISOLATION OF

DISEASE)

 The Australian Regulator TGA said the Covid19 tests are unreliable

https://www.tga.gov.au/search/node

Language has already been updated from that site as you can see from a historical

search: https://web.archive.org/web/20200607060454/www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-

testing-australia-information-health-professionals

 Tests don’t distinguish from common colds

 The CDC admits there is no proper isolation of the covid19 virus-

Dr Cowan comments: “Shockingly, on page 39 of the CDC’s July 2020 bulletin, the

''CDC acknowledges no published “isolates” of the coronavirus are known. Equally''

shockingly, the authors of the six most important papers on the isolation and

characterization of this new virus all publicly and in writing admit that they neither

''purified nor isolated this virus. At this point, there is simply no evidence this virus''

''exists, let alone causes any disease. “'' refer to CDC Report EXHIBITS–TESTING

KITS In a paper published on the FDA’s website, independent journalist Jon

Rappaport discovered that the CDC – at least in their summer of 2020 – had no virus

isolates of the novel coronavirus “currently available” and reveals that all the assays

9

used to design diagnostic testing algorithms for COVID-19 were of other isolates meant

to “mimic clinical specimen.”

 There are Physical dangers of testing with Nasal Swabs- deaths or injury have

been sustained

 Victoria is the only state in Australia to have purchased tests from BGI, China

without open tender and with fast tracked approval. Beijing Genomics Institute

(BGI) is the Chinese company chosen to provide test kits to Victoria and the company

also specialises in making test kits for DNA collection. No other state in Australia has

obtained their kits from this company but instead rejected them. The United States

have also rejected these kits. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) has

written reports stating that BGI is a National Security Threat. BGI has also been

accused of being an arm of the CCP and building a Genetic database of Western

Populations as well as non-Han ethnic Populations. BGI test kits were banned from

California by the CIA as they were deemed to be a security threat. Ref: EXHIBITS

TESTING /SUMMARY

TESTING AND THE DOHERTY INSTITUTE

Australian governments rely on The Doherty Institute and researches there who have fast

tracked test kit approvals without any gold standard: ref page 37 HARRISON REPORT

The Doherty Institute has been an instrumental influence in developing the Australian

government’s policy response to the novel coronavirus outbreak. Covid-19 modellers from the

Doherty Institute have interpreted international data to provide projections which inform the

government’s actions. A significant number of the Doherty Institute’s Global Projects and

researchers collaborate with and receive funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

and its close partner, the Wellcome Trust'''. ref page 73 & 89 HARRISON REPORT'''

HARVESTING DNA FROM TESTING AND GENE EDITING

 In the UK laws have already been passed allowing the retention of a person’s

DNA after they submit to a Covid19 test. Premier and Prime Minister is this taking

place in Australia now or are there plans for a similar law to be introduced here? If so,

for what purpose? Is consent being obtained for DNA harvesting? Who is managing

the DNA database? Is it Chinese?

 The Gates Foundation is heavily involved in gene editing technology. The

Foundation has previously used genetic material taken from the databases of a

commercial company 23andme (Google funded company which uses a saliva swab to

determine a client’s ancestry), to perform “deep gene sequencing and sophisticated

bioinformatic analysis”. Eventually the Foundation wants to deliver gene-editing

components via injection into people. In 2018, Gates-founded Microsoft announced

they would be joining the ID2020 alliance, “a global Alliance whose goal is to create

universal digital identities for everyone.”

 The World Bank has pushed for universal digital identity for several years,

stating this is in line with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (of which

Australia is a signatory to.)

 Microsoft announced that, as a founding member of the ID2020 Alliance, its developers

would be working to create a blockchain based identity system, as a “shared database

that is concisely reconciled”, that “would allow interoperability of people, apps,

products and services across cloud providers, other blockchains and organizations.”

ref page 209 HARRISON REPORT

Taken from Serene Teffaha class action:
Page 6

“The emergency requirements are qualified and restricted by the significant fact that emergency requirements and directions cannot request an individual to be isolated, detained, tested, vaccinated, medically treated or bodily searched (amongst other actions) in the absence of a biosecurity control order issued to the individual.

These measures are referred to as biosecurity measures and are captured under Subdivision B of Division 3 of Part 3 of Chapter 2 of the Biosecurity Act 2015.

Emergency and public health powers, at the States and Territories, do not provide a carte blanche to breach an individual’s human rights by isolating them, or detaining them or testing them without the proper required notifications and risk assessments first.”

Page 8

It is not permitted for Sovereign Governments to act in a manner where complete elimination of the risk is the target. The Biosecurity Act 2015 clearly states that that is not a possibility. Section 5 of the Biosecurity Act provides ‘The Appropriate Level of Protection (or ALOP) for Australia is a high level of sanitary and phytosanitary protection aimed at reducing biosecurity risks to a very low level, but not to zero.’

Page 10-13

The RT-PCR Tests are not a diagnostic tool

The Chief Health Officers and the Deputy Chief Health Officers have misled the public regarding the reliability of the testing and the information obtained from a positive test, in the absence of clinical observation.

The Australian Government, Department of Health, Therapeutics Goods Administration ‘TGA’ provides:

‘''The reliability of COVID-19 tests is uncertain due to the limited evidence base. Available evidence mainly comes from symptomatic patients, and their clinical role in detecting asymptomatic carriers is unclear''.’

It is evident that the extent to which a positive RT-PCR result correlates with the infectious state of an individual is uncertain.

The reason for this is because it is understood that RT-PCR tests cannot distinguish between ‘live’ virus and non-infective RNA.

Even the CDC and the FDA in the US, for instance, concede in their files that the so-called ‘SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests’ are not suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

‘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:

‘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.’

It is therefore extremely irresponsible for our Government to purport that RT-PCR testing is a conclusive method of diagnosis and furthermore deliberately set out to confuse the public that people who test positive are infected and/or infectious with certainty.

2. RT-PCR tests give rise to false positives

The Public Health Laboratory Network on Nucleic Acid Test Results Interpretation states

''‘The SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used in Australia have very high specificities and the strategy of using a second and/or third SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay with different gene targets increases the specificity of the PCR even further. The combined SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing experience of the PHLN laboratories is that the false positive rate is extremely low''.’

However it also provides:

‘…using the same test, if a low risk asymptomatic population is tested where the likelihood of infection is 5 in 10,000 (i.e. 0.05%), the positive predictive value is 4.3% (i.e. for every 100 people with a positive test result, four to five will have SARS-CoV-2 infection but 95-96 people without infection will have a false positive result).’

Given the above, the PCR-Tests, in low risk asymptomatic population such as Australia should repeat testing of the same sample and re-sample where possible.

Unfortunately, in Australia, laboratory technicians were advised by our Governments:

‘''any coronavirus reported by a laboratory as having detected SARS-COV-2 on PCR will be treated as positive for the purposes of public health actions, regardless of repeat testing of the sample. It is not appropriate to advise a patient that a test is false positive without prior consultation with the department.''’

Such a practice is not only unacceptable but it also poses a serious risk of inflating the figures reported as COVID-19 when they are false positive outcomes and constitutes a serious interference of the private rights between patients and their doctors and/or clinicians.

Given the reliance on these figures to declare a National State of Emergency, and now in Victoria, a State of Disaster, resulting in highly restrictive measures being enforced on the people of Australia, it is deeply troubling that such a practice has been put in place with Australian laboratories.

More generally, irrespective of the issues of specificity, the RT-PCR tests have been shown to produce at least 30% false positives and 20% false negatives according to a recent randomised clinical trial.

This has also been confirmed by the John Hopkins University that focused on the alarming rates of false negative results generated by RT-PCR tests

3. Security Risks identified with RT-PCR Tests

The Australian government announced in late April that it had accepted 10m Covid-19 tests manufactured by the Beijing Genomics Institute, purchased in a $200m deal brokered by Andrew Forrest, the mining billionaire, and his philanthropic arm, the Minderoo Foundation.

It followed a report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) that found a BGI subsidiary, Forensic Genomics International, was linked to what it described as a ‘DNA dragnet’ involving multiple companies, which collected DNA data from millions of men and boys with no serious criminal history.

The report found the BGI subsidiary partnered with Chinese police to help build genetic databases.

‘This program of mass DNA data collection violates Chinese domestic law and global human rights norms,’ the report said. ‘And, when combined with other surveillance tools, it will increase the power of the Chinese state and further enable domestic repression in the name of stability maintenance and social control.’

Previous reports have suggested BGI had involvement in providing gene technology used to surveil the Uighur ethnic minority in Xinjiang province.

International Criminal Court Submission by Sanjeev Sabhlok
Page 43:

It is not just in Victoria that governments are have dumped all the science and all the laws. There are reports from the USA of some states trying to coercively test even school children. The USA’s CDC has, however, come down heavily on 10 October 2020 against such attempts67:

The CDC is condemning mandatory coronavirus testing in K-12 schools, updating guidance after New York City began random testing this week on thousands of students and educators. In revamped advice published this week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention endorses voluntary “surveillance” testing in schools but decries any mandates. “It is unethical and illegal to test someone who does not want to be tested, including students whose parents or guardians do not want them to be tested,” the CDC said.68

Page 142-145:

329 https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

330 https://www.roche.com/media/releases/med-cor-2020-09-04.htm

331 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.14.20212498v1

332 https://sebastianrushworth.com/2020/11/06/how-accurate-are-the-covid-tests/

333 https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html

Questionable intentions: Deceptive COVID “cases” based on worthless PCR tests

In relation to the COVID cases there are two major problems: a) financial incentive to report COVID “cases” (already touched upon above) and b) the unreliability of PCR tests. A review of the literature on PCR tests by Dr Sebastian Rushworth on 6 November 2020 states:

PCR positive cases are a very poor indicator of how prevalent COVID is in the population: and why we should instead be basing decisions on the rates of hospitalization, ICU admission, and death.332

How far is this claim valid?

16.5.1 Long history of being unreliable and supporting hysterias

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests have a long history of being wildly inaccurate. For instance, in 2007 a major blunder was made and a pandemic declared based on the PCR tests. Its story is described in Gina Kolata’s 2007 New York Times article “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t”333. Extracts:

At Dartmouth the decision was to use a test, P.C.R., for polymerase chain reaction. It is a molecular test that, until recently, was confined to molecular biology laboratories.

At Dartmouth, when the first suspect pertussis cases emerged and the P.C.R. test showed pertussis, doctors believed it. The results seem completely consistent with the patients’ symptoms. “That’s how the whole thing got started,”

[But after eight months] “It was going on for months,” Dr. Kirkland said. But in the end, the conclusion was clear: There was no pertussis epidemic.

Page 143 :

“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.”

According to Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter, the inventor of the PCR technology, Kary Mullis, considered the PCR test to be inappropriate for the purposes of detecting a viral infection. PCR is apparently intended to be a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and is not a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.334

334 https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/

335 https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/

336 https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/

337 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/679566/response/1625332/attach/html/2/872%20FOI%20All%20records%20describing%20isolation%20of%20SARS%20COV%202.pdf.html

338 https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

16.5.2 No proof that PCR tests are testing SARS-CoV-2

It is understood that the: “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”335.

Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter point out that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients do not have a valid gold standard to compare the results with.336 According to them, tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness by comparison with a “gold standard” – meaning the most accurate method available. As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard is the pregnancy itself.

But there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing”. It seems obvious that only the virus concentrated through isolation and purification can be considered a gold standard. But in the case of PCR tests the pure form of the SARS-CoV-2 virus does not exist.

A 20 August 2020 FOI request to Public Health England confirmed that the virus has not been isolated337. The CDC has also confirmed this (as at 13 July 2020):

The analytical sensitivity of the rRT-PCR assays contained in the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019- nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel were determined in Limit of Detection studies. Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/μL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen.338

PCR tests are therefore currently calibrated for certain gene sequences (RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed – not proven – to be a RNA virus). However, there is no proof that the RNA being used by these PCR tests is specifically from the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

If there is no virus concentrate, what is being used? Apparently “virologists at the Charité are sure that they are testing for the virus. 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)”. But according to Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter this only “means they just assumed the RNA was viral”.

It is shocking to discover that mass-testing is being done using a “test” that has not been calibrated with the real virus, nor was ever designed by its inventor for such things. And has been used in the past to create fake pandemics.

Page 144 :

If this is true (and there is no reason that I know to suggest that this information is not true), it strikes at the very root of the usability of PCR tests.

It is obligatory for the Accused to be honest and forthright about these limitations and not make panicky claims based on something which is clearly very unreliable. (In addition to the fact that mass testing is simply not acceptable for such a virus, as per the WHO’s October 2019 guidelines).

16.5.3 The Australian Government doesn’t consider these tests to be reliable

As at 7 November 2020, the Australian Government, Department of Health, Therapeutics Goods Administration (TGA) website notes (the information was updated on 1 October 2020):

The reliability of COVID-19 tests is uncertain due to the limited evidence base. Available evidence mainly comes from symptomatic patients, and their clinical role in detecting asymptomatic carriers is unclear. COVID-19 is an emerging viral infectious disease. There is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests. Due to the urgent nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of SARS-CoV-2 tests have undergone an expedited assessment by the TGA to enable their legal supply in Australia. These expedited assessments are based on the limited clinical and performance data currently available. All SARS-CoV-2 tests currently approved for supply are required to provide updated evidence to support the ongoing safety and performance of the tests to the TGA.339

339 https://www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-testing-australia-information-health-professionals

340 https://web.archive.org/web/20200607060454/www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-testing-australia-information-health-professionals

341 https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

342 https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2020/03/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-clinicians.pdf

A 22 May 2020 version of the above website is available on archive.org.340

16.5.4 Powerful reasons why PCR tests are not necessarily detecting COVID

There seem to be a few other reasons why PCR tests don’t (or can’t) do what they say they do:

1. Cannot distinguish whether RNA is from COVID or some other pathogen

This is what the CDC says:

Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens. Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities. 341

This, in my view, is a huge problem. As discussed earlier, this may be why flu and COVID are getting conflated on a mammoth scale across the world.

2. Cannot distinguish between live and dead RNA

Guidance issued by the Department of Health of the Australian Government states: “it should be noted that PCR tests cannot distinguish between “live” virus and noninfective RNA”342.

So, this means just having a positive test doesn’t mean one is infectious. Therefore, the test serves no real purpose medically or (therefore) for public health purposes.

3. Can give a positive result even if there is no RNA in the sample

The worst issue, as reported by Lab Tests Online, is that: “You could tweak the test to find lower levels of virus RNA but in doing so you will increase the likelihood of the test giving a positive result even if there

Page 145 :

was no RNA in the sample”.343 This has something to do with the “cycles” of refinement during the testing process.

As far as I can see, the whole thing about COVID “cases” is very suspicious, indeed.

Reference: There is more information about PCR tests in a complaint made 23 October 2020 by Danielle Burnie to the Therapeutic Goods Administration.344

16.6 Questionable intentions: Imposing restrictions that are not proven by science

I have detailed this earlier but I’m making a note again (as part of the analysis of the intentions of the Accused) that it is highly questionable for the Accused to not have accept any feedback on their “public health” mandates which are not arbitrary, disproportionate and harmful. Why does the Andrews government refuse to consider any alternative opinion? Why have all the regular consultative processes for good policy making been disbanded?

16.7 Questionable intentions: Restricting potentially health treatments (e.g. HCQ)

If the Accused were genuinely interested in saving lives from COVID-19, they would have promoted the use of Vitamins D and C but also possibly HCQ and Ivermectin (among others).

Instead, Victoria’s Health Minister Jenny Mikakos signed orders to ban Hydrochloroquinine until late October 2020. This will deprive Victorians of a potential treatment that many have argued is effective. This ban remains in place. As at 10 November 2020, the DHHS website345 continues to state that “There is no clinical evidence that hydroxychloroquine is effective as prophylaxis against coronavirus (COVID-19)”.

This claim of the Victorian government does not stack up. Apparently, “over 121 peer reviewed scientific studies have shown it to be effective in treating and preventing the disease”346. Further, this medicine is said to have saved tens of thousands of lives in India.

Regardless of the truth about the effectiveness of this drug, the issue is that trained doctors are not being allowed to exercise their judgement. If the opponents of the government’s position are right (and there are many of them), then the idea of banning a drug that could potentially have saved the lives of many of the elderly who died in Victoria from COVID-19 becomes even more of a crime.

The Australian Government, Department of Health, Therapeutics Goods Administration ‘TGA’ provides:

‘''The reliability of COVID-19 tests is uncertain due to the limited evidence base. Available evidence mainly comes from symptomatic patients, and their clinical role in detecting asymptomatic carriers is unclear''.’

It is evident that the extent to which a positive RT-PCR result correlates with the infectious state of an individual is uncertain.

The reason for this is because it is understood that RT-PCR tests cannot distinguish between ‘live’ virus and non-infective RNA.

Even the CDC and the FDA in the US, for instance, concede in their files that the so-called ‘SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests’ are not suitable for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis.

‘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:

‘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.’

It is therefore extremely irresponsible for our Government to purport that RT-PCR testing is a conclusive method of diagnosis and furthermore deliberately set out to confuse the public that people who test positive are infected and/or infectious with certainty.

2. RT-PCR tests give rise to false positives

The Public Health Laboratory Network on Nucleic Acid Test Results Interpretation states

''‘The SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used in Australia have very high specificities and the strategy of using a second and/or third SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay with different gene targets increases the specificity of the PCR even further. The combined SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing experience of the PHLN laboratories is that the false positive rate is extremely low''.’

However it also provides:

‘…using the same test, if a low risk asymptomatic population is tested where the likelihood of infection is 5 in 10,000 (i.e. 0.05%), the positive predictive value is 4.3% (i.e. for every 100 people with a positive test result, four to five will have SARS-CoV-2 infection but 95-96 people without infection will have a false positive result).’

Given the above, the PCR-Tests, in low risk asymptomatic population such as Australia should repeat testing of the same sample and re-sample where possible.

Unfortunately, in Australia, laboratory technicians were advised by our Governments:

‘''any coronavirus reported by a laboratory as having detected SARS-COV-2 on PCR will be treated as positive for the purposes of public health actions, regardless of repeat testing of the sample. It is not appropriate to advise a patient that a test is false positive without prior consultation with the department.''’

Such a practice is not only unacceptable but it also poses a serious risk of inflating the figures reported as COVID-19 when they are false positive outcomes and constitutes a serious interference of the private rights between patients and their doctors and/or clinicians.

Given the reliance on these figures to declare a National State of Emergency, and now in Victoria, a State of Disaster, resulting in highly restrictive measures being enforced on the people of Australia, it is deeply troubling that such a practice has been put in place with Australian laboratories.

More generally, irrespective of the issues of specificity, the RT-PCR tests have been shown to produce at least 30% false positives and 20% false negatives according to a recent randomised clinical trial.

This has also been confirmed by the John Hopkins University that focused on the alarming rates of false negative results generated by RT-PCR tests

3. Security Risks identified with RT-PCR Tests

The Australian government announced in late April that it had accepted 10m Covid-19 tests manufactured by the Beijing Genomics Institute, purchased in a $200m deal brokered by Andrew Forrest, the mining billionaire, and his philanthropic arm, the Minderoo Foundation.

It followed a report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) that found a BGI subsidiary, Forensic Genomics International, was linked to what it described as a ‘DNA dragnet’ involving multiple companies, which collected DNA data from millions of men and boys with no serious criminal history.

The report found the BGI subsidiary partnered with Chinese police to help build genetic databases.

‘This program of mass DNA data collection violates Chinese domestic law and global human rights norms,’ the report said. ‘And, when combined with other surveillance tools, it will increase the power of the Chinese state and further enable domestic repression in the name of stability maintenance and social control.’

Previous reports have suggested BGI had involvement in providing gene technology used to surveil the Uighur ethnic minority in Xinjiang province.

FORMS
Conditional Acceptance form

Document on avoiding the PCR test

Navigation:      Home     Prev      Next