Archive for the ‘Testing’ Category

Portuguese Court: PCR Test Are Unreliable & Unlawful to Quarantine People

https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-as-unreliable-unlawful-to-quarantine-people/

Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests As Unreliable & Unlawful To Quarantine People

by GreatGameIndia.com

A Portuguese appeals court has ruled that PCR tests are unreliable and that it is unlawful to quarantine people based solely on a PCR test.

The court stated, the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used and the viral load present. Citing Jaafar et al. 2020, the court concludes that:

if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.  (See link for article)

_______________________

**Comment**

The article goes onto state that cycles for PCR tests in India is also high (between 37-40) but that cycle threshold in Portugal is unknown.

Important excerpt:

The standard coronavirus tests are throwing up a huge number of positive cases daily. These tests are done based on faulty WHO protocols which are designed to include false positives cases as well.

The test will come back positive even if there are pieces of dead virus.

Earlier, the WHO’s testing protocol was even questioned by Finland’s national health authority.

I’ve posted on this faulty PCR test for months:

COVID-19 Testing Scam, 8 in 10 Are False Positives

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/11/19/covid-testing-fraud-fuels-casedemic.  Must see video by Del Bigtree on this ‘casedemic’.  Another brief video on cycle threshold is also in link.

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
  • The PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones
  • Many if not most laboratories amplify the RNA collected via PCR swab far too many times, which results in healthy people testing “positive” even if their viral load is very low or the virus is inactive and poses no threat
  • Amplification over 35 cycles is considered unreliable and scientifically unjustified. Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted the chances of a positive result being accurate at 35 cycles or more “are minuscule.” Yet the CDC, FDA and WHO all recommend using 40 to 45 cycles
  • Recent research shows that to maximize accuracy, PCR tests for COVID-19 should use far fewer cycles. At 17 cycles, 100% of the positive results were confirmed to be real positives. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives
  • When symptomatic, your chances of getting a true positive on the first day of symptom onset is only about 40%. Not until Day 3 from symptom onset do you have an 80% chance of getting an accurate PCR result
Lastly, 87,000 doctors and nurses are speaking out against the COVID narrative as well as the fact they are against mandatory COVID vaccines.  All the trials are based upon this faulty PCR test:

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/11/29/87000-doctors-nurses-against-covid19-vaccine/

Say “No’ to mandatory vaccines:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/09/14/community-and-world-united-we-say-no/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/30/say-no-to-forced-covid-19-vaccination-sign-petition/

Category:

Activism, Testing, vaccines, Viruses

Ten Fatal Errors: Scientists Attack Paper That Established Global PCR Driven Lockdown

https://uncoverdc.com/2020/12/03/ten-fatal-errors-scientists-attack-paper-that-established-global-pcr-driven-lockdown/

Ten Fatal Errors: Scientists Attack Paper That Established Global PCR Driven Lockdown

By Celia Farber

Dec.3, 2020

War has broken out in the scientific literature that strikes at the existential core of Covid-19 and its proposed causative virus.

At the heart of the controversy lies the fact that the creators of the most commonly used test, the RT-PCR, published instructions for how to test for SARS-CoV-2 “without having virus material available,” in their own words, relying instead on the Chinese scientists’ genetic sequence published on the internet.

The paper “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time PCR” was published 24 hours after it was submitted to Eurosurveillance, clearly evading peer review. Its lead authors were Christian Drosten and Victor Corman, which is how it took on the title  “Corman-Drosten paper.” It provided the “recipe,” or work flow for the Covid-19 diagnostic test, quickly applied all over the world, after it was accepted as the standard of testing by the WHO. (See link for article)

__________________

**Comment**

Important points:

  •  The paper the house of cards is all built upon is called the Corman-Drosten foundation paper, and has been challenged by 22 international scientists demanding the paper’s retraction.
  • Drosten is a co-discoverer of the SARS-associated coronavirus & developed a test for it in 2003.
  • The paper was written WITHOUT A VIRAL ISOLATE.  I posted on this previously here:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/16/does-the-coronavirus-exist/  According to Dr. Pieter Borger, it’s like having a few bone fragments and saying, “that’s your fish”.  But, it could be any fish.  It’s purely a synthetic code & they manufacture the parts that are missing.  Borger also states he tried explaining it on LinkedIn but was banned.  
  • The PCR test yields 80-97% FALSE POSITIVES, and Borger says it does NOT detect a virus. He also uses the comparison of finding a wheel and a hubcap from a Mercedes in a junkyard. You can not infer you are in a Mercedes garage based on only  seeing 2 parts.  He states it has ZERO relevance for diagnosis.  This was recently supported by a paper published by Nature.com, which found no “viable virus” in PCR positive cases.
  • Dr. Corbett agrees there is no viral isolate for validation and calls it ‘donut ring science’ because there’s nothing in the center of it and it has nothing to do with reality.
  • As to nay-sayers stating the virus has been isolated “all over the world,” evidently there are NO CONTROLS FOR THEM. The CDC’s paper claiming viral isolation swabbed ONE person from China who had cold symptoms.
  • Corbett also points out the Corman-Drosten foundation paper was suspiciously published in 24 hours, without peer review, and that this never happens. It typically takes months for reviews.
  • The importance of this issue can not be overstated.  If this paper is retracted the whole house of cards falls down.
  • While Borger states the response from scientists has been overwhelmingly supportive, authors of the Drosten paper were “dismissive on social media,” and Drosten proceeded to personally attack some of the scientists asking for the paper’s retraction.

Most important quote: 

From his home in Germany, Reiner Fuellmich said, “The reason why I decided to speak out is that I didn’t want these crazy people who are pulling the strings behind the scenes to rule the world. I had no idea when I came out with my first video that these people and their corporations were such a powerful block. We are up against some really powerful and devious and bad, evil people. But they’re not a united front. We on the good side so to speak, I am firmly convinced that we have the better people, who know much more not just intellectually. The thing is . . . we’re humans, and they’re not.”

And with that, this article has brought us full circle to where we initially started.  Again, if you have not read “Virus Mania,” please do.  This is not the first time this has happened and I highly doubt it’s the last time.  It’s all simply outlined in here:  https://www.torstenengelbrecht.com/en/virus-mania/

Similarly to how Lyme/MSIDS has been mismanaged using all sorts of hat tricks and slight of hand, we are seeing similar tactics being used with COVID-19.  
The CDC/NIH has a long history of manipulation.

Lastly, Celia Farber wrote another excellent article that I posted back in May: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/  Great interview with Kary Mullins, the creator of the PCR, which he stated was never intended for diagnosis.

Category:

Activism, Testing, Viruses

New Discovery May Explain Treatment-Resistance in Chronic Lyme Disease

https://biologixcenter.com/uncategorized/new-discovery-may-explain-treatment-resistance-in-chronic-lyme-disaease/

Lyme-lab-test-tube

New Discovery May Explain Treatment-Resistance in Chronic Lyme Disease

By

New, more sensitive, and precise testing reveals a troubling finding in the treatment of Lyme disease. As this study reveals, many doctors may often be prescribing the incorrect antibiotics, due to the narrow focus on B. burgdorferi. In twenty-seven people from sixteen states, 96% were found to have other Borrelia strains than B. burgdorferi, many of which cannot be treated with the same antibiotics.

Limitations of Conventional Lyme Testing

Treatment-resistant, chronic and apparent relapsing Lyme disease (borreliosis), with its oft associated co-infections which worsen the illness, though once debated, is now well-documented in the scientific literature. Chronic Lyme disease has reached the true status of a global pandemic, though largely unappreciated by the media and mainstream medicine.

Conventional iagnostic lab testing, such as Western Blot, ELISA, and Conventional Bacteria PCR testing for the dectectin of Borrelia spirochete of Lyme disease has had limited success. Most types of conventional tests having high false-negative results, with as little as 30% sensitivity, meaning as much as 70% of people tested, actually have the infection, but never get treatment due to their lab test coming back negative. These people fall between the cracks of medicine as their body and lives fall apart as doctors do not know what is wrong with them, assuming the tests were correct. (See Fig. 1)

image001-e1600465037956

Fig. 1

The painful reality is that conventional labs which are not focused solely on testing for Lyme disease, often are not as diligent in their testing, not getting paid more to find the bacteria or not, and seeming to forget that there is a real and desperate person at the other end of the blood test. Unfortunately beyond this, the medico-political environment regarding the existence of chronic Lyme disease also gets in the way of getting many, if not most conventional physicians to order the test, even at the pleading of their patients.

New Testing Pinpoints Acute and Chronic Infections

In 2019 a new, highly sensitive test (See Fig. 1 Phage Test) was developed by the University of Leicester, in England, and performed by the R.E.D Laboratory, for the diagnosis of Borrelia infections. This test is so sensitive and the testing process so rigorous, that the test is nearing 100% accurate, at >80% sensitivity to detecting not just the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi, but all of the 20 types of Borrelia that can cause tick-borne and vector-borne illness. This test is call the Phelix Borrelia-Phage Test, and is such a breath of fresh air in that the test results come back not with encrypted, hard to determine bands, as in Lyme Western Blot tests, but instead clearly state, Positive or Negative and the exact type of Borrelia infection or multiple types of Borrelia strains that you have, without needing your doctor to interpret the results. Doctors in the United States or any other country can order this test.

Testing from Many Regions and States in the U.S.

The world is a much smaller place than many appreciate. It is commonly, although mistakenly thought that some of the twenty Borrelia bacteria strains are only in Europe, or only in Asia, or only in certain regions of the U.S. As this study demonstrates, only one person had B. burgdorferi in the group of 27 people in this study.

Armed with the newest and most sensitive Borrelia test, we undertook a retrospective study of 27 people from 16 different states (see Fig. 2) to achieve a wide view of what types of Borrelia infections people actually had in the different parts of the country. The results were unexpected, as the graphs and figures in this article demonstrate. The pre-study expectation was that people with chronic Lyme disease, especially in the U.S., would be infected with Borrelia burgdorferi.

Phelix-test-results-by-state-graph

Fig. 2

Results of 27 People with Positive Borrelia-Phage Tests

As seen in Fig. 3 below, many people had one or multiple strains of Borrelia. The vast majority, 52% (14 people) had Borrelia miyamotoi, followed by 42% (11 people) having Borrelia strains that fall under the category of Relapsing Fever group. Relapsing Fever group is illness from one or more of the following strains of Borrelia, B. hermsii, B. recurrentis, B. crocidurae, B. duttonii. After the Relapsing Fever group, 19% (5 people) had Borrelia hermsii, and only one person in the group had B. burgdorferi.

Phelix-test-results-graph

Fig. 3

Conclusion

The implications of this review are that Borrelia burgdorferi is likely not the primary culprit in many cases of chronic Lyme disease in the United States, as was previously thought. The other huge takeaway from this study is that many if not most people are not receiving the correct treatment, since the antibiotics typically used for B. burgdorferi are not the same as those used for other strains of Borrelia.

The specific strain of Borrelia bacteria cannot reliably be determined using bands on a Western Blot test. Any lab test that is focusing only upon B. burgdorferi, will miss the true diagnosis of other strains of Borrelia.

The Phelix Borrelia-Phage test is just one of a new breed of phage-based lab tests that will likely become the gold-standard of all bacterial testing. It would be advisable for anyone who suspects that they have or had Lyme disease, yet have either been told they are negative, or who have lingering symptoms to be tested again with the Phelix test.

Our view of what symptoms are typical of classic Lyme disease, based upon the B. burgdorferi model, needs to be expanded to include the symptoms that are unique to the other strains of Borrelia, as their presentation can be quite different, as well as their vectors not being always a tick.

Phage-based Testing and Now Phage-based, Strain-Specific Treatment

Treatments for B. burgdorferi, should be expanded to include the actual type or multiple types of Borrelia actually infecting a person. Although antibiotics, which can be likened to carpet-bombing, killing many bad bacteria, the Borrelia always causes the bad bacteria to mutate. This means the all types of bacteria lose some of their aspects that make it vulnerable to the antibiotics, not to mention the fact that antibiotics are notorious damaging to irreparably upset the populations of the friendly flora (microbiome) of the body, and cause prolonged and severe suffering through Jarische-Herxheimer reactions (Herx). A new Borrelia-phage-based targeted treatment has been developed that has been documented by repeated Phelix Borrelia-Phage testing, to rapidly eliminate only the types of Borrelia a person has been found positive, with no harm to the body, with minimal Herx reactions, and no harm to good bacteria.

Ruling out False-Positives and False-Negatives with Phelix Borrelia-Phage Testing

The Phelix Borrelia-Phage test is the premier, newest, most sensitive Borrelia lab test available. The Phelix test is statistically the most accurate test, as each blood sample undergoes quadruplicate real-time PCR tests for 3 different targets (B. burgdorferi sl, B. miyamotoi, Relapsing fever) for a total of 12 assessments. All positive-like samples are submitted to confirmatory sequencing to rule out false positive results. Before the Phage real-time PCRs, each sample is submitted to 2 rounds of QC to rule out false-negative results that would relate to the technical flaws: (i) to assess the quality of extracted DNA by performing low cycles actin PCR, and (ii) to assess the absence of PCR inhibitors by doing a real-time PCR for IAC (internal amplification control).

Ongoing Development of INPT at the Biologix Center

INPT was developed by Phagen Corp. and is being used at the Biologix Center for Optimum Health, as a part of an IRB study, to go beyond Borrelia and target any microbial issue, including all of the co-infections associated with Lyme disease, as well as Candida sp., mold, and parasite infections, however at this time the only lab test for detecting bacteria-specific phages is for Borrelia strains.

The future of INPT includes intravenous and injectable forms of application, in addition to the oral medication, through doctors only. INPT is not projected to be sold directly to the public at this time.

To Get Treatment:

If you would like to participate in our one to two week INPT programs please contact us at www.biologixcenter.com/get-treatment/. Financial assistance is available for those with chronic illness of any type, who desire treatment at Biologix Center and are struggling financially.

A more detailed report of these findings are presently being edited for publication in peer-reviewed article submission.

Bartonella Research Collaboration

The Biologix Center is collaborating with researchers who are working to develop phage lab tests for Bartonella and other types of microbes. The Phelix Bartonella-Phage Test is hoped to be offered before the end of 2020. If you have been diagnosed with Bartonella and would like to contribute a blood sample for the development of this new test, please let us know. Offer available only to patients of the Biologix Center who have been pre-qualified by our testing.

To learn more about Bacteriophages and INPT please click on the hyperlink.

*INPT is a patent-pending innovation developed by Phagen Corp, and is being researched at the Biologix Center for Optimum Health, in Franklin, Tennessee. A patient-funded, Retrospective Registry IRB is in place to publish peer-reviewed articles as this clinical work progresses. Approximately 98% of funds go to support the ongoing research.

There are no financial or academic conflicts to be reported between Biologix Center for Optimum Health and RED Laboratories.

_____________________

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/11/30/neglected-infections-gastrointestinal-issues-in-patients-with-late-vector-borne-infections/  The Borrelia-phage test is discussed within this link as well as the research showing:

  • Among positive ticks, 60% were for B. miyamotoi.
  • Testing on over 2,000 humans (mainly late stage/chronic patients) showed 30% negative results and 70% positive, among which over 60% indicated the presence of specific Borrelia miyamotoi phages.
It appears Borrelia Miyamotoi is far more prevalent than thought, and is yet another example of something our public ‘authorities’ have labeled ‘rare’ that isn’t.

 

Category:

Borrelia Miyamotoi (Relapsing Fever Group), Lyme, research, Testing, Treatment

Ten Million Screened Post-Lockdown in Wuhan. Prevalence of COVID-19 Very Low & No Evidence of Asymptomatic Transmission to Close Contacts

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w

Open Access

Published:

Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China

Nature Communications volume 11, Article number: 5917 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

Stringent COVID-19 control measures were imposed in Wuhan between January 23 and April 8, 2020. Estimates of the prevalence of infection following the release of restrictions could inform post-lockdown pandemic management. Here, we describe a city-wide SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening programme between May 14 and June 1, 2020 in Wuhan. All city residents aged six years or older were eligible and 9,899,828 (92.9%) participated. No new symptomatic cases and 300 asymptomatic cases (detection rate 0.303/10,000, 95% CI 0.270–0.339/10,000) were identified. There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases. 107 of 34,424 previously recovered COVID-19 patients tested positive again (re-positive rate 0.31%, 95% CI 0.423–0.574%). The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan was therefore very low five to eight weeks after the end of lockdown.

Excerpts:

Virus cultures were negative for all asymptomatic positive and repositive cases, indicating no “viable virus” in positive cases detected in this study.

The citywide nucleic acid screening of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Wuhan recruited nearly 10 million people, and found no newly confirmed cases with COVID-19. The detection rate of asymptomatic positive cases was very low, and there was no evidence of transmission from asymptomatic positive persons to traced close contacts. There were no asymptomatic positive cases in 96.4% of the residential communities.

Previous studies have shown that asymptomatic individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus were infectious3, and might subsequently become symptomatic4. Compared with symptomatic patients, asymptomatic infected persons generally have low quantity of viral loads and a short duration of viral shedding, which decrease the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-25. In the present study, virus culture was carried out on samples from asymptomatic positive cases, and found no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus. All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative, indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious.

_______________________

For more:  

Category:

research, Testing, Viruses

New IDSA Guidelines for Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Lyme Disease

https://www.newswise.com/articles/idsa-aan-and-acr-release-guidelines-for-prevention-diagnosis-and-treatment-of-lyme-disease

IDSA, AAN, and ACR Release Guidelines for Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Lyme Disease

30-Nov-2020 12:05 AM EST, by Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA)

Newswise — New evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease have been developed by a multidisciplinary panel led by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Academy of Neurology, and the American College of Rheumatology. Representatives from an additional 12 medical specialties and patients also served on the panel.

The guidelines provide practical recommendations for clinicians treating patients with Lyme disease, including, but not limited to, primary care physicians, infectious diseases specialists, emergency physicians, internists, pediatricians, family physicians, neurologists, rheumatologists, cardiologists, and dermatologists.

These recommendations aim to serve as a meaningful resource for the safe, effective, evidence-based care of people with Lyme disease. They address clinical questions related to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease; complications from neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatic symptoms; disease expression commonly seen in Eurasia; and complications from coinfection with other tick-borne pathogens.

The guidelines include 43 recommendations related to diagnostic testing, including testing scenarios (such as for certain neurologic, psychologic, behavioral, cardiac, and rheumatologic syndromes); detailed recommendations about Lyme carditis; and a discussion of “chronic Lyme disease.”

Among the diagnostic testing recommendations, the guidelines recommend clinical diagnosis without laboratory testing for people with a skin rash characteristic of early Lyme disease. For people with other signs of Lyme disease, such as swollen joints or meningitis, the guidelines recommend antibody testing.

Among the treatment recommendations, the guidelines recommend oral antibiotic therapy for most patients with Lyme disease. The recommended duration of therapy is 10 to 14 days for early Lyme disease, 14 days for Lyme carditis, 14 to 21 days for neurologic Lyme disease, and 28 days for late Lyme arthritis. Retreatment may be indicated for individuals with arthritis who have failed a first course of treatment.

The recommendations are grounded in a rigorous, systematic review of available evidence surrounding prevention, diagnosis and treatment of the disease. The panel adhered to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and strength of recommendations. The guidelines are voluntary and it is up to clinicians to determine which treatments are best for individual patient scenarios. 

Each of the three sponsoring organizations elected a co-chair to lead the guideline panel. A fourth co-chair was selected for their expertise in guideline methodology. A total of 36 panelists comprised the full panel, and the panel also included three patient representatives and one health care consumer representative.

About 30,000 cases of Lyme disease are reported annually, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates there are more than 300,000 cases in the United States each year.

About IDSA

The Infectious Diseases Society of America is a community of over 12,000 physicians, scientists, and public health experts who specialize in infectious diseases. Its purpose is to improve the health of individuals, communities, and society by promoting excellence in patient care, education, research, public health, and prevention relating to infectious diseases. Learn more at https://www.idsociety.org/.

About AAN

The American Academy of Neurology is the world’s largest association of neurologists and neuroscience professionals, with more than 36,000 members. The AAN is dedicated to promoting the highest quality patient-centered neurologic care. Learn more at https://www.aan.com/.

About ACR

The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) is an international medical society representing over 7,700 rheumatologists and rheumatology health professionals with a mission to empower rheumatology professionals to excel in their specialty. In doing so, the ACR offers education, research, advocacy, and practice management support to help its members continue their innovative work and provide quality patient care. Learn more at https://www.rheumatology.org/

Paper here:

https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1215/6010652

___________________

**Comment**

For those of you new to the world of tick-borne illness, please read:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/09/25/why-should-we-care-about-lyme-disease-a-colorful-tale-of-government-conflicts-of-interest-probable-bioweaponization-and-pathogen-complexity/  This article will fill you in on the ugly, sordid back-story of Lyme/MSIDS.  It will educate you on the polarization within the medical community and that your best help will come from Lyme literate doctors trained by ILADS.  They appreciate the complexity of this illness and that it takes numerous anti-microbials for a longer period of time than what the IDSA/CDC state.  

For ILADS 2014 Guidelines:  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1586/14787210.2014.940900

ILADS Lyme 101 Series:  https://www.ilads.org/research-literature/lyme-101-series-at-iladef/

ILADS Basics for Providers:  https://www.ilads.org/research-literature/lyme-disease-basics-for-providers/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/category/lyme-disease-treatment/  Within this link is a link that leads you to an article in Antibiotics on : “Chronic Lyme Disease: An Evidence-Based Definition by the ILADS Working Group“.  It also includes an article utilizing numerous Lyme literate doctors’ clinical experience with treatment.

 

Category:

Lyme, Prevention, research, Testing, Ticks, Treatment