Queen’s Counsel (hon.) Nominee, Barrister (Brussels), Chartered Journalist, Associate Member, Royal Society of Medicine
Introduction
This article reviews the science behind the testing for Covid19 and concludes from the evidence, that its purpose is essentially and unequivocally a fraud upon humanity of the most unbecoming kind.
Covid19 Testing and Chromosome 8
To understand the rationale for Covid19 testing, one needs to understand what chromosomes are generally and in particular, what Chromosome 8’s function is.
Basically, a chromosome is a category of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecule which contains part or all of the genetic material (genome) of a living thing, or organism.
Chromosome 8 (“C8”) is an important one in the human body. It encompasses around 146 million base pairs – DNA building materials – and is representative of around 5.0% of our cellular DNA. About 8% of C8’s genes are involved in brain development and function, and about 16% are involved in cancer. When C8 is deleted, or altered, typically we become prone to cancers as well as severe brain impairment. The list of serious ailments following C8 damage, alteration, or deletion follows:-
PCR Testing & Covid19
The PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test for Covid19, as endorsed by the World Health Organisation (“WHO”), serves to discover parts of the Covid19 virus rather than the presence of the body’s immune response. Essentially the test seeks to detect the genetic information of the virus, the RNA, which are thought to be there only if the virus is present and there is an active infection.
Interestingly enough, WHO’s Test Document for PCR specifies an 18 character primer sequence – CTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT – as the protocol for testing positive for Covid19.
It follows that any efficient Covid19 vaccine must serve to either delete C8 (as the coronavirus), or substantially suppress it. However, doing both, or either, will certainly result in the death, or severe mental and physical impairment of those who take it.
Definition of Genocide
Genocide is unlawful. It is defined as the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.
By British law and the international treaties on human rights that Britain has signed up to, everyone in Britain has a “right to life”. As such, it cannot be clearer that for the government to authorise the use of the PCR test for Covid19 which produces a positive response only when the testee is healthy with functioning C8 DNA and to promote for use a vaccine that will destroy the very parts of the testee’s DNA (C8) that make them healthy and free from cancer and neurological diseases that will kill them, is nothing short of genocide in action and unlawful activity.
What you can do now
1) do your own research on the PCR test for Covid19 and the contents and purpose of any Covid-19 vaccine you may be required to take;
2) As your research will come to the same conclusions that the evidence produced above support, write to your political representative and ask for explanations;
2) If you do decide to take the vaccine, before you do, require full personal indemnity for damage to you, or your children from those that seek to impose the vaccination directly, or indirectly (includes by duress);
3) Speak to others who have the same concerns as you do and together, consult a human rights lawyer. V10HR – a human rights legal service of which I am a member, will be happy to advise in that regard.
I asked Dr. Rasnick what advice he has for people who want to be tested for COVID-19.
“DON’T DO IT, I SAY, WHEN PEOPLE ASK ME,” HE REPLIES. “NO HEALTHY PERSON SHOULD BE TESTED. IT MEANS NOTHING BUT IT CAN DESTROY YOUR LIFE, MAKE YOU ABSOLUTELY MISERABLE.”
Within this article is a systematic review of 14 studies that found that viral RNA can be detected long after the disappearance of the infectious virus.In other words, the test is picking up RNA material but the patient isn’t infected any more. The authors point out that this material can linger for weeks in the body.
And the most important point:
IF THIS IS NOT UNDERSTOOD, PCR RESULTS MAY LEAD TO RESTRICTIONS FOR LARGE GROUPS OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT PRESENT AN INFECTION RISK.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING. I’ve known people to be held in the hospital because they continue to test positive even though they have ZERO symptoms.
Once individuals have been tested, they’ll be required to continue on to either end of the H-3 before using alternate Koolau routes, if necessary, to continue in transit.
“We’re all working together for the health and safety of our whole community. Use of the H-3 will provide space to allow as many people as possible to be tested.” Hawaii Gov. David Ige
Faulty testing is being used to take our freedoms away, clear and simple. Governors don’t seem to care about accuracy.
SUCCESSFUL TREATMENT FOR LYME ARTHRITIS AFTER KNEE SURGERY
This published case report by Wright and colleagues features what the authors believe is the “first patient with late Borrelia burgdorferi sensu stricto arthritis-related prosthetic joint infection. They suggest “the case highlights how early, prompt diagnosis and adequate antimicrobial therapy may obviate the need for additional aggressive orthopedic surgical intervention.”
Doctors described a 67-year-old avid outdoorsman who received treatment for Lyme arthritis after having had knee surgery. Ten months earlier, the man had received a partial knee replacement for his left knee due to advanced single compartment degenerative arthritis.
Over a 3-month-period, the man developed progressive left knee pain and swelling. He later presented with a moderate joint effusion but did not have an erythema migrans rash, warmth, instability, or significant pain with range of motion.
There was no history of a tick bite or trauma to the knee nor was there evidence of joint effusion, infection, or Baker’s cyst.
Aspiration of his knee revealed turbid purulent pleocytosis with 91.8% neutrophils, elevated C-reactive protein, and a positive Borrelia burgdorferi polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
Serologic tests were positive for an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive 0.7, and a positive B. burgdorferi antibody enzyme immunoassay (EIA) test and 10 of 10 immunoglobulin G (IgG) Western blot bands were reactive.
Lyme arthritis diagnosis
Based on the detection of B. burgdorferi sensu stricto DNA by PCR, clinicians diagnosed the man Lyme arthritis, a particular type of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).
The diagnosis was based on criteria established by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society and the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA).
“Although there was no communicating sinus tract or direct result from traditional microbiological culture, our patient met these criterion for PJI based upon elevated synovial fluid leukocyte count (>3000 cell/µL), elevated synovial neutrophil count (>65%), purulence, and evidence of a microorganism with identification to the level of genus and species,” according to Wright and colleagues from the Division of Infectious Disease, Department of Medicine, Memorial Medical Center in York, Pennsylvania.
The authors summarized their concern over the seriousness of a PJI. “Periprosthetic joint infection is a devastating complication following joint arthroplasty that causes significant morbidity with an estimated cumulative incidence of 1% – 2% for both hips and knees,” the authors write.
IDSA treatment guidelines not applicable
Wright and colleagues concluded that the IDSA recommendations were not applicable to this patient. They cited two guidelines that would have limited the types of treatment to oral antibiotics and duration to no more than four weeks. These included:
“Late Lyme arthritis can usually be treated successfully with antimicrobial agents administered orally (e.g., doxycycline, amoxicillin, or cefuroxime) for 28 days in adult patients without evidence of neurologic disease.”
“Previous studies have also been published demonstrating the efficacy of once-daily ceftriaxone (2 gram dose) for 14 or 28 days in the treatment of late Lyme disease.”
Successful treatment with antibiotics
The 67-year-old man received treatment for Lyme arthritis which included antibiotics rather than undergoing surgical incision and drainage or excision arthroplasty. Twice daily, 100 mg of oral doxycycline was initiated empirically for a week until testing confirmed the diagnosis. The treatment was converted to a six-week course of daily intravenous 2 grams of ceftriaxone.
The antibiotic treatment for Lyme arthritis was successful.
“Clinically, the patient had cessation of his knee pain, resolution of joint effusion, normalization of synovial infection and inflammatory parameters, and negative end-of-therapy detection of B. burgdorferi DNA by PCR,” according to Wright.
However, the authors cautioned that their strategy of prolonged intravenous antibiotics might not be effective in other types of joint arthroplasties.
“Although this patient’s clinical outcome was achieved without the need for surgical incision and drainage or staged excision arthroplasty procedure, it is unclear whether this same strategy would produce similar results in patients with other types of joint arthroplasties,”
Are there any other cases of arthroplasties that might be prevented by antibiotic therapy? More than 82,660 patients underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA) across the Medicare and United Health Care populations from 2009 to 2011 at a cost exceeding $10 billion per year. [2]
Authors’ Conclusion
“This case highlights how early prompt diagnosis and adequate antimicrobial therapy may obviate the need for additional aggressive orthopedic surgical intervention,” stressed Wright.
“This case also highlights the value of an aggressive need to further investigate and interpret unexpected findings in clinical practice.”
Wright WF, Oliverio JA. First Case of Lyme Arthritis Involving a Prosthetic Knee Joint. Open Forum Infect Dis, 3(2), ofw096 (2016).
Cohen JR, Bradley AT, Lieberman JR. Preoperative Interventions and Charges Before Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty, (2016).
Fallon BA, Keilp JG, Corbera KM et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of repeated IV antibiotic therapy for Lyme encephalopathy. Neurology, 70(13), 992-1003 (2008).
Cameron DJ. Consequences of treatment delay in Lyme disease. J Eval Clin Pract, 13(3), 470-472 (2007)
____________________
**Comment**
I wish there were more doctors questioning and overriding the extremely limited CDC Lyme “Guidelines” as they are inadequate for nearly everyone – unless it’s an acute case.
by Timothy J. Sellati, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Officer, Global Lyme Alliance
An early and accurate test result is critical to effectively treat most diseases. Especially Lyme disease. The earlier one is diagnosed and treated, the better the odds are for recovery. Unfortunately, current Lyme disease diagnostics are highly inaccurate for early diagnosis, having a direct negative impact on patients’ health.
The most common means of laboratory diagnosis of Lyme disease is an indirect test that detects the immune response (antibodies) triggered by the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease. The current standard two-tiered test (STTT) relies on a first-tier enzyme immunoassay (EIS), that is relatively sensitive but not extremely specific. If positive or equivocal the EIA is followed by a second-tier Western immunoblot assay, that shows improved specificity. Shortcomings associated with the STTT include missing as much as 60% of early Lyme cases due to no or low antibodies levels during the first few weeks of infection. Moreover, the second-tier assay is technically difficult and time-consuming to perform and the results are prone to subjective interpretation resulting in both false negative and false positive results. Beyond the tests’ limitations, detection of antibodies as a basis for diagnosis is confounded by the fact some patients may not produce antibodies against B. burgdorferi, while others will start and then stop producing them, and still others will continue to produce antibodies long after treatment and treatment/cure and resolution of symptoms.
As part of our mission to conquer Lyme disease, in 2017 Global Lyme Alliance was responsible for a report that publicly addressed the limitations of current two-tiered tests while simultaneously seeing the real potential of newer technologies to overcome many of the limitations. This finding supports GLA’s ongoing work with top researchers to develop a more accurate diagnostic test that will better serve patients and the community.
Also in 2017, GLA partnered with Ionica Sciences, a startup diagnostics company based at Cornell University’s McGovern Center life sciences incubator in Ithaca, New York, to accelerate the development of a highly sensitive direct Lyme disease diagnostic test. Called IonLymeTM, this novel testing strategy recognizes a specific bacterial protein [Outer surface protein A (OspA)] shed in minute quantities by B. burgdorferi into the bloodstream during early infection rather than waiting weeks for antibodies to be produced. OspA is thought to only be in the blood during active infection. So, IonLyme not only detects early Lyme disease much better than current solutions, it also allows testing for reinfection, and can help to determine if a person is cured of active Lyme disease.
While still in the validation phase of development Ionica Sciences has made a significant advance by demonstrating excellent diagnostic accuracy with IonLymeTM using biobanked blood samples. Currently, the assay generates statistically significant results with >90% clinical sensitivity and >95% clinical specificity. Thus, while other companies have made important strides in developing modified two-tiered tests (MTTTs), that rely on two EIAs rather than an EIA and Western immunoblot, which show increased sensitivity in diagnosing early Lyme disease, their approach is still limited by their focus on measuring antibody responses.
GLA is a strong believer that the more minds that work toward a goal, the better. Partnerships like we have with Ionica will speed the delivery of the tools and resources that will help patients, from diagnostics to treatment. If you are interested in supporting Ionica’s current endeavor and want to participate in their current fundraising campaign, click here.
Testing has been problematic from the beginning, leaving thousands upon thousands undiagnosed or misdiagnosed.
Please notice a few things: they state here that OspA is “thought” to only be in the blood stream during active infection. So, this is an unknown that I’m sure mainstream medicine will point out. Secondly, I’m not aware of what stage patients are included in the biobanked blood samples.
In other words, while this is a test for acute infection (early), what stage of patients’ blood are they using for validation?
And lastly, while we desperately need accurate tests so people can get diagnosed promptly and then receive prompt treatment, this will NOT include any coinfections present and of course completely leaves out the huge subset of patients that are chronically experiencing symptoms – which also needs testing to prove their condition so they too can receive appropriate treatment.
International Pharmaceuticals Expert Exposes Pandemic Fakery!
Published on
Written by John O’Sullivan
In a scathing assessment of governmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic a respected former pharmaceutical assessor for Health Canada condemns systemic “lies”about antibody testing which, he says, “lacks scientific validity.”
Saeed Qureshi, Ph.D. is a top pharmaceuticals expert with over 30 years in the industry. He conducted hands-on and multi-disciplinary laboratory research for regulatory assessment purposes while working with Health Canada.
Heaping particular criticism on the FDA approved under Emergency Use Authorization or EUA, Dr Qureshi condemns the testing kits widely used as ineffective and “such tests should be avoided in making predictions or projections about the infection and its spread. It certainly is a false science.”
We cite sections of Dr Qureshi’s findings below:
“Considering the statements below, from a randomly selected fact sheet FDA approved under Emergency Use Authorization or EUA, the current antibody testing lacks scientific validity. This is really sad that such tests [kits] are being promoted or used to establish COVID-19 [1]. As noted below the test monitors protein levels commonly known as [IgM, IgA and IgG] not specifically COVID-19. Logically data obtained from such tests should be avoided in making predictions or projections about the infection and its spread. It certainly is a false science.
“A positive result with VITROS Immunodiagnostic Products Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total Reagent Pack test may not mean that an individual’s current symptoms are due to COVID-19 infection.”
2. “However, a negative result does not rule out COVID-19.”
3. “The absolute sensitivity of the VITROS Immunodiagnostic Products Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Total Reagent Pack test is unknown.”
4. FDA statement [2] “This limits the test’s effectiveness for diagnosing COVID-19 and why it should not be used as the sole basis to diagnose COVID-19.”
In addition, if vaccines would be developed based on such antibody tests, which does not appear to be sufficiently validated as noted above, then how reliable and valid vaccines would be? Please be cautious with claims in this regard.
Do FDA and USP lie? Of course, all the time!
For example:
FDA claims that it establishes and monitors quality of pharmaceutical products such as tablet and capsule. A lie – FDA neither defines quality of the products nor its measurable parameter hence it does not, or cannot, determine quality of the products.
FDA claims that it establishes safety and efficacy (as well as quality) of pharmaceutical products using valid clinical testing (e.g. bioequivalence assessment) and in vitro (drug dissolution) testing using USP apparatuses. A lie – these tests, along with associated testers, have never been validated for the intended purpose. In fact, these tests have been shown to be scientifically invalid and irrelevant for their intended purpose.
USP claims that it provides reference standards for establishing quality of the pharmaceutical products such as tablets and capsules. A lie – USP never provides reference standards for any product. It provides powder or liquid samples of pure chemical compounds, not the products which patients use, however falsely promotes as reference standards of medicines.
USP claims that it provides a valid analytical test for the assessment drug release characteristics of the products for establishing and monitoring quality of the products. A lie – the test has never been validated for the intended purpose. The test cannot determine drug dissolution/release characteristics of any product. It has been shown experimentally that the test provides irrelevant and highly unpredictable results/data with no relevance to product quality.
For more examples please visit here. Manufacturers and patients should be cautious in accepting such claims from FDA and USP as well as other national and international authorities which often follow FDA/USP claims and guidances.
Please consider accepting the Citizen Petition (under review with FDA for more than a year and a half, link) for addressing the underlying lies concerning products development, manufacturing and their regulatory approval.
Can we say?
Flu came and gone!
Why it was called a pandemic – not clear
Discredited the bench top science – as disease state monitored with charts and their shapes (humpy or dumpy) with protocol/testing developed on the fly
Discredited the medicines approval system with the approval of medicines without requiring established protocols
Treatments could be suggested and implemented without having knowledge or expertise in the area of medicine.
Exposed the great weakness, perhaps more accurately ignorance, of “science” at the authorities!
The unfortunate situation created by this Coronavirus pandemic is providing a serious opportunity for reassessing the current regulatory approaches in pharmaceutical products development as well as their manufacturing so that in future such irrelevant discussion can be avoided and patients can have access to modern and multiple options to treat ailments. Hopefully in the future patients will be treated with well-established products rather than products developed on the fly or with the use of disposable gowns, masks, washing hands and/or staying home policy which certainly are not the treatments – patients expect and deserve something better from us as scientists, physicians and regulators. Follow the link for complete article (link)
(2) Authorities (including FDA) and pharmacopeias (including USP) never establish quality of products!
Reasons:
(1) They do not define quality of the products, hence it cannot be measured and/or established (link).
(2) Suggested methods and procedures lack scientifically relevancy and validity (link)
(3) GMP practices, including inspections, are about operation of manufacturing not per se reflection of products quality (link).
(3) Is Coronavirus really causing abnormally higher number of deaths?
Mortality in the United States, 2018 (as of January 2020, link).
“The age-adjusted death rate decreased by 1.1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} from 731.9 deaths per 100,000 standard population in 2017 to 723.6 in 2018.” i.e. death rate is about 0.7236{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}
For the USA, having population of 331 million (link), normal/standard death (attrition) rate should be 199,593 deaths/month. Now compare this number with the reported number of deaths caused by Coronavirus pandemic, which are 21,435 in about a month’s time as of April 12, 2020 (link) which is far less than normal/standard death (attrition) rate.
The death rate, therefore, does not appear to support the thesis that the pandemic is killing people with abnormally high numbers.
About the author: Dr. Qureshi gained extensive (30+ year) experience in conducting hands-on and multi-disciplinary laboratory research in pharmaceutical areas for regulatory assessment purposes while working with Health Canada.
He is an internationally recognised expert in the areas of pharmacokinetics, biopharmaceutics, drug dissolution testing, analytical chemistry as related to characterization of pharmaceuticals, in particular, based on in vitro (dissolution) and bioavailability/bioequivalence (humans and animals) assessments.
At present, Dr. Qureshi provides teaching, training and consulting services, in the area of his expertise as noted above, for improved pharmaceutical products development and assessments. Dr. Qureshi can be reached by email (principal@pharmacomechanics.com) or Tel (+1 613 797 9815)
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Covid-19 Patients No Longer Need Tests to End Isolation
Under new guidelines from the C.D.C., recovering coronavirus patients should be free to resume normal activity after 10 days, if they have no fever or other symptoms.
Coronavirus testing delays of up to two weeks persist in parts of the country.Credit…Max Whittaker for The New York Times
Most Americans recovering from Covid-19 can come out of isolation without further testing to show they no longer carry the coronavirus, federal health officials said on Wednesday.
Instead, patients may be judged to have recovered if 10 days have passed since they first felt ill; they no longer have any symptoms, such as shortness of breath or diarrhea; and they have not had a fever for 24 hours without taking fever-reducing medicine.
The new recommendations are not rules but guidelines intended for patients, doctors and health policymakers. The revisions should help relieve the burden on the country’s testing system, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said. (See link for article)
____________________
**Comment**
Ha ha, ha…..yeah right.…Lyme/MSIDS patients know all about “guidelines” that rule the land like the Iron Curtain.
Madison Area Lyme Support Group 