Don't make the REAL AMERICANS angry

1:23:00

Welcome to Search Engine Saturday. Time to have a little search engine challenge. I don't use Googlie myself, so your results may be filtered by the masters of the universe. Maybe they haven't keyed in on these yet. YMMV.

Gentlemen and Ladies; start you search engines.
Pro Tip: Do them in different tabs

Try these searches and skim the results:
"dead viral fragments"
"corona PCR tests"

Just skim the results. Now, let's add a word to the same searches:
"dead viral fragments bombshell"
"corona PCR tests bombshell"

Pop Quiz: Anyone find the article titled:
BOMBSHELL: WHO Coronavirus PCR Test Primer Sequence is Found in All Human DNA

This was important enough that I wanted to get it out immediately. My research into the NCBI database for nucleotide sequences has lead to a stunning discovery. One of the WHO primer sequences in the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is found in all human DNA!

The sequence “CTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT” is an 18-character primer sequence found in the WHO coronavirus PCR testing protocol document. The primer sequences are what get amplified by the PCR process in order to be detected and designated a “positive” test result. It just so happens this exact same 18-character sequence, verbatim, is also found on Homo sapiens chromosome 8! As far as I can tell, this means that the WHO test kits should find a positive result in all humans. Can anyone explain this otherwise?...

Likely you found other articles that mention that 90% of COVID PCR test results are junk.
This might tend to make Real Americans Angry - IMHO

P.S. Anyone find the below article:

BOMBSHELL: Up to 90% of COVID-19 “positive” test results are false, test kits matching dead viral fragments that pose no infection risk

The overwhelming majority of people who supposedly test “positive” for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) are actually virus-free, according to The New York Times.

As it turns out, the PCR tests that millions of scared Americans have been hoodwinked into getting are a sham. They only pick up partial viral fragments rather than whole viruses, and are hardly the “gold standard” that proponents claim they are...

P.S.S One last thought to ponder on this Search Engine Saturday:
Imagine a virus, so dangerous, that you have to take a test to find out if you even have it.

Anyway... Happy Search Engine Saturday to you and yours.

34

Welcome to Search Engine Saturday. Time to have a little search engine challenge. I don't use Googlie myself, so your results may be filtered by the masters of the universe. Maybe they haven't keyed in on these yet. YMMV.

Gentlemen and Ladies; start you search engines.
Pro Tip: Do them in different tabs

Try these searches and skim the results:
"dead viral fragments"
"corona PCR tests"

Just skim the results. Now, let's add a word to the same searches:
"dead viral fragments bombshell"
"corona PCR tests bombshell"

Pop Quiz: Anyone find the article titled:
BOMBSHELL: WHO Coronavirus PCR Test Primer Sequence is Found in All Human DNA

This was important enough that I wanted to get it out immediately. My research into the NCBI database for nucleotide sequences has lead to a stunning discovery. One of the WHO primer sequences in the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is found in all human DNA!

The sequence “CTCCCTTTGTTGTGTTGT” is an 18-character primer sequence found in the WHO coronavirus PCR testing protocol document. The primer sequences are what get amplified by the PCR process in order to be detected and designated a “positive” test result. It just so happens this exact same 18-character sequence, verbatim, is also found on Homo sapiens chromosome 8! As far as I can tell, this means that the WHO test kits should find a positive result in all humans. Can anyone explain this otherwise?...

Likely you found other articles that mention that 90% of COVID PCR test results are junk.
This might tend to make Real Americans Angry - IMHO

P.S. Anyone find the below article:

BOMBSHELL: Up to 90% of COVID-19 “positive” test results are false, test kits matching dead viral fragments that pose no infection risk

The overwhelming majority of people who supposedly test “positive” for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) are actually virus-free, according to The New York Times.

As it turns out, the PCR tests that millions of scared Americans have been hoodwinked into getting are a sham. They only pick up partial viral fragments rather than whole viruses, and are hardly the “gold standard” that proponents claim they are...

P.S.S One last thought to ponder on this Search Engine Saturday:
Imagine a virus, so dangerous, that you have to take a test to find out if you even have it.

Anyway... Happy Search Engine Saturday to you and yours. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

BOMBSHELL: Up to 90% of COVID-19 “positive” test results are false, test kits matching dead viral fragments that pose no infection risk
By Ethan Huff - September 10, 2020

(Natural News) The overwhelming majority of people who supposedly test “positive” for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) are actually virus-free, according to The New York Times.

As it turns out, the PCR tests that millions of scared Americans have been hoodwinked into getting are a sham. They only pick up partial viral fragments rather than whole viruses, and are hardly the “gold standard” that proponents claim they are.

While the Times says that PCR tests are “diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus,” the fact of the matter is that PCR tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who have none of the virus at all.

Testing data from Massachusetts, New York, Nevada, and elsewhere shows that upwards of 90 percent of people who test positive for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) are not actually infected with it.

Since the Times is largely whitewashing the news by suggesting that the so-called pandemic is still serious and worrisome, we can only surmise that even this 90 percent figure is too low. Michael Thau, writing for Red State, agrees.

“[T]he research the Times cites actually suggests that those bogus positive tests they discovered were given to people carrying no virus whatsoever, not just insignificant amounts, as they report,” he explains.

“And [their] upper bound of 90% for bogus positives is likely too low as well.”
Flawed PCR tests have raked in more than $13 billion in corporate profits

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is well aware that false positives are a serious problem, claiming that they are being “mistakenly” reported to public health agencies. But the truth is that the tests themselves are a problem, and that is no mistake.

The entire plandemic has been built upon the lie that millions upon millions of people are testing positive for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) when in reality most of them are healthy people receiving false-positive test results.

These phony PCR tests have also contributed to the misnomer that most supposedly infected patients are “asymptomatic carriers,” which is why they do not appear sick. Again, the reality is that most “positive cases” of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) are completely fictitious figments of the imagination.

“The massive fraud perpetrated on the American people – who were led to believe that PCR testing represents the ‘gold standard’ for detecting COVID-19 infections – must be one of the biggest scams in history,” Thau writes.

It is a fraud that has made some people very rich, however. At $150 a pop, the more than 85 million PCR tests that have been administered just in the U.S since the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) started dominating media headlines has garnered about $13 billion in profits for test kit manufacturers and testing labs.

Meanwhile, the more than seven million Americans who received fake positive test results have presumably been put through hell believing themselves to be carrying the dreaded China Virus. Some of them likely suffered depression, while others faced job loss, isolation or simply fear and worry that possibly led to other health problems.

Amazingly, the Times is barely reporting any of this, at least not with the same type of rigor that it previously reported on PCR tests being the alleged “gold standard” for Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) testing.

“Now it is time for massive class action lawsuits … against big pharma for that scooped up $13 billion and … the soon to be approved fake annual vaccines,” wrote one Red State commenter.

“As in all things, if you want to find the truth, follow the money.”

searched it thru google.
looks like they knew about in april 2020. south koreans were the first to find it.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...-positive-test

now, I wanna see what the fishwrap of record has to say about it.


Dead coronavirus fragments likely caused positive test results in recovered South Koreans, officials say
By Justine Coleman - 04/30/20 01:51 PM EDT

Dead coronavirus fragments likely caused positive test results in recovered South Koreans, officials say
© Getty Images

South Korean infectious disease experts suspect that dead coronavirus fragments likely caused recovered patients to test positive for the coronavirus, they announced Thursday.

Oh Myoung-don, who heads the central clinical committee for emerging disease control, said the committee did not find evidence that the recovered patients became reinfected, The Korea Herald reported.

Health professionals around the world worried when South Korea reported earlier this month that patients who had recovered from the virus days and weeks ago had tested positive another time. If people could be reinfected, it would make fighting the virus worldwide all the more difficult.

As of Sunday, 263 people in South Korea tested positive after being considered cleared from the virus, 17 of whom were minors, according to the Herald.

“The tests detected the ribonucleic acid of the dead virus,” Oh said in a Thursday press conference.

The polymerase chain reaction tests used to detect COVID-19 amplifies the genetic material of the virus but cannot distinguish between living or dead virus cells, leading to false positives. Oh said it could take months before the dead virus cells leave a person’s body system.

The Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that recovered patients who tested positive seemed to have little or no contagiousness, according to the Herald.

The reports of reinfections sparked concerns that the country would see a resurgence in coronavirus cases after seemingly flattening the curve. South Korea has seen about 10 new cases every day for 11 days, including nine on Wednesday.

The country has documented 10,765 infections, leading to 247 deaths, according to Johns Hopkins University’s data.

fish wrap of record. NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/h...s-testing.html

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.

The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.
Tests authorized by the F.D.A. provide only a yes-no answer to infection, and will identify as positive patients with low amounts of virus in their bodies.

By Apoorva Mandavilli

Published Aug. 29, 2020 Updated Sept. 9, 2020

Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.

Most of these people are not likely to be contagious, and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those who are contagious from being found in time. But researchers say the solution is not to test less, or to skip testing people without symptoms, as recently suggested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Instead, new data underscore the need for more widespread use of rapid tests, even if they are less sensitive.

“The decision not to test asymptomatic people is just really backward,” said Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, referring to the C.D.C. recommendation.

“In fact, we should be ramping up testing of all different people,” he said, “but we have to do it through whole different mechanisms.”

In what may be a step in this direction, the Trump administration announced on Thursday that it would purchase 150 million rapid tests.

The most widely used diagnostic test for the new coronavirus, called a PCR test, provides a simple yes-no answer to the question of whether a patient is infected.

But similar PCR tests for other viruses do offer some sense of how contagious an infected patient may be: The results may include a rough estimate of the amount of virus in the patient’s body.

“We’ve been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus — that’s all,” Dr. Mina said. “We’re using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making.”

But yes-no isn’t good enough, he added. It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient’s next steps. “It’s really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,” Dr. Mina said.

The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.

This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.

In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.

On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.

One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.

Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.

A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on.

The Food and Drug Administration said in an emailed statement that it does not specify the cycle threshold ranges used to determine who is positive, and that “commercial manufacturers and laboratories set their own.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it is examining the use of cycle threshold measures “for policy decisions.” The agency said it would need to collaborate with the F.D.A. and with device manufacturers to ensure the measures “can be used properly and with assurance that we know what they mean.”

The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing organizations.

For example, North Carolina’s state lab uses the Thermo Fisher coronavirus test, which automatically classifies results based on a cutoff of 37 cycles. A spokeswoman for the lab said testers did not have access to the precise numbers.

This amounts to an enormous missed opportunity to learn more about the disease, some experts said.

“It’s just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the C.T. values from all these tests — that they’re just returning a positive or a negative,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York.

“It would be useful information to know if somebody’s positive, whether they have a high viral load or a low viral load,” she added.

Officials at the Wadsworth Center, New York’s state lab, have access to C.T. values from tests they have processed, and analyzed their numbers at The Times’s request. In July, the lab identified 872 positive tests, based on a threshold of 40 cycles.

With a cutoff of 35, about 43 percent of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 63 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30.

In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said.

Other experts informed of these numbers were stunned.

“I’m really shocked that it could be that high — the proportion of people with high C.T. value results,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. “Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing.”

Dr. Jha said he had thought of the PCR test as a problem because it cannot scale to the volume, frequency or speed of tests needed. “But what I am realizing is that a really substantial part of the problem is that we’re not even testing the people who we need to be testing,” he said.

The number of people with positive results who aren’t infectious is particularly concerning, said Scott Becker, executive director of the Association of Public Health Laboratories. “That worries me a lot, just because it’s so high,” he said, adding that the organization intended to meet with Dr. Mina to discuss the issue.

The F.D.A. noted that people may have a low viral load when they are newly infected. A test with less sensitivity would miss these infections.

But that problem is easily solved, Dr. Mina said: “Test them again, six hours later or 15 hours later or whatever,” he said. A rapid test would find these patients quickly, even if it were less sensitive, because their viral loads would quickly rise.

PCR tests still have a role, he and other experts said. For example, their sensitivity is an asset when identifying newly infected people to enroll in clinical trials of drugs.

But with 20 percent or more of people testing positive for the virus in some parts of the country, Dr. Mina and other researchers are questioning the use of PCR tests as a frontline diagnostic tool.

People infected with the virus are most infectious from a day or two before symptoms appear till about five days after. But at the current testing rates, “you’re not going to be doing it frequently enough to have any chance of really capturing somebody in that window,” Dr. Mina added.

Highly sensitive PCR tests seemed like the best option for tracking the coronavirus at the start of the pandemic. But for the outbreaks raging now, he said, what’s needed are coronavirus tests that are fast, cheap and abundant enough to frequently test everyone who needs it — even if the tests are less sensitive.

“It might not catch every last one of the transmitting people, but it sure will catch the most transmissible people, including the superspreaders,” Dr. Mina said. “That alone would drive epidemics practically to zero.”

Flat billers telling the truth. Start the video at 8:00 minutes. 1:30

47

fish wrap of record. NYT

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/h...s-testing.html

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.... Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Interesting how 3 little words yields so much information. Eh?

A documentary that explores the connection between income tax collection and the erosion of civil liberties in America.
America: Freedom to Fascism is a 2006 film by Aaron Russo, which alleges among a variety of claims that income tax is illegal.

From 2006 too today... 1:48:00

54

White House official Ja’Ron Smith grew up in a low-income family in Cleveland, Ohio. His father shoveled snow and paved roads, while his mother worked at a gas station after struggling for years from an opioid addiction.

Now Smith is Deputy Assistant to President Trump. And he sees himself as a voice for the kids he grew up with—kids whose life trajectories turned out very different from his own.

Smith has played a key role in advising President Trump on policies to help low-income communities, including opportunity zones, school choice, criminal justice and police reform, and increasing aid to America’s historically black colleges and universities. 31

White House official Ja’Ron Smith grew up in a low-income family in Cleveland, Ohio. His father shoveled snow and paved roads, while his mother worked at a gas station after struggling for years from an opioid addiction.

Now Smith is Deputy Assistant to President Trump. And he sees himself as a voice for the kids he grew up with—kids whose life trajectories turned out very different from his own.

Smith has played a key role in advising President Trump on policies to help low-income communities, including opportunity zones, school choice, criminal justice and police reform, and increasing aid to America’s historically black colleges and universities. 31

Originally Posted by Redhot1960

nice find on ja'ron smith. didn't know there was another black official advising trump.

Watch the old clip of President Donald J Trump at the end! 54