Proof Of A Systemic Racket In Covid19 Testing

By Karl Denninger, The Market Ticker

This article, published in Clinical Infectious Diseases by Oxford Academic, is damning.

It is known, of course, to Fauci, Birx, TNDOH, Vanderbilt, Harvard, Yale and others.  It’s their job to keep on top of such things, and yet there has been exactly zero word said about any of it by any of these organizations or individuals.

RT-PCR testing is what all the breathless case counts are predicated on.  From it we drive all public policy.  We presume these actual case counts are accurate, that they represent the spread of the virus across the population, and that these positive tests represent a minimum number of infected people.

As with most respiratory viruses not everyone who gets one seeks medical attention.  As such a large percentage of flu sufferers and virtually all common cold sufferers, for example, are never picked up by “testing” of any sort because they never go to a doctor.  For this reason any such “testing” paradigm can only put a lower boundary on infections, never an upper one, especially with a virus that in many — or even most — cases does no serious harm.

But what if I told you that in an utterly enormous percentage of cases the test is in fact false?

That is, the screaming headlines of “10 million!” infected Americans might really only be 1 million?

Well, that would change things wouldn’t it?  It would reshape how we think of Covid19.  It would likely make you think that perhaps there’s really no big deal at all because this virus is really not very easy to transmit to other people.  Oh sure, you can give it to other people, but it’s nowhere the “slam dunk” that has been portrayed.

Well we have that here folks.

PCR testing uses a “cycle count” as I described in my last article.  Each “cycle” is a doubling of whatever you had the last time.  At some point if the sample fluoresces it is called positive.  If you run out of cycles first, it is negative.

But what is it positive for?  Not necessarily infectious virus, because the test is incapable of determining that.  Instead the test keys on and amplifies pieces of RNA that are considered to be unique for Covid-19.  So long as those RNA segments really are unique this sounds like a good test in general.

But is it?

Not necessarily.

See, there are pieces of virus, bacteria and molds all around you all the time.  They’re in every breath you take in ordinary air.  They’re in your house.  There is a literal trillion bacteria and viruses in the average deuce you dropped this morning and if you smelled it, some of them got into the air.  They’re why, if you leave bread out it grows mold; the mold spores are all around you all the time, and if you give them a good place to grow then they do grow into a visible colony.  Bacteria are the same; they’re complete organisms, so if you give them a good environment “as they define it” with access to acceptable food and moisture they will multiply.  Viruses, on the other hand, are not complete organisms.  They cannot reproduce without a host cell to invade, as they only contain RNA, not DNA and a nucleus.

Since a PCR test can only tell you whether or not there is RNA from Covid19 present, but not whether there is virus present, in order to abuse that technology to serve as a diagnostic we have to find some means of calibrating the difference.  After all, finding RNA alone does not make you sick.  But, because viruses replicate exponentially and have a very high replication number if we find a lot of virus fragments we can probably infer you might have an active infection.

Is that good enough?  Not really, but without culturing virus its all we got.

Enter the problem:

It can be observed that at Ct = 25, up to 70% of patients remain positive in culture and that at Ct = 30 this value drops to 20%. At Ct = 35, the value we used to report a positive result for PCR, <3% of cultures are positive. Our Ct value of 35, initially based on the results obtained by RT-PCR on control negative samples in our laboratory and initial results of cultures [8], is validated by the results herein presented and is in correlation with what was proposed in Korea [9] and Taiwan [10]. 

Remember that a “Ct” is a doubling.

So if you have a positive at Ct25, where 70% of those positives actually have infectious virus that can be cultured (in other words, they not only are sick they can potentially give the disease to someone else) and take the Ct to 30 you have done:

32 times as large an amplification.

When you do this only one in five samples is infectious; the other four people are not.

In other words, at Ct30 four out of five people you claim have the disease do not have it.  They either had it and have recovered or they never got actively infected at all and what you measured was viral debris.

At Ct35, which is one one thousandth the Ct25 value for detected RNA levels this drops to less than 3%.

In other words if you quarantine people and call them “positive” based on a Ct35 setting 97% of the time you’re wrong; that person has no competent, replicating virus in their system that can be transmitted to other people.

But what’s worse is that virtually all of the testing being done today in America has a Ct40 cutoff.

That’s 1/32,000th the amount of Ct25 in which you still have 30% of the alleged “positives” that in fact are not.

The percentage of persons with actual virus that can be cultured from a Ct40 test is a tiny fraction of 1% — statistically zero.

This does not mean that those people won’t go on to get the virus.  But it means that at the time you tested them and declared they were “infected” you had no scientific basis whatsoever to make that statement.  It is a factually false statement in that more than 99% of the time if you culture that person’s snot you will get no growth.

Since there is zero publication of the Ct numbers at which these samples that are reported as “positive” actually turned positive we have no way to know what the distribution of those positive tests is.  A person who presents at a health care center with atypical flu symptoms characteristic of Covid19, such as fever with loss of taste and/or smell, and who tests positive, likely does indeed have Covid19.  But a person who goes through a drive-through testing center and tests positive, unless the test returns the Ct number in the results which are then reported by stratification when given the public almost-certainly does not have Covid19.

These are both reported as the same thing but they are factually not the same thing.  Someone in a health care setting with symptoms that pops positive at Ct20 almost-certainly indeed has Covid19.  A person with a Ct37 positive and no symptoms at a drive-through test lane or in some “routine” test circumstance (e.g. employment-related) almost-certainly does not have Covid19.

Can we reasonably conclude that someone who is symptomatic with the atypical symptoms of this virus and tests positive is in fact positive?  Sure.  But if we remove all those non-symptomatic or vaguely symptomatic (remember folks, there are a lot of viruses that produce a cough, a mild fever and some lethargy) from the Covid19 alleged “positives” where their Ct numbers were above 30 I’m willing to bet we’d see 90% of the “cases” disappear instantly.

How else does Egypt have a third of our population and 112,000 cases instead of 3 million?  Well, what’s 112,000/.03?  About 3.7 million, times three for the population and wow, man, it looks a lot like us doesn’t it?

And all you have to do is not test asymptomatic people and cut off the Ct at 30.– and you would expect to get Egypt’s numbers.

Japan?  128,000 cases, again, a third of our population.  How did they get their numbers?  The math works the same way doesn’t it?

Isn’t that interesting…. the correlation of two nations, very different governments, different parts of the world….. and a nearly-exact match.

Our “testing” system is set up to produce false positive readings on purpose and, coincidentally, make a hell of a lot of money and scare the living crap out of the population.

Why isn’t Japan having a wild outbreak of the virus?  They did; but they didn’t scare people out of their underwear and turn it into a hundred-billion dollar scam.  We did.

Arithmetic is never wrong folks, but liars do figure, and if you give them an exponential tool by which they can lie to you then they can make a small but material issue into a monster which they then use to scare the living bejeezus out of you.

How do I know that Fauci and the rest know they’re doing this on purpose, and that the entire testing scheme and their claims are nothing more than an extraction racket intended to scare the hell out of you and allow a bunch of people to make a crap-ton of money while committing felony false arrests by the millions?

Simple: Fauci has himself admitted that Ct>35 does not show that the person tested has virus that is “replication competent”.  

“You gotta say it’s dead nucleotides, period.”

In other words you can’t give it to anyone else.

Isn’t “being able to give it to someone else” the definition of an infectious disease?

Those are his own words.  Not someone quoting him, words out of his actual mouth.

Second, if they’re dead nucleotides does that necessarily mean you had live virus in the past?  Not necessarily.  We can distinguish that — past infection from garbage picked up from the environment quite-easily however.  If you were infected then you will have IgG antibodies within about 2 weeks of infection.  Some people argue that we should check IgA, IgM and IgG together; that’s fine, in that presence of any of them shows you were infected (IgG tends to show up last and be present for the longest amount of time.)  But if there are no antibodies then it is presumptive that there was no infection.

So where is our most-esteemed “Doctor” in all of this?  Why hasn’t he demanded that both Ct levels be reported and that Ct>35 be prohibited in the report of “positive” test results?  Why hasn’t the FDA modified their “EUA” for these tests to do so?  Why are we calling an asymptomatic person who tests positive at Ct35 “infected” and quarantining them when scientifically that is only true 3% of the time, or for that matter at Ct30 when you’re only right 20% of the time?  Why is nobody from all these so-called “esteemed” infectious disease colleges and “public health” organs out there raising hell about this and insisting that we stop calling people infectious when they are factually not?

That’s not very hard to figure out, right?

You’d never win a court case were someone to challenge a quarantine with these numbers.  No way, no how.  You might even be hammered with a felony false arrest charge.  There is literally zero legal authority to label anyone infectious when you’re wrong 4 times out of 5 — and that happens at Ct30!  Simply put somewhere between Ct25 and Ct30 there is a reasonable presumption that the person actually is infectious.  Beyond that the claim is, statistically-speaking, a lie.

We have an alleged 4,500 people in our county of 100,000 with a “confirmed and probable” case.  Well, if most cases are asymptomatic or low-symptom especially in younger people (remember, only 3/100,000 people under the age of 20 are killed by this thing) and thus those who get tested only capture about 1 case in 10 then we have 45,000 people who have had the virus, which is 45% of the total.  Add to that another 30%, the low-end estimate for pre-existing T-cell recognition and you have 75% resistance which is above the herd threshold!

Yet we’re not above the herd threshold or we wouldn’t be seeing near-record case rates in our county.

When what is being reported predicated on what you were told cannot be true someone is and has been lying about their reporting.

The motivation is quite-clear.  Presenting high case numbers makes for a lot of fear, doesn’t it?  It enables mask orders to be issued “for health” even though Cochrane Review, a medical group that is the best in the world for retrospective analysis of medical studies, says there is no material evidence that masks do anything at all.  I have their ~300-page odd report here and have read it.

But those lies make the population fearful that this bug is very easy to transmit.

But if that’s true that this bug is so easy to transmit and all those cases are real why is it that our hospitalization rate in this county has remained nearly constant on a 7-day average basis from the first of July, when the county started reporting it, to today?

Yes, cases have gone up and down and currently have risen in this county by a factor of six but the number of them that turn into hospital admissions have not?

You can’t fake a body in a bed or one in a coffin, in short and if the case counts were real since the “Standard of Care” if you supposedly get it is to sit at home and eat chicken soup until you choke if these records were real so would be the hospital admissions on a proportional basis.

In other words the alleged “case counts” are flat-out bull**** and have been for a long time, at least back into the summer.

Simply put this virus rarely hurts anyone.  Yes, sometimes it does hurt people.  Out of 100,000 people in this county it appears it has seriously hurt about 130 of them, and killed 29.  I can believe that; if you get sick enough to go to the hospital one time in four you’re done.  That sucks and is a damn good argument for early intervention which I’ve written on many times — nobody wants to hear that either.

But are all of those alleged cases real?  I’ll bet not, and further, I’ll lay very good odds that if you came in here to this county and ran a 1,000 person random antibody sample with age bracketing that matched our population distribution you would not find the expected 45% seroprevalence either.

Of course they won’t do that even though it’s cheap and easy.  Notice how those surveys have all stopped since about June?

You run those surveys and the lie about the “explosion” of cases goes right in the crapper immediately and all the public health people know it, never mind that anyone who has antibodies has no reason whatsoever to wear a mask, distance from anyone or get a vaccine since the vaccine’s purpose is to induce that which you already have.

We’ve imprisoned millions of Americans through quarantine orders we know are factually false.  That’s felonious and exactly nobody should put up with any of this crap until the deliberate hiding of the data ceases and those who did so originally are all rotting in prison.

Oh, and on masks?  It’s even worse.  As noted above The Cochrane Collaboration people have now done a meta-analysis of all the study workpublished on the 20th of this month.  It’s 300 pages long.  These people are, quite-arguably, the top minds when it comes to meta reviews of medical studies anywhere in the world.  Their finding?  Let me quote them:

There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants).

It gets worse with respect to N95s:

The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate‐certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings.

Stop the bull**** right here, right now.  If trained medical workers using the best protection we have available short of powered respiration equipment such a PAPRs are not protected then neither is anyone else.

There is more evidence for hand hygiene shown, which goes back to what I said all the way in the beginning — moving commercial sinks out of the restrooms would likely make a modest — but real — difference.  The problem with doing so on existing construction is the cost, but mandating same on new construction and major remodels has no cost, and all benefit — even if modest.

The focus must be on early treatment for people suspected of having Covid19; absolutely nobody should be simply sent home with instructions to eat chicken soup.  We have prophylaxis that we know is safe and may work (e.g. quercetin, zinc, melatonin, adequate Vitamin-D and Vitamin C) early interventions that we have every reason to believe work and have near-zero risk (e.g. Ivermectin plus previous), along with reasonable screening (e.g. d-Dimer) to identify people likely to develop serious disease; clotting disorders are something medical science knows how to deal with and has reasonable success doing so — there is an entire set of drugs available for that.  As I said back in March WE MUST KEEP PEOPLE OUT OF THE DAMNED HOSPITAL, NOT TRY TO “RESCUE” THEM ONCE THEY WIND UP THERE.

Karl Denninger