Some of the reasons to question covid-19 prevalence

Excerpts from UK Column article COVID-19 — Everything And Nothing by Iain Davis Monday, 5.10.2020

disease has three unique features:

  • There is an established biological cause behind the condition.
  • A defined group of symptoms exists, characterising the disease.
  • A consistent change in anatomy, due to the disease, can be observed.

COVID-19 – Initial Reasons To Question Its Prevalence?

The WHO definition for a COVID-19 confirmed case (as opposed to a probable case as discussed above) is:

A person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms.

A confirmed case relies solely upon the WHO’s Laboratory testing guidance. It doesn’t matter if you have any symptoms or not. The Laboratory guidance states:

The etiologic agent [causation for the disease] responsible for the cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan has been identified as a novel betacoronavirus, (in the same family as SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV).

To be clear about the WHO’s claim: they are firmly stating that SARS-CoV-2 causes the disease of COVID-19. This is crucial to the definition of any disease as it must have an established biological cause.

The WHO criteria for a confirmed case also infers that the detected presence of SARS-CoV-2, regardless of viral load, proves that the tested individual has COVID-19. For the WHO, and western democratic governments, an RT-PCR test is the ultimate diagnosis of COVID-19.

There appears to be a rudimentary error in the WHO’s definition of a COVID-19. It assumes that the detection of SARS-CoV-2 equates to the diagnosis of COVID-19. This is not true. Yet governments too have ostensibly accepted this false premise.

When the virus was first discovered it was called 2019-nCoV and was subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-2 by the WHO. In the WHO’s Novel Coronavirus 2019-nCov Situation Report 1, they stated:

The Chinese authorities identified a new type of coronavirus, which was isolated on 7 January 2020……On 12 January 2020, China shared the genetic sequence of the novel coronavirus for countries to use in developing specific diagnostic kits.

Again, clarity is important. The WHO unequivocally state the virus was isolated.

MN908947.1 was the first full SARS-CoV-2 genome published by the Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, working in collaboration with the Shanghai Public Health Clinical Centre. This reported genome has been updated many times.

This was the first scientific description of the etiologic agent (SARS-CoV-2). It is the basis for all subsequent genetic sequences and all tests are calibrated to it. In their paper discussing the possible origins of what we now call SARS-CoV-2, the scientists from the Wuhan CDC explained what their claim of isolating the virus meant.

They took blood and skin cell samples (swab tests) from seven suspected COVID-19 patients, living in Wuhan.

After filtering out the human genome, 5 of these samples then underwent metagenomic analysis using next-generation sequencing (NGS). They found an 87.1% match with known SARS coronavirus. From these they used targeted PCR (more on this shortly) and isolated nearly 30,000 base pairs CoV genome that shared 79.6% sequence identity to known SARS-CoV.

The Wuhan researchers stated:

The culture supernatant was examined for the presence of virus by qRT-PCR methods developed in this study…..For qPCR analysis, primers based on the S gene of 2019-nCoV were designed…..Amplification was performed as follows: 50 °C for 3 min, 95 °C for 30 s followed by 40 cycles consisting of 95 °C for 10 s and 60 °C for 30 s.

SARS-CoV-2 is a positive strand RNA virus. They only posses RNA (ribonucleic acid) but, in order to assemble (sequence) the genetic code, the trace fragments of RNA need to be amplified many times using cycles of Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). However, PCR can only amplify DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). So the RNA is first transcribed, using a viral enzyme known as reverse transcriptase (RT), effectively reversing normal cellular transcription. The transcription of the RNA produces cDNA (complimentary DNA) which can then be amplified using PCR.

The Chinese team amplified the cDNA through 40 qPCR cycles. While this is quite normal for qPCR experiments, in doing so they also amplified all dilution errors. That is, they amplified all contaminants too. According to the MIQE standards for qPCR, 40 cycles is the absolute limit of reliability and anything above 35 cycles would indicate that the quantity of the target RNA cannot be known.

The inventor of PCR Karry Mullis, speaking about the use of qPCR to detect HIV, another retrovirus, stated:

Quantitative PCR [qPCR)] is an oxymoron.’ PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers (viral load) … These tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all … The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.

Writing for the Infectious Diseases Society of America, researchers considered the minimum cycle threshold (Ct or Cq) for effectively identifying the presence of SARS-CoV-2. They found that anything above 34 cycles would indicate that the test subject did not have any “meaningful or transmissible disease.” The WHO’s standard for RT-PCR to identify alleged COVID-19 “cases”recommends 50 cycles of amplification.

SARS-CoV-2 was isolated based upon the sequencing of an unknown quantity of viral RNA segments from in 5 patients. Because the quantity of the RNA was unknown, there was no indication that the sequenced RNA fragments caused any illness in the 5 test subjects.

A causal link between SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 disease was not established in the RT-qPCR experiment which is the foundation of all subsequent tests and claims. Nor is the link between viral load and the subsequent onset of COVID-19 clearly understood.

While the SARS-CoV-2 genome may have been sequenced, given a Ct of 40 cycles, there is poor evidence that it commonly causes a “meaningful or transmissible disease.” Nor does the WHO’s recommended practice of 50 cycles of PCR, commonly used to determine COVID-19 cases, allow for any identification of any transmissible disease.

The established biological cause of COVID-19 was proven, but the frequency with which it causes disease was not. RT-PCR tests used to identify SARS-CoV-2 do not evidence the presence of COVID 19 and tell us little about its prevalence. The WHO’s assertion that they do is false.

COVID-19 – Further Reason To Question Its Prevalence

The viral isolation of 2019-nCoV (SARS-CoV-2) does not mean “isolated” in the accepted etymological sense, which is:

Chemistry Biology: – Obtain or extract (a compound, microorganism, etc.) in a pure form……Biology – A culture of microorganisms isolated for study.

Instead researchers have provided electron-microscope images of something they claim to be SARS-CoV-2 virions. However, these protein structures are not unique in their appearance. Other intracellular groups of round vesicles, such as endocytic vesicles and exosomes, look the same.

Furthermore, while RT-PCR is extremely sensitive to possible detection of RNA, it does not identify where those fragments originated. Even if images of alleged virions are as described, it doesn’t mean the sequenced RNA came from them.

When German investigative journalists Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter asked a number of scientists, who had published images of alleged virions, to confirm that these showed the isolated, purified, SARS-CoV-2 virus, none of them could. RT-qPCR (and RT-PCR) allows only for the sequencing of RNA. This alone does not prove causation of any claimed, subsequent disease.

Numerous claims by scientists, that they have isolated the virus, are not what they seem. Like the word “case,” bandied about the MSM, the word “isolated,”in the mouths of some scientists, is not being used as most of us would understand it.

For example, in Australia in January 2020 Dr Mike Catton and Dr Julian Druse, representing the Doherty Institute, announced that they had isolated the SARS-CoV-2 virus. When asked to clarify Dr Druse said:

We have short (RNA) sequences from the diagnostic test that can be used in the diagnostic tests….it’s an exact match to the sequences from China….it tells you that your test method is spot on.

And Dr Catton added:

In answer to your question – what’s the virus doing – the segments are too short to shed light on the properties of the virus.

In other words, the properties of the virus are not evident from either the RNA sequencing nor the electron-microscope imagery. The Australian team had calibrated their tests to the most recent update of MN908947.1 and had sequenced corresponding RNA fragments. They had confirmed a test for the presence of a virus. They had not isolated the virus itself nor demonstrated that it commonly caused a disease.

This explains why the Australian government state:

The reliability of COVID-19 tests is uncertain due to the limited evidence base…The extent to which a positive PCR result correlates with the infectious state of an individual is still being determined….. There is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests.

The Australian government are not alone in being unable to verify the accuracy of their own tests. Neither, it seems, can any other government. Nor can any demonstrate that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated, purified and can be proven to commonly cause COVID-19.

Canadian researcher Christine Massey made a freedom of information request, asking the Canadian government a simple question. She asked if they could provide her with their records of the isolation of a SARS-COV-2 virus.

She requested that this be from a sample taken from a diseased patient, where the sample was not first combined with any other source of genetic material. To which the Canadian government replied:

Having completed a thorough search, we regret to inform you that we were unable to locate any records responsive to your request.

When UK researcher Andrew Johnson asked Public Health England (PHE) the same question they responded:

PHE can confirm it does not hold information in the way suggested by your request.

Similarly in the U.S. the Centre For Disease Control (CDC) RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel state:

…No quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available……..Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.

The CDC diagnostic panel last updated their guidance on 13th July 2020. Therefore, as of that date, there were no SARS-CoV-2 isolates. There has been no subsequent update. This indicates that, as yet, no pure viral sample has ever been obtained from any patient said to have the disease of COVID-19.

COVID-19 – Everything and Nothing

To diagnose a disease it must also be possible to observe consistent, resultant changes in anatomy. Once more, these observed changes are not unique to COVID-19. […]

By piotrbein