Читать книгу The Corona Lie - unmasked - Hermann von Bering - Страница 9

The PCR test is completely unsuitable for virus detection and is not approved at all.

Who says so? First of all, the inventor of the PCR test himself, the American biochemist Kary Mullis. He developed the test in 1983 and was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for it in 1993.⁴⁶ He himself warned that his method was completely unsuitable for proving a virus as the cause of a disease.⁴⁷ The PCR was not designed for this purpose at all, but for reproducing nucleic acids millions of times over. At that time, the aim was to detect foreign particles in the air of high-purity laboratories for the production of computer chips.

The second warning against the tests comes from the manufacturers. The package inserts usually say something like: "Not suitable for diagnosing a corona infection" or: "For research purposes only".

The US manufacturer with the original name "Creative Diagnostics" not only makes such statements,48 but one can read there a whole series of restrictions that make the test result appear very questionable. The test also reacts to influenza viruses and a number of other microorganisms.⁴⁹

Even the official US disease agency CDC⁵⁰ admits that the so-called "SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests" are not suitable for the Covid19 diagnosis, namely that a virus does not necessarily have to be present if viral RNA is found,51 and that SARS-CoV2 does not have to have triggered the symptoms or other bacteria or viruses can be responsible for them.⁵² And the FDA⁵³ admits that a positive PCR test is not proof that the virus fragment found caused the disease.⁵⁴

The Institute for Medical Microbiology at the University of Mainz also confirms on its website that the PCR is not able to distinguish between viruses that are able to multiply and other organisms and is therefore not proof of infection.⁵⁵

The German science editorial of the "Science Media Centre" writes that with the PCR test one finds the genetic material of the virus, i.e. also remnants of the virus, and not necessarily the virus itself. ⁵⁶The manufacturer of the cobas® SARS-CoV- 2 PCR test, Roche, also says the same in its product description. ⁵⁷

Marcel Luthe, a non-party member of parliament in Berlin, criticises the test chaos and points out that 550 different tests are used in Germany and that there is no institution for approval. This means that everyone is allowed to market their test, no one knows what exactly is being tested and there is also no data collection.⁵⁸

But what is being done? They continue to diagnose with the unapproved and unsafe tests and justify criminal actions such as coercion (wearing masks, forced tests), deprivation of liberty (quarantine lock-down), bodily harm (oxygen deprivation through masks, soon vaccinations with dangerous vaccines) and mental injuries with the false figures thus obtained. The health authorities and ministries don't give a damn about their own regulations, but demand unconditional obedience from the citizen, who is slowly but surely being led to the slaughter. How much longer can this go on?

The bogus epidemic

An unpalatable example of how fatal it can be to blindly rely on PCR tests is the false whooping cough epidemic declared in New Hampshire, USA, in 2007. At the large "Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Centre", Dr. Brooke Herndon had a cough for weeks that would not go away. When other staff also began coughing, they suspected a whooping cough epidemic and had everyone who showed cold symptoms, about 1,000 of the hospital's more than 4,000 employees, tested with PCR. 142 tested "positive", and so they began to fight the supposed epidemic: 72% of the staff were vaccinated and 1,445 were treated with antibiotics.

But without success, the "epidemic" went on for months until, after eight months, the idea came up to send samples of sick people to the CDC. There they tried to cultivate and detect the pathogen, a bacterium, using the classical method. Without success. The PCR tests were then repeated on 116 of those who had previously tested positive. This time, only one was still "positive". There was no epidemic, the test had given false results. The doctors were surprised, but they said they would not blindly trust any test in the future.⁵⁹ In times of Corona, however, they apparently quickly forgot the lesson.

At least in Sweden, they seem to be willing to learn: At the end of August 2020, the Stockholm Health Authority announced that it had to correct the Corona statistics because 3,700 Swedes had been falsely tested "positive" with PCR tests. The laboratories could not distinguish between low virus concentrations and negative samples. The performance of the tests was simply too poor, it said at the press conference.⁶⁰

How does the PCR test actually work?

In order to avoid confusion, I must point out that there are essentially three procedures for coronary detection: One either looks for virus components by PCR, "virus-typical proteins" (so-called "rapid tests")⁶¹ or the antibodies that the immune system has formed against them (immunoglobulins).

I will discuss the antibody tests in more detail later. So let's start with the PCR test.

Attention: The text is now becoming a bit more scientific, unfortunately this cannot be avoided. So please skip the following or read it twice – It's worth the effort!

The classic method for pathogen detection – whether bacteria or viruses – Is to take material (blood, tissue, body fluids) in which the pathogen is suspected. The material is prepared and put on nutrient medium where the pathogen feels comfortable and multiplies. Then it must be "isolated", i.e. separated from the rest, for example by centrifugation. In the process, different materials settle in different layers. Separation by means of electrical fields, so-called "electrophoresis", is also popular.⁶² As you can imagine, this is a lengthy process, and with viruses it is even more complicated than with bacteria.

The PCR specialises in the multiplication of nucleic acids millions of times over, because that is the stuff genes are made of. PCR means "polymerase chain reaction". Sounds complicated and it is. I will only briefly explain the most important points here so that it is clear what it is all about. More information can be found on the internet.

When the PCR test came onto the market in the 1980s, genetic researchers and virologists rejoiced because it was now easy to multiply viruses at will until enough had been collected to make a diagnosis. They thought they could make diagnoses very easily. But this proved to be a fallacy, which the inventor, Kary Mullis, had already predicted. There are a lot of problems that virologists like to sweep under the carpet:

Polymerases are responsible, among other things, for the duplication of DNA in the cell nucleus, so that it can divide and thus a living being can grow. They are found in every living being. In PCR, gene fragments, whether from the body or from a virus, are first split in a machine and then duplicated by the polymerase. This is called a "cycle". The whole thing is repeated 20-50 times in a chain reaction. So, with each cycle we get two, then four, then eight, then 16, etc. times as many new gene fragments (gene sequences) as at the beginning of the process. How often this cycle is repeated depends on the manufacturer's recommendation and can be set on the machine. This setting, the so-called "ct value"⁶³ decides the sensitivity of the test, as we will see.

The number of cycles is decisive

Correctly adjusted, the test works quite well as long as it is not misused for diagnostic purposes; and if is used, for example, for genetic analyses and parentage reports. However, if you set too many cycles, as happened in the case of the whooping cough "epidemic" described above, you get positive results for almost every gene sequence you are looking for, even if there was little or no starting material. The higher sensitivity comes at the price of a higher false positive rate. How the Covid tests are adjusted in each case is left up to the laboratories and is not disclosed.

In the meantime, it is also known that the "viral load", i.e. the amount of viruses present in a sample, is decisive for whether someone will be labelled “infected”. If the test already shows "positive" at a ct value of 15 or 20 cycles, then the proband can be infectious, from 30 and higher, the viral load is low to non-existent. Therefore, one should not exceed 25, values above 30 are considered unreliable. Two studies also showed that the infectivity decreased by 33% with each cycle. ⁶⁴

Test manufacturer Olfert Landt, head of TIB-Molbiol, also admits that those who test positive are not necessarily infectious. In an interview, he said that about half of them are not contagious because of too low a viral load. "To be dangerous to third parties, you would have to have 100 times more viral load in you than the detection limit of the tests."⁶⁵ They are locked up anyway.

The ct values of the laboratories are not shown anywhere, neither in the case of a positive result, nor in the statistics of the RKI. The ct value is therefore an ideal, unverifiable means of manipulating test results on a grand scale.

This consequently affects the false positive rate: Dream values of "only" 1-2%, as the test manufacturers claim, can easily be achieved with 15-20 cycles. If one tests in the laboratories with 40 cycles, then the proportion of false results can rise to 96%. That is why over 85% of the people tested have no symptoms and are neither sick nor contagious for the same reason, namely because they have few or no viruses.

On the website of Deutschlandfunk one can read that, according to the "New York Times", too high ct-values are responsible for a large part of the positive numbers in the USA. Tests with more than 30 cycles as a ct value should always be reported as "negative".⁶⁶ Most tests work with 40 cycles, the Drosten test even with a ct value of up to 45, as Drosten himself stated. So, it is no wonder that one finds so many "infected" people worldwide without any symptom.

On 14.12.2020, the WHO finally warned against too high ct values in the tests and called on the laboratories and authorities to include the ct value in every test.⁶⁷ It remains to be seen whether this will be implemented, because the WHO is not a public institution, even if it appears so, but only a private association without authority to issue directives.

But even with fewer cycles, the PCR can show positive for sequences or fragments of other viruses or even the body's own cells, i.e. exosomes. Wikipedia writes that the test recognises all life forms with the same gene fragment by chance.⁶⁸

"PCR is ultra-sensitive, which means that absurdly low concentrations of DNA can be detected. On the other hand, the method is only moderately specific because PCR amplifies everything the primers can dock to. That is the curse of the PCR method."69

Author Peter Haisenko writes: "How do the Corona numbers come about? To state it clearly: They are produced at will. The laboratories only need to be instructed to increase the test cycles until the desired result is obtained.

For this reason, the government of Florida/USA determined last week that all test results of PCR tests are invalid if more than 30 test cycles have been applied. The fact is that all, repeat all, PCR tests show a positive result as soon as the cycles exceed 45. Florida has thus reduced its Corona numbers by more than 90 percent. This is also the reason why we never use the Corona numbers to indicate the number of cycles applied. So, the 'Corona pandemic' is a test pandemic."70

This is now well known in medical circles. In many clinics, medical staff are allowed to continue working even with a positive test if the ct value was above 30, as confirmed by virologist Dittmer from Essen. Doctors with such a test and an antibody test are considered "healthy" and are allowed to continue practising.⁷¹ Why doesn't the same apply to all of us? Nursing staff should actually be held to higher standards than ordinary citizens.

Other problems of the test

But the test has even more problems: it cannot search for new, unknown gene sequences, but can only detect what is given to it beforehand. This is done by means of two so-called "primers", which are markers that determine which gene segments are duplicated from where to where. To search for a new virus, you first have to take gene sequences of known viruses. If you find matches, then you put them together in the computer in a way that you think "fits". This is how a "new virus" is defined – but not really "found".

The test cannot detect a complete virus because the genetic code of viruses is much too long for PCR. The Covid19 virus, like all coronaviruses, has a length of about 30,000 base pairs (bp)⁷². A base pair is the smallest unit of the genetic code and corresponds to one bit in a computer. For comparison: human DNA has about three billion bp. ⁷³

The PCR test generally only works up to 3,000 bp. For the SARS-CoV2 search, one chooses two small fragments of the virus⁷⁴ that are considered typical for it. The gene snippets are only 76 and 100 bp small, respectively, which is 0.6% of the virus. The remaining 99.4% of the virus are not checked and fall under the table. If the small gene sequences are found, the test is considered "positive". It is basically scandalous to claim that one "finds" a certain virus when one has only detected 0.6% of it!

Because the whole thing is a bit complicated, I'll summarise again:

• The PCR only finds what it is given as a reference beforehand. You cannot simply go looking for viruses, but must "tell" the test beforehand what it should look for. This has consequences for the "discovery of new viruses".

• It can normally only detect parts of a coronavirus, never the complete RNA/DNA. This is later assembled in the computer from various parts.

• The partial sequences are selected beforehand and defined by so-called "primers".

• The recognisable sections are extremely short.

With coronaviruses, there is another possible source of error: the PCR can only reproduce DNA, but coronaviruses are RNA viruses. The RNA must therefore first be converted into DNA before the PCR by a process called "reverse transcription" (RT). ⁷⁵

That may be enough to get you started. Before we get to the "discovery" of the Covid19 virus, let's take a quick look at the first Corona "pandemic", which was 18 years ago.

The precursor to Covid19: The SARS epidemic of 2002/03

There is a back story to "Corona 2020" that you should know:

In November 2002, there were several cases of "atypical pneumonia" in southern China. "Atypical" means that doctors cannot find any pathogens and the disease hardly responds to the usual treatment with antibiotics, etc. Normally, pneumonia is mostly caused by bacteria such as pneumococci, especially in older, weakened patients, but also by antibiotic-resistant germs in hospitals (hospitalism). According to the RKI, 600,000 patients fall ill from this in Germany alone every year, and up to 20,000 of them die.⁷⁶ In 2018, the figure was as high as 40,000, ten times as many as died in road accidents.⁷⁷

The Chinese were initially baffled and in February 2003, after believing they had found a virus, reported 305 cases and five deaths to the WHO. The WHO christened the disease "SARS" (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and declared it a "global threat" on 12 March, which was ridiculous given the low numbers.

At that time, a coronavirus was suspected as the cause. Even then, bats were suspected of being the source of the virus because coronaviruses are common among them. Only two days after Chinese virologists published a suspected gene sequence on the internet, Mr. Christian Heinrich Maria Drosten in Germany had developed a test for the virus in no time at all. It was called SARS-CoV.⁷⁸ By mid-2003, only 8,096 people worldwide had tested "positive" with this test, of whom 774 died in the course of the "pandemic" (until July 2003).⁷⁹ As of 2004, there were no more SARS cases and the pandemic was declared over.

Despite only a few infected and deceased people worldwide, SARS was the second viral disease (after HIV-AIDS) to be accompanied by a fierce media hype. Western media accused China of not having reacted in time and appropriately. The relatively late notification to the WHO was portrayed by the press of the "free West" as a "cover-up attempt".

The most affected countries China, Hong Kong and Malaysia lost 70% of their tourists due to travel warnings. Hong Kong and Singapore went into recession, Singapore Airlines had to be propped up with government money and Singapore had to devalue its currency. Major sporting events were cancelled or moved to the USA. Hong Kong had to support its tourism industry with an aid package of 1.5 billion US dollars. The damage to the image of these countries caused by the press campaign was enormous.

The Chinese government still had all this in mind when the SARS-CoV apparently reappeared in a mutated form in 2019/20 and allegedly threatened another pandemic. This time, they preferred to react quickly and harshly.

Over time, the panic of 2003 was forgotten, but two scientific publications in 2013⁸⁰ and 201 7⁸¹ (editor: Prof. Drosten again) brought the SARS virus back into play and predicted new outbreaks of mutated SARS viruses because they had discovered similar gene sequences in bats as in SARS-CoV. This is not surprising, since the gene sequence of the SARS virus was also derived from bat viruses.⁸²

The comeback of the SARS coronavirus

After the experience with the SARS epidemic, the Chinese authorities set up an early warning system to be able to react more quickly in the future. In December 2019, several cases of atypical pneumonia were reported in Wuhan, an industrial city on the Yangtze River. This is not initially noticeable in a city of 8 million people, especially since the climate there is humid and air pollution is very high, as the city is the industrial centre of Central China. With average temperatures of 3°- 10°C (in December), there are also regular waves of flu in Wuhan in winter.

The alarm was raised on 30 December by ophthalmologist Li Wenliang. He had reported in a chat group about allegedly seven confirmed cases of SARS in his hospital. The report went "viral" on the internet and created panic in China, where people still remembered the 2003 epidemic. Beijing sent in a response team, which initially found 44 patients with atypical pneumonia by 3 January. Swabs were taken from four patients. Li Wenliang had to sign a confidentiality agreement because he had "disturbed public order".

On 10 January, Li thought he had been infected and voluntarily went into quarantine. Doctors tested him several times but found nothing at first. It was not until 30 January that a SARS test came back positive. Li commented on the net that he had now tested positive. "The dust has settled. Finally diagnosed!" he posted. His condition deteriorated despite (or because of?) the massive use of various antibiotic drugs. He died on 7 February, reportedly from Covid19, but the exact cause of death is not known (overmedication?). It is not possible to research more details because the Chinese do not give any.

This all went viral on the internet and made Li Wenliang a folk hero in China, but also increased panic in Wuhan and the surrounding area as rumours of a large-scale government cover-up did the rounds. The epidemic, which was not yet an epidemic at the time, inspired frightening speculation among many Chinese. Videos circulated on the web of people dropping in the street, allegedly struck down by the new "killer virus". The government in Beijing was forced to intervene and had Wuhan and five other cities sealed off by the military, especially as a wave of travel was imminent with the Chinese New Year.

After the official end of the epidemic in China on 28 March 2020, the official statistics counted 83,000 infected people and fewer than 5,000 deaths.⁸³ In a country with 1.4 billion people, this is a vanishingly small number.⁸⁴ The reason for this is that in China only those cases that are clinical, i.e. with symptoms and a positive test (presumably with a low ct value), are now counted as "corona cases". However, the Chinese lockdown has become a model for the whole world.

How did they find the Corona virus in the first place?

As with SARS in 2003, Prof. Christian Drosten, now chief virologist at Berlin's Charité hospital, was incredibly quick to put together a suitable PCR test. Note the data:

• Li Wenliang sounded the alarm in China on 30 Dec 2019.

• An outreach team from Beijing was ordered to Hunan on 31 Dec 2019.

• On 1.1.2020, Prof. Drosten developed a PCR test kit for the "new" virus. He followed a hunch from "social media reports" that it might be related to SARS-CoV and made a download of data from hundreds of SARS virus fragments from the internet. Of these, three were randomly selected and supplemented with others, also from a database,⁸⁵ to test patients with. The whole thing happened without him having had any virus material.⁸⁶

• On 21.1.2020, the WHO recommended that all nations use the "safe" test procedure developed by Prof. Drosten.

• On 23.1.2020, Drosten and his colleagues published their results⁸⁷ in "Eurosurveillance", a journal that does not require peer review of its articles, as is usually the case in renowned scientific journals.

• On 24.1.2020, the Chinese disease authority CCDC⁸⁸ published their first results of short gene sequences that could mentally or in the computer be strung together to form a virus. They explicitly pointed out that the prescribed control experiments had not yet been done that would prove that these gene sequences could trigger the pneumonias in Wuhan (this has not been done to date). The constructed genetic strand had up to 90% similarity with harmless coronaviruses in bats that have been known for decades.⁸⁹

Anyone who reads the original sources will notice:

• Prof. Drosten developed his test before virus sequences were available from China. They were not available until three weeks later (on 24 January).

• The test was later used to test tissue samples and patients with atypical pneumonia. In some, the exact number is not given, the test was successful, but that does not mean more than that some of the suspected gene fragments were found. Whether these come from a virus or from the body itself, for example in the course of the disease, was not investigated.

• Prof. Drosten never had a virus or tissue sample in the lab when he put the test together in January. The hypothetical virus was put together in the computer on the basis of assumptions from various databases with gene fragments from the SARS-CoV-1 and bat viruses from the internet, as he himself wrote.

• The WHO recommended Drosten's test worldwide before his work was published and before the first Chinese study appeared. Validation of the test (detection, verification) has never taken place. SARS-CoV-2 has never been detected as a whole.

• Since the PCR only ever detects what it is given with the primers, the "discovery of Covid19" is a circular reasoning, a self-fulfilling prophecy, because all tests to date only find the gene sequences that Drosten had selected at the time, and even of these only two tiny sections.

• It is by no means proven that the SARS-CoV-2 virus 1.) exists as claimed and 2.) if it exists, is "new", because the fragments used were all already known.

This makes it clear where SARS-CoV-2 comes from, namely from the computer of Prof. Drosten, who compiled it. However, not in the laboratory, i.e. real, but only as a hypothetical sequence of 30,000 nucleotides, of which only 176⁹⁰ are searched for and found worldwide with the PCR. These snippets exist, they are found in many diseases, especially in influenza, in people who have been through certain diseases, and in healthy people.

This also makes it unnecessary to discuss whether the SARS-CoV-2 was created in some laboratory as a bioweapon: What good is a bioweapon that is no more dangerous than a flu virus? A bioweapon would have to be at least as "effective" as the Ebola virus. No, the virus as a whole is a theoretical construct. What the PCR measures are gene parts of real viruses or exosomes that can be active in flu.

Nobody is interested in whether the SARS-CoV2 really looks like what is claimed, because the PCR pandemic works wonderfully with the 176 bp snippets. With such mumbo-jumbo, the world is panicked and ruined. The "being scientific" is only feigned, which is easy in a highly specialised field like virology, which cannot be verified by everyone. In any case, Drosten's brazen approach has nothing to do with clean science, as this fact has been proven by a group of top-class scientists:

The Drosten study is useless

The above-mentioned Drosten study,⁹¹ on which the PCR test is based, was examined at the end of 2020 by 22 scientists from Europe, the USA and Japan, all high-ranking molecular geneticists, biochemists, immunologists and microbiologists. They came to the damning conclusion that the SARS-CoV-2 pCr test was unusable due to errors and mistakes found during the revision.⁹²

The experts found ten serious deficiencies. They criticised, among other things, the faulty and non-specific design of the primers, the inability to distinguish between a virus and its fragments, the lack of control experiments and the absence of standardised working instructions. They conclude that the Drosten test is unsuitable for diagnosing SARS-CoV2.

In addition, there was apparently no peer review, as is customary for scientific papers. The paper was published on the second day after submission – too short for peer review.

There were also serious conflicts of interest: two of the authors, including Drosten, sit on the editorial board of "Eurosurveillance", where the study appeared, and three are on the payroll of the first companies that produced the tests. Olfert Landt is head of the test manufacturer TIB Molbiol and earns millions from the test. The scientists called on Eurosurveillance to withdraw the Corman-Drosten paper. Two reports on the botched Drosten study can be found here.⁹³

Successful despite all contradictions

Prof. Drosten obviously wanted to build on his success with the SARS-CoV-1 test of 2003, because whoever submits a test first not only reaps the laurels, but also gets a head start in the international business with the millions of tests. In the beginning, these were only produced by the Berlin laboratory "TIB Molbiol"⁹⁴, with which Prof. Drosten has already worked together many times. Olfert Landt, the managing director, and Drosten have known each other for many years. Landt was also the first to market Drosten's SARS test in 2003.

It is strange that Drosten and the Charité simply hand over the millions in profits from the tests to private companies,⁹⁵ when the research was financed, at least in part, by taxpayers' money. Whether there are also business connections with Olfert Landt is not known and could be worth a closer investigation. In any case, the test is being sold all over the world, scaring humanity, and incidentally bringing in huge amounts of money.⁹⁶

It is still unclear exactly which viruses the test finds and with what precision.⁹⁷ Calling it the "gold standard" for Covid19 diagnostics is as presumptuous as declaring "the emperor's new clothes" to be the "top fashion" for the new fashion season.

Actually, the test should finally be "validated": In several studies, other possible factors, including other virus fragments, would have to be excluded. The effort is considerable and takes years. Those responsible are well aware of this: all Covid 19 tests that are used worldwide (there are currently more than 500) are not validated and may not even be used for diagnosis, as I have already explained above.

The official website of the Paul Ehrlich Institute⁹⁸ states that PCR tests⁹⁹ are regulated by the EU Directive on In Vitro Diagnostics (IVD), and this does not stipulate that anyone has to check the tests before they are put on the market. Therefore, there is no validation, and that is why there is evidence of fakes on the way.¹⁰⁰

In plain language, this means that the manufacturers certify themselves and do not need independent inspections. A land of milk and honey for pharmaceutical capitalism! This is justified by the "hurry" in view of the "pandemic", which in turn is justified by the false tests. A vicious circle, diligently pushed up by the media.

Even the EU Commission criticises that the tests are not validated and "recommends" a voluntary validation by the manufacturers, which confirms that the tests measure what they claim to measure.101 A nice recommendation, but one that no one adheres to, because a real check or validation would bring down all test results and statistics like a house of cards.

In the USA, the FDA¹⁰² was officially responsible for the validation and approval of such tests. In August 2020, by order from Washington, they were stripped of their competence to do so.¹⁰³ Billion-dollar business with the tests was apparently not to be hindered by lengthy approval procedures , or it was a matter of driving the "case numbers" up further through uncontrolled tests. Probably both.

In the meantime, the unreliability of the PCR tests has been confirmed by a British meta-study, which examined the results of 25 other studies.¹⁰⁴ Among other things, it turned out that the test also reacts positively to virus residues from infections long ago, although the test person has not been infectious for a long time.

The "New York Times" reported on worthless PCR tests on 3.9.2020. The website "Journalistenwatch" commented on the article: "Looking at three sets of tests from Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, due to flawed procedures… "up to 90% of those who tested positive barely showed a viral load". So 90% of those who tested positive were not positive at all - even experts interviewed were "astonished" that these people had been identified as Corona carriers….

(There) were over 85 million PCR tests performed in the US alone. In total, if the new NYT figures were taken as a basis, almost 13 billion dollars had been wasted on a test that was essentially worthless…. It was a "massive fraud" on the American population, who were sold the PCR test as the "gold standard", and the "biggest fraud" in history." 105

The lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich is currently preparing a class action lawsuit in the USA, with which mainly companies that had suffered losses due to the lockdown can sue for damages from Prof. Drosten and the RKI. The reason given is that the measures are based on a test that is neither suitable nor approved for diagnosis. I hope he is successful.

Because with such suspect tests, innocent people are scared to death, imprisoned and entire economies ruined.

Sensitivity and cross-reactions

But that is by no means all. If the PCR test is over-sensitised by increasing the number of doubling cycles, the "ct value", too far, one is more likely to get a "positive" result. So-called "cross-reactions" become more likely, too. This means that the test detects something other than what it is supposed to look for. This is known, for example, from drug tests that detect an increased concentration of morphine in the urine up to two days after eating poppy-seed cake. ¹⁰⁶

The test is therefore unable to distinguish whether the virus residues found originate from active viruses or are cell components, i.e. residues after an infection that has already occurred. This is because it is always only fragments of the viral genome that are amplified by PCR. In addition, the tests that are used worldwide today are quite different. They test two gene fragments of Covid-19, defined by the primers, but different manufacturers use different primers, so that the test results cannot be compared with each other. ¹⁰⁷

We also never learn from the worldwide statistics which tests were used in each case, which laboratories evaluated them, how many cycles were run in the laboratory, i.e. at which viral load the test indicates "positive". This is dubious, because it makes a reasonable comparison of different countries or of time courses impossible.

Since January 2020, several cross-reactions have become known. The tests also react positively to SARS-CoV-1 and probably to sarbecoviruses108 Only five coronaviruses are known not to react to the test. It is not known about all other viruses. Drosten himself admitted that his test reacts to various coronaviruses, especially from bats.¹⁰⁹

As early as 2014, on the occasion of the MERS¹¹⁰ epidemic in the Arab region, Drosten explained in an interview how misleading the highly sensitive PCR can be, because it can find individual molecules of viruses, even in nurses who neither notice anything about it nor are ill, but are classified as MERS cases. This way, even healthy people would get into the statistics, which would explain the increase in numbers in Saudi Arabia at that time. In addition, the media would have played up the numbers.

He called on the Saudi authorities to return to the definitions of the disease because only genuine cases count. He also doubted that symptomless or mildly ill people are contagious. He said that only cases in which antibodies had been detected should be counted. (If we did this with Covid19, the "infection figures" would only be a fraction of the current PCR figures).

Drosten went on to explain that only if antibodies are found has an infection taken place. Most viruses, although present and detectable, are intercepted by the body's own defences on the skin or mucous membranes.¹¹¹

Well spotted, Mr. Drosten, and very sensible! But why have you all forgotten these insights at Corona?

The Covid19 PCR even finds a human gene sequence

But the hammer is yet to come: At the end of August 2020, it became known that one of the primers of the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test is identical to a gene sequence of the human genome!¹¹² It’s about a primer¹¹³ with the same gene sequence¹¹⁴ This sequence is exactly the same in human chromosome No. 8 ¹¹⁵

This cannot be a coincidence, because the probability of a coincidence would be approximately one in 68 billion.¹¹⁶ It means: If there is a human cell in the sample whose "chromosome 8" is damaged or the gene sequence in question was excreted via an exosome, the PCR will multiply this and show positive, even without a virus fragment. So, in principle, anyone can test positive under special circumstances! Is this intentional?

Chromosome 8 is responsible for intelligence and fertility. Will it possibly be attacked by the new mRNA vaccination?

The gene databases from which Prof. Drosten had assembled his virus apparently confused a human exosome with a viral component. This at least shows how little the virologists know about their source material.

Further inconsistencies

The uncertainty of the Drosten test has also been confirmed by clinical studies from China.¹¹⁷ Numerous cases have been reported where several tests on the same person were alternately positive, then negative and then positive again.

In the Swabian town of Trossingen, all residents and employees of the home for senior citizens "Bethel" were tested for Covid-19 at the end of April. Out of 145 people, 56 were positive. But since none of them showed any symptoms, the director had a second test carried out. This time, only two samples were positive. At first, it was suspected that the laboratory had made a mistake, but it could not find anything wrong with the way the test was carried out. It remains a mystery how this large deviation came about. However, the health department insists on using the first test for its statistics.

In Tanzania in Africa, people apparently distrusted the Covid tests and sent samples of various plants and animals to a testing laboratory. Samples from a goat, a bird and a PawPaw fruit¹¹⁸ reacted positively to the PCR.¹¹⁹ The WHO African Regional Office said the test kits had not been previously contaminated with SARS-CoV-2,¹²⁰ and the supplier, the Africa Centres for Disease Control, also denied that the samples could have been faulty.¹²¹ The President of Tanzania himself presented the scandal on television and had the WHO expelled from the country.

The University of Barcelona tested wastewater from two of the city's sewage treatment plants for SARS-CoV-2 from April 2020 "to observe the course of infection" – and found the virus. Then they examined samples they had conserved in the past and found the strange virus in a sample from 12 March 2019, long before it turned up in Wuhan. The same thing happened in Milan, where water samples from November 2019 also tested positive.¹²²¹²³ This leaves only two conclusions: either the virus is older than claimed, or the PCR test is useless. Probably both are true.

Corona Hotspot at the Slaughterhouse

By mid-June 2020, the numbers of people testing positive across Europe had dropped so much that several vaccine manufacturers were already complaining that they couldn't test their vaccines because there were hardly any infected people left on the streets.¹²⁴ They were seriously looking for volunteers so that they could infect them as test subjects.

At that time, there were only 4,808 Covid19 "cases" left in Germany, or 0.0058% of the population. Too few to justify further reprisals. A new "hotspot" was needed. It was found in Germany's largest meat company in Gütersloh: Tönnies. 6,650 employees were tested, 1,553 were "positive" - a result far above the national average. But almost all of the "positives" worked there, where about 50,000 pigs are cut up every day, while the other departments of the company were spared.

The media once again spread panic: The newspaper “Die Welt" compared the outbreak to Fukushima.125 Politicians implemented tough measures such as quarantines and lockdowns, and Drosten congratulated the drastic crackdown.¹²⁶ - Miraculously, there were hardly any sick people among the "positive" ones, no deaths, and no spread in the surrounding area was registered either. What was going on?

Initially, there were apparently cross-reactions, because cattle and pigs are regularly vaccinated against corona animal diseases.¹²⁷ The vaccines naturally contain gene fragments of corona viruses, which may be ingested by the workers without them falling ill. Drosten's PCR test, in fact, also reacts to coronaviruses from cattle, as he himself admitted in his podcast. ¹²⁸

Secondly, this case shows how far apart the test results and the disease figures are. "It may be true that coronaviruses from slaughter animals do not in principle infect humans… [but] PCR tests are highly sensitive procedures. They therefore respond to small traces of a (hereditary) substance, which does not have to be due to a viral infection either. Contamination, i.e. the simple fact of handling meat parts or being in a room where animals are cut up, can be sufficient to detect traces of a viral substance in the people concerned.

A positive test does not necessarily mean that the person in question is infected, ill or even contagious. But this fundamental error of interpretation has always been made (with HIV/AIDS, Zika, swine flu, SARS, etc.) and also runs through the COVID-19 reporting." 129

Journalist Johannes Kreis sums up:

"Comment 1: The topic of cross-reactions in PCR tests is usually lost, as most publications on this topic come from the manufacturers themselves. This has been the case for 20 years. And it is especially bad with the PCR protocols recommended by the WHO. The WHO seems never to have heard of the word cross-reaction. It is practically non-existent there.

Note 2: PCR cannot detect whether viruses are neutralised by antibodies. Likewise, PCR cannot detect whether viruses are reproducible. As a rule, it is also only fragments of the viral genome that are amplified by PCR.

Note 3: Whether you find something with PCR or not has nothing to do with the question of whether the species in question, to which the examined DNA (RNA) belongs, is causative for the disease.

Note 4: PCR diagnostics is a billion-dollar market.

Nobody knows what the set of all coronaviruses looks like. That is, no one can say whether SARS-CoV-2 has not existed before, because no one has looked for it with SARS- CoV-2 primers or whether SARS-CoV-2 has been measured along with other classical primers due to cross-reactions. It is naïve to think that biomedicine knows exactly what is inside cells. It is very far from that."130

Science journalist Peter Frey comments on the Corona tests as follows: "At this point at the latest, the reader should become aware that the analysis of viral gene sequences in the human body is a delicate story, because what are we actually extracting and how do we deal with the results, which we may not even have fully understood?"131

Biochemist Christine Johnson pointed out that one has to be very careful with PCR because it works with exponential multiplication and therefore errors in the experiment are also multiplied exponentially.¹³²

After all this research, the only conclusion that remains is that the PCR test cannot make any reasonable statements at all about any epidemic. This makes it an ideal instrument of abuse and misleading. This is apparently exactly its purpose.

Is the coronavirus to blame for disease and death?

Let's move on to the question of whether the Drosten virus caused the disease it is accused of causing or whether the measured virus parts were simply present. In order to clarify something like this, there have been "Koch's postulates" for over a hundred years.¹³³ In short, a microorganism is considered a pathogen if four conditions are met (originally three, later one was added):

1 The pathogen must be detected in all sick people, but not in healthy people.

2 The pathogen must be isolated from the sick and cultivated in the laboratory.

3 If you infect healthy people with it, they must develop the same symptoms.

4 The pathogen must then also be detectable in the newly infected and identical to the first.

None of these Koch postulates have been fulfilled by the Covid19 virus to date, nor have the "Rivers postulates", which were later created specifically for viruses.¹³⁴ The virus has also never been clearly isolated and identified in the electron microscope. There are plenty of pictures of coronaviruses, but the clear description of how the pictures were taken, i.e. what exactly can be seen, is missing. And – what is even worse – the new infection with proof of the symptoms was also never made.

Science journalist Thorsten Engelbrecht and researcher Konstantin Demeter combed through the most important studies on SARS-CoV-2 and wrote to the authors. The result is sensational: none of the studies provided any evidence for virus isolation or for the postulates of Koch or Rivers. Thus, the coronavirus has never been found and isolated in a sick person, as the first postulate demands.¹³⁵

There are a lot of publications about "virus isolates", and various complete genome sequences have been published, but no study shows that these were obtained by proper isolation, except by theoretical PCR-based computer analysis. The term "isolation" in some studies is misused there. In addition, all studies lack the control experiments that must show that nothing is measured with guaranteed virus-free material. This alone makes the studies worthless. You can find exact data on this on these sources. 136

Incidentally, the head of the RKI, Wieler, opened his mouth during an interview with the TV station Phoenix at the end of October. He said that they had “learned to lead society, whether the virus existed or not.”137 Hear, hear! Does the virus perhaps not exist after all? What they have learned, however, is how to lead society – by the nose.

In any case, the coronavirus studies available so far would never hold up in a court case as proof of the existence of SARS-CoV-2. Much less would the virus be proven to be responsible for the illnesses and deaths. The prosecution therefore pleads for other causes of death to be considered.

Prohibited autopsies

At the beginning of the Corona crisis, the RKI banned the dissection of the dead. The last time this happened was in the Middle Ages, when the Church forbade such action as unchristian. Sending people to war and massacring them was OK, but opening up the dead for research purposes was severely punished. But back to today's Middle Ages: the "recommendation" of the RKI was supposedly meant to protect the pathologists according to the motto: "We only want your best".

Many pathologists felt offended in their professional honour, because after all they are trained to protect themselves effectively even with highly infectious corpses. The forensic pathologist Prof. Klaus Püschel from Hamburg wanted to know exactly what the "corona patients" had really died of and dissected 65 "corona" deceased. His result: all of them had suffered from serious previous illnesses. High blood pressure, heart attacks and arteriosclerosis. 46 alone had pre-existing diseases of the respiratory tract and lungs. In 28 cases, there was other organ damage or the patients had had transplanted organs.¹³⁸ Thus, those examined died "with" Corona, but not "from" it.

Prof. Püschel continued to perform autopsies and concluded after 167 autopsies that severe or fatal courses of Covid19 were rare and that the autopsied persons were significantly pre-damaged.139 This is consistent with a study of 2,000 deaths by the Italian National Institute of Health (ISS). According to this, 99% of the deceased had one or more previous illnesses, 48.5% even three.

The RKI was probably not concerned with "protecting pathologists" but with covering up how insignificant the "new killer virus" really is. If we remember how one-sided the RKI's number acrobatics are trimmed to scaremongering, then the suspicion of criminal deceptive intentions by the RKI is not far off and should be worth further investigation.

Other causes of death found

From the beginning, "corona" was simply claimed as the cause, but no research was ever carried out to find out whether the virus found actually caused the atypical pneumonia, or whether it was simply present in the sick or the healthy. "Atypical pneumonia" can have a whole range of causes:

• Inhalation of toxic substances, solvents or exhaust gases

• Penetration of food, drink or stomach contents into the lungs in cases of dysphagia or unconsciousness (aspiration pneumonia). Water is sufficient for this in the case of drowning.

• Immune system problems such as allergies and autoimmune diseases

• Radiotherapy in cancer treatment

• Water retention due to oedema during prolonged bed rest (congestive pneumonia) or due to cardiac or renal insufficiency. Older people are particularly affected by this.

These are all serious diseases that have nothing to do with bacteria or viruses. They are more likely to be fatal than "typical" pneumonias, i.e. those where the bacteria are known. Today, many doctors are so focused on infections that they first look for bacteria, and if they don't find any, then it "must" be viruses. For virologists anyway, because that is their daily bread. And those who look for viruses always find some fragment of influenza or, currently popular, coronavirus. All it takes is a few more cycles in the pCr.

The US health authority CDC confirmed the above on its website of 9.9.2020.140 The most important statement is sensational: 94% of those who died with Corona had been diagnosed with an average of two to three (2.6) serious previous illnesses. Only in 6% nothing else was found, which is why these deaths were credited to Corona.

This means that instead of 161,000, only 9,600 Americans may have died from Covid-19. That would be about half a percent of the horror numbers predicted by US immunologist Dr. Anthony Fauci earlier this year. He was talking about 1.5 to 2.2 million corona deaths in the US. Fortunately, he was wrong by a factor of 200. This "expert" has advised all US presidents since Ronald Reagan - and extremely badly in the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. Some also call him the "American Drosten".

If one compares the corrected figure of approx. 10,000 Corona deaths in the USA with the 80,000 deaths in the US flu wave of 2017/18,¹⁴¹ then this puts the figures into perspective quite considerably.

In the meantime, it has become known that in Europe, too, all those who have died with a positive PCR are counted as "coronavirus deaths" in the statistics, regardless of what they actually died of. In Germany, even patients with pneumonia and a negative coronary test are counted as coronary patients if they had contact with a "positive" person at some point!¹⁴² That alone is a scandal.

Uwe Witt from the Health Committee of the German parliament quite rightly asked how many Corona deaths there really were in Germany. If one takes the CDC figures as a basis and subtracts 94%, only 558 would remain, but that would obviously not interest anyone here.¹⁴³

Incidentally, the corona expert Prof. Drosten had still threatened 278,000 corona deaths in Germany in the spring of 2020. Anyone who was so far off the mark had better keep quiet in future.

Deceased due to the therapy

At the beginning of the corona virus panic, it was said that there was no cure for it. So, they experimented with all kinds of things in the hospitals: Antibiotics, paracetamol, cortisone, and all kinds of drugs that are actually there for completely different purposes. That's understandable, because many doctors also panicked, and so many mistakes were made.

In the renowned medical journal "Lancet" of 18. 2. 2020, an example of excessive medication use was reported:¹⁴⁴

“It describes the case of a 50-year-old patient who suffered from fever, chills, cough, fatigue and shortness of breath and was classified as a COVID-19 patient.

He was then treated with a veritable armada of drugs consisting of the antiviral drugs interferon alfa-2b, lopinavir and ritonavir, the very harsh antibiotic moxifloxacin and high doses of cortisone (methylprednisolone) – substances that can have fatal side effects even when taken alone. In addition, tissue samples were taken at autopsy – and here the authors of the paper even concede that the observed liver damage could have been caused by the drugs. The conclusion that the patient died due to the toxic effect of the drugs is therefore compelling.

And if such a man, who was 50 and thus "in his prime" and had apparently suffered from no other illnesses than severe flu symptoms, dies as a result of the administration of such a "drug cocktail", then one can guess how such a highly toxic treatment affects people who are 70 or 80 years old and had previous illnesses up to and including cancer before they were classified as COVID-19 patients.

The question is: Why did the doctors treat the 50-year-old in this way? And the answer is: out of a viral tunnel vision, out of the deeply rooted conviction that only medication can bring salvation as well as out of the fear typical of today's medical system, especially in times of pandemic panic, that something might have been left undone, which then often enough leads to medication excessive use. As in this case.

And so, for example, the pitiful 50-year-old, because he was short of breath, was given cortisone, a lymphocyte killer that slows down the inflammatory reaction. Everything then swells up, the fever drops. The patient temporarily feels better, he can breathe better again. At the same time, however, the defence reaction is suppressed, which can ultimately be fatal, as this case demonstrates, especially if other potentially fatal drugs are also administered.

Nevertheless, the Lancet paper actually concludes that "the patient died from a severe infection with SARS-CoV-2." In other words, it was claimed that the patient died only from a virus - and not from the drugs, despite the drug armada. And since this study was published in a journal whose content is de facto law, it served as a kind of blueprint for the treatment of COVID-19 patients“.145

Several doctors from the USA and Europe, including from the University of Zurich, reported that many patients died of pulmonary embolism due to (micro)thrombosis in the lungs, which was initially overlooked because autopsies were not allowed in the beginning. Many of them could certainly have been saved by administering common blood thinners if this had been known.¹⁴⁶

Artificial respiration

Another complication was breathing difficulties, which is why many patients were put on ventilators. This did more harm than good: Carl Diehm, a pulmonologist, pointed out that in New York the mortality rate of ventilated corona patients was 80%.¹⁴⁷ The overpressure with which the ventilators force the air into the lungs can injure the lungs, leading to immediate death or death from late effects within a year.¹⁴⁸

The aforementioned New York nurse Erin Marie Olszewski experienced the suffering of the artificially ventilated as follows: "They assigned patients who did not necessarily have Covid-19 to the wards. Possibly they were also connected to ventilators. The way they connected them was fatal.

But the first response to everything at Elmhurst was immediately artificial respiration, even though it was killing people.

I think it was around the end of April when I noticed that there was not a single patient there who had been successfully taken off the ventilator. So, at that time, every patient connected to the machine was dying.

When artificial air is pumped into the lungs, it weakens them more and more. When they get weaker, the pressure of the ventilator has to be increased. This causes the human lungs to burst. In parallel, we gave the people sedatives. The Covid treatments these people were subjected to basically consisted of keeping them in a coma until they died.

What happened to the patients there means gross negligence and mishandling. Many of them need not have died. They were seen as disposable patients. Many of them

were low-income earners. They could not afford an expensive hospital."149

In the meantime, many doctors have largely moved away from ventilators and simply give supplementary oxygen through breathing masks.

The dangerous "miracle drug" hydroxychloroquine

Another complication is triggered by certain drugs. Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg noticed that the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has severe side effects, but specifically in people with a certain genetic defect. It is called "flavism", which is a deficiency of the enzyme G6PD.¹⁵⁰ This often occurs in the tropics, in malaria-infested areas, i.e. in Africa, South America and Southeast Asia.

The advantage is that flavism increases resistance to malaria. The disadvantage is that carriers of the genetic defect, especially men, can develop haemolysis (blood dissolution) if they come into contact with certain substances that are found, for example, in field beans, currants, peas and a number of medicines.¹⁵¹ These include antimalarial drugs such as HCQ, the administration of which to such people can be fatal because of micro-embolism (blood plugs made from the remains of burst red blood cells) form in all organs. ¹⁵²

The trouble was that after an initial ban on the drug (it was not approved for this purpose), there was suddenly great hope that HCQ could help against Covid19. The WHO recommended it for the prevention and treatment of Covid19, and in April initiated three trials in which HCQ was dosed so high that it was in the toxic (poisonous) range. Many patients died, adding to the statistics of "corona deaths". Apart from the overdoses, the fatal risk for people with the G6PD defect has additionally been overlooked, although flavism has long been known as a contraindication.¹⁵³ This affects up to 30% of the population in Africa. No matter – HCQ and related chloroqins have been diligently used and studies done with them worldwide. President Trump praised the drug as a "gift from God" and said he was taking it himself for prophylaxis.

Only at the end of May, the Harvard Medical School and the University Hospital Zurich examined several studies on 96,000 patients in hundreds of hospitals worldwide and came to the conclusion that HCQ was not only useless, but even increased the risk of death due to severe side effects.¹⁵⁴ As a result, the WHO stopped all studies, but in Brazil they continued, and in the UK a new study was launched at the beginning of July 2020 in which around 40,000 healthcare workers are to take part. Oxford University is involved, too.¹⁵⁵

Only Dr. Wodarg drew attention to the reports from the USA according to which mainly African Americans were among the alleged Corona deaths. Up to six times as many deaths were reported from the predominantly black counties as from white counties. Poorer health care was initially suspected as the cause, but then it was also heard from Great Britain that among the Corona deaths there were a disproportionate number of "ethnic minorities", i.e. immigrants, also among doctors and medical staff.

Dr. Wodarg points out that favism is also widespread in some areas of Italy. Malaria still existed in the Po Valley until the 1950s. Up to 71% of the test positives, but also doctors and nurses had been treated with high doses of HCQ, and it was similar in Spain. Many large cities in Europe and the USA also have a high proportion of immigrants with flavism who, if tested positive, were treated with HCQ, which increased the mortality rate. Ignorant of the correlation, they were declared coronavirus deaths when in fact they were HCQ victims. The fatal thing is that the health authorities of all countries overlooked this serious "malpractice".¹⁵⁶

There are also reports from doctors who have had good experiences with HCQ combined with zinc, if it is used early and provided that the dosage is not too high and flavism can be ruled out.

No figures are available on the mass use of HCQ worldwide, but there must be hundreds of thousands who have been treated with it. This may well explain the excess mortality in countries with high levels of flavism, such as Brazil. The pictures of dead people from the favelas were of course attributed to SARS-CoV-2 because the side effects are never discussed.

Dr. Claus Köhnlein suspects a connection between HCQ therapy and an unusual increase in excess mortality in Belgium, Holland, France, Italy, Spain and Great Britain. On the website with the official mortality statistics of most EU countries,¹⁵⁷ a strange phenomenon can be seen: The mortality rate drops continuously almost everywhere after the usual flu season. Only in the countries mentioned does it rise sharply at the end of March and fall again just as quickly in mid-April – a completely untypical course for an epidemic.

In neighbouring countries, this "jag" is not or barely visible. "No virus can produce such "spikes", certainly not outside the usual flu season. Especially as there was no excessive mortality in Germany, for example, although it borders directly on France, Holland and Belgium. The same applies to Austria, which is a neighbour of Italy and Switzerland, and Portugal, which is next to Spain."158 What was going on?

On 18 March, WHO proclaimed a major "trial-based drug offensive" to combat COVID-19, the "Solidarity Trial". The trial focused on the highly toxic drugs remdesivir, lopinavir/- ritonavir (Kaletra), interferon-β in combination with Kaletra, as well as HCQ and chloroquine.¹⁵⁹ The latter two drugs can cause cardiac arrhythmias, leading to death. "This is especially true when administered in higher doses, as has occurred in the treatment of so-called COVID-19 patients not only in Italy, but also in Spain, France, England and the USA. “ ¹⁶⁰

And exactly such high doses were recommended by the WHO. The American doctor Meryl Nass wrote in an article that in the Solidarity study 2.4 g were administered on the first day and a total of 9.2 g up to the 10th day.¹⁶¹ Since the active ingredient degrades slowly in the body, the quantities taken add up over several days. It has been known since 1979 that even a single dose of 1.9 - 2.6 g can be fatal. The limit of toxicity is therefore quickly exceeded.¹⁶²

"Nevertheless, many countries around the globe participated in the Solidarity study, including Spain, France, Switzerland and Belgium – countries with noticeable excess mortality (limited to April).

Within three days, the researchers noticed cardiac arrhythmias in patients who had taken the higher dose (after three days, they had "had" 3.6 g of chloroquine). Nevertheless, the patients obviously continued to take the doses. And on the sixth day, 11 and thus a considerable part of the test persons had died, which led to an immediate end of the highdose part of the study.

“It appears that the Solidarity trials were not designed to test the benefits of hydroxychloroquine in Covid-19, but rather to see if patients could tolerate toxic, non-therapeutic doses," Meryl Nass criticises."163

There were other studies with HCQ in Europe and the USA. They were conducted in the countries where the death rate had the "jag" in the curve. One of them, "the Recovery trial, co-funded by the Welcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, progressed at unprecedented speed and within a relatively short time had enrolled more than 11,000 patients from 175 hospitals in the UK."164

For more info, see the Rubicon article in the last footnote and an interesting interview with Dr. Köhnlein.¹⁶⁵

Antivirals as a "cure"?

The fixation of virologists and laboratory scientists on "finding and destroying viruses" is highly problematic. For what they find in the test tube ("in vitro") is far from being transferable to the human organism ("in vivo"). Thus, drugs are found that inhibit viral replication "in vitro", such as "Remdesivir" from Gilead Sciences, which has been on the market since February 2020 against SARS-CoV-2. Originally developed in 2014 against Ebola viruses, it was never approved. Now it got a new chance with Corona, it got special approvals against Covid19 in the US, EU and Japan for "limited use in individual cases". Not a bad deal, since a 5-day treatment brings in between $2,300 and $3,100. The US government has already ordered half a million doses for $1,170,000,000 (1.17 billion).¹⁶⁶

A Chinese study on mice¹⁶⁷ found negative effects on the number and mobility of germ cells (sperm, eggs), the higher the dose, the worse.

So far, there has only been one study that showed some success with remdesivir treatment, but it was ambivalent. On the one hand, the drug is said to have reduced the ventilation time of intensive care patients from an average of 15 to 11 days; on the other hand, massive liver damage was observed.¹⁶⁸

This moderate "success" is contradicted by a WHO study in more than 30 countries, announced in October, whose interim results showed clear trends. Treatments with remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir and interferon had little or no effect on Covid19, either against normal mortality or on treatment duration.¹⁶⁹

The authors T. Engelbrecht and Dr. med. C. Köhnlein write in their book "Virus-Wahn" (Virus Delusion) that antivirals are not very "accurate", but rather comparable to a wide-area shot. Therefore, healthy cells are also affected and prevented from growing, comparable to chemotherapy That is why they are both immunosuppressing and carcinogenic.

Dr. Köhnlein expressed the assumption in the "Ärzteblatt" that Germany had come out of the crisis relatively well because not as many antiviral drugs had been used there as in other European countries.¹⁷⁰

Remdesivir, like almost all antivirals, incorporates a foreign molecule into the newly developing DNA during cell division, causing the cell to die. However, this does not only affect "infected" cells, but also healthy ones, which is reflected in numerous "side effects" that are often worse than the main effect. The organism pays a high price to get rid of the suspected virus. In the test tube this is not noticeable, but in the body it is very noticeable.

A similar failure had already been experienced decades ago with AZT (azidothymidine), also known as "Retrovir". The drug was developed in 1963 as a "chain terminator". This means that the chain of cell divisions is terminated. That particularly affects cells that divide frequently, such as the cells of the intestinal mucosa or blood cells. This is why the idea came up to use it in leukaemia, where the leukocytes multiply particularly quickly. It's the same principle as chemotherapy: you damage all the cells as they divide, but the cancer cells die a little faster, at least in theory.

It's like trying to kill terrorists in a city by poisoning the drinking water because some scientist has found out that terrorists are more likely to react to the poison than all the other inhabitants. Of course, that has to go down the drain. When it was finally realised that patients were dying faster with AZT than from untreated leukaemia, it was withdrawn and disappeared into the poison cabinet for the time being. In professional circles, it was then called "the drug in search of the right disease".

This was then found in 1986, when AIDS came on the scene. According to the motto "give AZT a chance", it was now used against HIV, which supposedly worked – in the test tube. A first human trial spread hope to frightened AIDS patients, but on closer examination turned out to be "sloppy, fraudulent and completely worthless".¹⁷¹ Nevertheless, AZT was approved, with nasty side effects that curiously coincided with the disease it was supposed to cure. One might think about that.

The fatal thing was that many healthy people were also treated with it, and they got AIDS symptoms much more often than untreated people. Why were they treated at all? Because the PCR test was positive for HIV, and nothing else. Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR, had protested strongly at the time against the misuse of his test.

In an interview, he vented his displeasure. Among other things, he complained that Anthony Fauci had no idea about anything, just like most people in high medical posts, they were just clerks without a clue, they changed the rules when they wanted to. The main problem with science in this century is that it is judged and funded by people who don't understand it.¹⁷²

Mullis was ignored, the pharmaceutical business had to continue. History repeats itself when such disasters are forgotten and when the greed for profit drives the vaccine and drug manufacturers to once again accept injuries and deaths.

46 His employer, the company Cetus, paid him $10,000 for his method in 1989. In 1994, Cetus sold the patent to Hoffmann-LaRoche for $300 million, the highest sum paid for a patent up to that time.

47 https://youtu.be/xZGT1AEZjwE and: Celia Farber. "The Corona Simulation Machine": https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-Covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/

48 https://www.creative-diagnostics.com/sars-cov-2-coronavirus-multiplex-rt-qpcr-kit-277854-457.htm

49 Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.

50 Centre for Disease Control, US Department of Health and Human Services in Atlanta, Georgia

51 The former name of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2

52 CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, March 30, 2020

53 Food and Drug Administration, US regulatory authority for medicinal products.

54 https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download

55 https://www.unimedizin-mainz.de/fileadmin/kliniken/medmikrohyg/Dokumente/Dokumente_Diagnostik/Diagn Know how/Mibi PCR-Grundlagen.pdf

56 https://www.sciencemediacenter.de/alle-angebote/fact-sheet/details/news/verlauf-von-Covid-19-und-kritische-abschnitte-der-infektion/

57 https://pim-eservices.roche.com/eLD/api/downloads/008d5c8b-8ab5-ea11-fa90-005056a772fd?countryIsoCode=ch

58 Source: https://www.reitschuster.de/post/corona-abgeordneter-beklagt-test-chaos/

59 https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html

60 https://www.oe24.at/coronavirus/schock-tausende-schweden-bekamen-falsches-testergebnis/443581008

61 I will not go into detail about the rapid tests, because they are based on the results of the PCR tests and are therefore at least as uncertain.

62 Today, gel electrophoresis has become state of the art

63 "cycle threshold", more details here: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/Covid-19-pandemie-nicht-jeder-positiv-getestete-ist-noch.676.de.html

64 https://de.rt.com/gesellschaft/110320-studie-zeigt-pcr-tests-liefern/

65 https://reitschuster.de/post/haelfte-der-positiv-getesteten-nicht-infektioes/

66 https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/Covid-19-pandemie-nicht-jeder-positiv-getestete-ist-noch.676.de.html?dram: article_id=483722

67 https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users#.X9pjhnAOs2Y.twitter

68 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS-CoV-2#cite_ref-RT-PCR-1-Fig2-Desc_154-0 more sources also there

69 Source: https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/der-fluch-der-pcr-methode

70 https://www.anderweltonline.com/klartext/klartext-20202/warum-gibt-es-akzeptable-und-inakzeptable-sterbefaelle/

71 Source: https://kopp-report.de/wie-politik-und-medien-die-ganze-wahrheit-ueber-corona-tests-verschweigen/

72 Sometimes also: "nt"=nucleotides

73 In order to decode them, millions of individual sequences were analysed in many laboratories around the world from 1990 to 2001 and used to compile the human genome in the computer: "Human Genome Project" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human Genome Project

74 E gene and RdRp, S or ORF1 gene

75 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Transkription All Corona tests are therefore called "real-time RT-PCR".

76 According to the RKI, https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/infektionen-101.html

77 https://www.politaia.org/waehrend-corona-vergessen-krankenhauskeime/?source=ENL

78 2020 renamed SARS-CoV-1 to avoid confusion with the "new" SARS-CoV-2, i.e. Covid19

79 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002%E2%80%932004_SARS_outbreak

80 Xing-Yi Ge et al., Isolation and characterization of a bat SARS-like Coronavirus that uses the ACE2-receptor. Nature. Band 503, 2013, S. 535-538

81 Ben Hu et al.; Christian Drosten (Hrsg.): Discovery of a rich gene pool of bat SARS-related coronaviruses provides new insights into the origin of SARS coronavirus, in: PLOS Pathogens vom 30. November 2017

82 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS-CoV

83 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19-Pandemie_in_der_Volksrepublik_China#cite_ref-40

84 That is 0.006% infected and 0.00036% dead in the total population.

85 http://www.gisaid.org/

86 You can find everything in: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045

87 "Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR", same link as above

88 Chinese Centre for Disease Control

89 The China Novel Coronavirus Investigating and Research Team: A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019. In: The New England Journal of Medicine. 24. Januar 2020 siehe auch: https://telegra.ph/Wie-die-Fehlannahme-des-behaupteten-SARS-CoV-2-begann-10-08

90 E gene with 76 bp and RdRp gene with 100 bp

91 V. M. Corman, T. Bleicker, S. Brünink, Christian Drosten, Olfert Landt, M. P. G. Koopmans, M Zambon, M. Peiris: Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR (protocol-v2-1). Hrsg.: Charité Virologie, 17.1.20

92 https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

93 https://reitschuster.de/post/wissenschaftler-pcr-test-unbrauchbar/https://de.rt.com/meinung/109980-experten-finden-zehn-schwerwiegende-fehler-Covid-19/

94 TIB MOLBIOL Syntheselabor GmbH Berlin Tempelhof has been a partner and initial user of various PCR test methods from Christian Drosten's environment for decades.

95 https://corona-transition.org/die-roche-connection-wie-prof-christian-drosten-mit-steuergeldern-forscht-und

96 According to Wikipedia, Drostens Test has already sold 40,000 test kits, for testing 4 million samples, in over 60 countries in the first two months.

97 https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/Covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/

98 The German Federal Institute for Vaccines and Biomedical Drugs

99 "in vitro" = in the laboratory, not on the patient

100 https://www.pei.de/DE/newsroom/hp-meldungen/2020/200323-Covid-19-nat-tests.html

101 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/?uri=uriserv: OJ.CI.2020.122.01.0001.01.DEU

102 Food and Drug Administration

103 https://www.thailandmedical.news/news/must-read-u-s-medical-news-white-house-removes-us-fda-s-power-to-regulate-and-standardize-all-medical-laboratory-tests-including-for-Covid-19

104 At the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University and the University of the West of England http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2020/09/die-falschen-resultate-der-Covid-tests.html#ixzz6XL6JITCP

105 https://www.journalistenwatch.com/2020/09/08/prozent-positiv-tests/

106 https://www.drugcom.de/news/positiver-drogenbefund-nach-mohnbroetchen/

107 https://taz.de/Produzent-von-Corona-Tests/!5671485/

108 "Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR (protocol-v2-1)", ed: Charité Virology, Berlin. 17 Jan. 2020, p. 6, title 1, paragraph 3

109 V. M. Corman, T. Bleicker, S. Brünink, Christian Drosten, Olfert Landt, M. P. G. Koopmans, M Zambon, M. Peiris: Diagnostic detection of 2019-nCoV by real-time RT-PCR (protocol-v2-1). Hrsg.: Charité Virologie, 17.1.20

110 MERS: Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, a lung disease caused by the MERS-CoV coronavirus.

111 https://www.reitschuster.de/post/wie-drosten-die-corona-tests-zerlegte/

112 https://pieceofmindful.com/2020/04/06/bombshell-who-coronavirus-pcr-test-primer-sequence-is-found-in-all-human-dna/

113 "RdRp/nCoV_IP2-12759Rv"

114 CTCCCTTTGTTGTTGT Here C stands for cytosine, T for thymine and G for guanine.

115 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nucleotide/NC_000008.11

116 4¹⁸ because of 4 possible nucleic acids to the power of 18 digits

117 https://www.wodarg.com/2020/04/01/was-misst-der-test-eigentlich/

118 Indian banana. In some reports, the fruit was confused with the papaya

119 http://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/tanzanian-paw-paw-tests-positive-for-Covid-19-president-magufuli/ar-BB13xpD0

120 http://www.n-tv.de/der_tag/Papaya-positiv-auf-Corona-getestet-Tansania-kritisiert-WHO-article21766364.html

121 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-tanzania-tests/africa-disease-centre-rejects-tanzanias-allegation-that-its-coronavirus-tests-faulty-idUS_KB_N22J1FO

122 http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2020/06/corona-nicht-zuerst-in-china-aufgetaucht.html#ixzz6R7G6KOV6

123 https://www.compact-online.de/was-hat-die-elite-zu-verbergen-experten-packen-aus/

124 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/24/uk-scientists-want-to-infect-volunteers-with-Covid-19-in-race-to-find-vaccine and https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/coronavirus-researchers-may-have-to-chase-infections-to-do-vaccine-tests-h9kcc0wr0

125 "Die Welt" on 26.6.20

126 https://www.rnd.de/gesundheit/drosten-lobt-strategie-von-laschet-zu-corona-hotspot-tonnies-X3GCR4GHEZBGREOL52VORBC5W4.html

127 Message from 18.6.20 on http://www.wodarg.com/

128 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smhbENDRPOE

129 Oliver Märtens in: https://peds-ansichten.de/2020/07/pcr-test-correctiv-deutung/

130 https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/der-fluch-der-pcr-methode

131 https://peds-ansichten.de/2020/05/viren-angst-faszination-nutzen/

132 "Viral Load and the PCR", Christine Johnson, Continuum Nov. 2001 http://www.sidasante.com/themes/tests/pcr/viral_load_and_the_pcr.htm

133 Also called "Henle-Koch postulates", after the physicians Jakob Henle and Robert Koch.

134 https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/09/scientists-have-utterly-failed-to-prove-that-the-coronavirus-fulfills-kochs-postulates/

135 https://telegra.ph/Alle-führenden-Wissenschaftler-bestätigen-COVID-19-existiert-nicht-07-03 or https://telegra.ph/Die-Studien-der-Ärzte-klären-auf-weisen-SARS-CoV-2-nicht-nach-11-23

136 https://telegra.ph/Alle-führenden-Wissenschaftler-bestätigen-COVID-19-existiert-nicht-07-03 or https://telegra.ph/Die-Studien-der-Ärzte-klären-auf-weisen-SARS-CoV-2-nicht-nach-11-23

137 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pxoXSFEqXA

138 https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/112189/Obduktionsberichte-Verstorbene-COVID-19-Patienten-hatten-alle-Vorerkrankungen

139 https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/214070/Umgang-mit-Corona-Toten-Obduktionen-sind-keinesfalls-obsolet

140 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/Covid_weekly/index.htm?_fbclid=IwAR23vpHBFZcBVsoEQWKVE8yuy7md44tEr2yFcrHl0j92Lv dZDa1ataE1tF8#Comorbidities

141 https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/26/cdc-us-flu-deaths-winter/

142 https://twitter.com/QuakDr/status/1332601338514038784?s=20

143 http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2020/09/94-der-corona-toten-sind-nicht-daran.html#ixzz6WpiGjP3J

144 https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2213-2600(20)30076-X

145 Source: https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/die-medikamenten-tragodie

146 https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/gesundheit-oekologie/wir-sehen-bei-corona-haeufig-stoerungen-der-blutgerinnung-li.82045

147 https://www.handelsblatt.com/meinung/kolumnen/expertenrat/diehm/expertenrat-prof-dr-curt-diehm-es-ist-zeit-dass-wir-in-der-corona-debatte-viel-staerker-auf-lungenaerzte-hoeren/25760524.html

148 This is officially called "ventilator-induced lung injury".

149 https://www.compact-online.de/das-war-grob-fahrlaessig-panik-und-pfusch-in-new-york-2/

150 Glucose-6-dehydrogenase deficiency

151 Acetylsalicylic acid, metamizole, sulphonamides, vitamin K, naphthalene, aniline, antimalarials and nitrofurans

152 https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/Covid-19-medical-detectives

153 https://www.gelbe-liste.de/wirkstoffe/Hydroxychloroquin 3297#Kontraindikation

154 https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/solidarity-clinical-trial-for-Covid-19-treatments

155 https://www.aerztezeitung.de/Nachrichten/Neue-Hydroxychloroquin-Studie-in-Grossbritannien-410916.html

156 https://de.sputniknews.com/gesellschaft/20200505327031601-Covid-19-malaria-mittel-wodarg-warnt/

157 https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

158 https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/die-medikamenten-tragodie

159 https://www.immunopaedia.org.za/breaking-news/solidarity-trial-who-Covid-19-treatment-trial/

160 https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/die-medikamenten-tragodie

161 https://ahrp.org/Covid-19-has-turned-public-health-into-a-lethal-patient-killing-experimental-endeavor/

162 https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/65773/WHO_MAL_79.906.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

163 https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/die-medikamenten-tragodie

164 ibid

165 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uijUzY4Prpw

166 https://de.sputniknews.com/wirtschaft/20200711327483285-us-pharmakonzern-corona-milliarden-profit/

167 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.21.050104v1

168 https://de.sputniknews.com/wissen/20201003328066671-wie-sicher-ist-remdesivir-eu-arzneibehoerde-prueft-moegliche-nierenschaeden-durch-corona-medikament/

169 https://deutsch.rt.com/international/107863-who-studie-vier-bekannte-medikamente-kaum-auswirkung-Covid-19-sterblichkeit/

170 https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/214539/COVID-19-Therapieansaetze-Therapeutische-Zurueckhaltung

171 John Lauritsen: "The AZT-Story -Poison by Prescription" or: "raum & zeit-special" No. 4 or: "Weltwoche", Zurich, 25.6.1992

172 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4bvAfeYXxc&feature=youtu.be