The CDC and FDA finally admit the RT-PCR test has not been looking definitively for SARS-CoV-2

On 21st July 2021, the CDC issued a release titled, ‘Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing’, which instructed labs that the RT-PCR test assay that has been in use since the start of the pandemic will no longer have emergency use authorisation after 31st December this year.

They’re not saying the RT-PCR technology won’t continue to be used in 2022 to test ‘for’ SARS-CoV-2, only that the specific ‘recipe’ it’s testing for needs to be changed, and they’ve got a few other options ready that the FDA has approved for labs to use.

Why?

This is the test formula that’s been used since February 2020 to diagnose ‘cases’; to tell people they’re infected and must stay at home; to assign cause of death as Covid-19; to support the policy of lockdowns, masks, social distancing and quarantine. It’s been the backbone of the whole pandemic.

So what’s wrong with it – why does it need to be changed?

Well, they’re finally coming out and stating that the basis of the RT-PCR test – the ‘recipe’ that makes up what the test is looking for in people – was concocted through a variety of samples from various sources because the CDC didn’t have a sample of the actual virus (and nor did anyone else around the world, by the way.)

The CDC’s Lab Alert document links to an FDA release from 12th July, entitled ‘SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel Comparative Data’ (which adds to what was stated in an article about how virologists sequenced the SARS-CoV-2 genome, published more than a year ago on their site):

“During the early months of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical specimens [of the virus] were not readily available to developers of IVDs [in vitro diagnostics] to detect SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the FDA authorized IVDs based on available data from contrived samples generated from a range of SARS-CoV-2 material sources.

While validation using these contrived specimens provided a measure of confidence in test performance at the beginning of the pandemic, it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.”

So, each of the 59 PCR tests currently in use is looking for something a bit different and none of them are using a clinical specimen of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

What? And they’re only just making a change to the test now, 17 months after it first went into use?

Not only that, there still won’t be one definitive testing method next year – rather, the CDC is giving labs “adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.”

That rather suggests they still haven’t been able to isolate an actual virus, doesn’t it?

---

How virologists ‘identified’ the genome of the SARS-CoV-2 virus

In October 2020, Dr Tom Cowan wrote a piece, 'Only Poisoned Monkey Cells ‘Grew’ the ‘Virus’, after analysing a key article posted by the CDC, in their journal, Emerging Infectious Diseases: “Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 from Patient with Coronavirus Disease, United States”, published in June 2020.

Excerpts from Dr. Cowan's piece:

The purpose of the [CDC] article was for a group of about 20 virologists to describe the state of the science of the isolation, purification and biological characteristics of the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, and to share this information with other scientists for their own research.

In the section titled ‘Whole Genome Sequencing,’ we find that rather than having isolated the virus and sequencing the genome from end to end, they found 37 base pairs from unpurified samples using PCR probes. This means they actually looked at 37 out of the approximately 30,000 of the base pairs that are claimed to be the genome of the intact virus. They then took these 37 segments and put them into a computer program, which filled in the rest of the base pairs.

To me, this computer-generation step constitutes scientific fraud. Here is an equivalency: A group of researchers claim to have found a unicorn because they found a piece of a hoof, a hair from a tail, and a snippet of a horn. They then add that information into a computer and program it to re-create the unicorn, and they then claim this computer re-creation is the real unicorn. Of course, they had never actually seen a unicorn so could not possibly have examined its genetic makeup to compare their samples with the actual unicorn’s hair, hooves and horn.

The researchers claim they decided which is the real genome of SARS-CoV-2 by ‘consensus,’ sort of like a vote. Again, different computer programs will come up with different versions of the imaginary ‘unicorn,’ so they come together as a group and decide which is the real imaginary unicorn.

[Not ideal, is it?]