Category: Drugs/Alcohol

Posted on

CV #57: US CDC Says Problems In Testing, False Positives And Negatives

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. There are many: lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes, and much more than most people realize. For examples: The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies. It’s also worth mentioning that there is little to no science behind what our officials are doing, though they promote all kinds of degenerate behaviour. Also, the Australian Department of Health admits the PCR tests don’t work, and the US CDC admits there are large problems with current testing.

2. Important Links

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
CDC.serious.testing.problems.July.13

3. CDC: Not Enough Isolates For Testing

Analytical Performance:
.
Limit of Detection (LoD):
.
LoD studies determine the lowest detectable concentration of 2019-nCoV at which approximately 95% of all (true positive) replicates test positive. The LoD was determined by limiting dilution studies using characterized samples.
.
The analytical sensitivity of the rRT-PCR assays contained in the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel were determined in Limit of Detection studies. Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen. Samples were extracted using the QIAGEN EZ1 Advanced XL instrument and EZ1 DSP Virus Kit (Cat# 62724) and manually with the QIAGEN DSP Viral RNA Mini Kit (Cat# 61904). Real-Time RT-PCR assays were performed using the ThemoFisher Scientific TaqPath™ 1-Step RT-qPCR Master Mix, CG (Cat# A15299) on the Applied Biosystems™ 7500 Fast Dx Real-Time PCR Instrument according to the CDC 2019-nCoV RealTime RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel instructions for use.

Taken at face value, they don’t have enough isolates available, alternative methods would have to be used.

4. CDC Admits False Positives Happen

CDC.serious testing.problems.July.13

Results are for the identification of 2019-nCoV RNA. The 2019-nCoV RNA is generally detectable in upper and lower respiratory specimens during infection. Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.

(Page 3) So a positive result could mean you have the coronavirus, or it could mean something else. That isn’t exactly very helpful.

5. CDC Admits False Negatives Happen

CDC.serious testing.problems.July.13

Results are for the identification of 2019-nCoV RNA. The 2019-nCoV RNA is generally detectable in upper and lower respiratory specimens during infection. Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.

Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information.

Testing with the CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is intended for use by trained laboratory personnel who are proficient in performing real-time RT-PCR assays. The CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is only for use under a Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization.

(Page 3) Okay, so not only will these tests not tell you conclusively that you have the virus, it won’t tell you that you DON’T have it either. False positives and false negatives are bound to happen

5. Extensive List Of Limitations

CDC.serious testing.problems.July.13

• All users, analysts, and any person reporting diagnostic results should be trained to perform this procedure by a competent instructor. They should demonstrate their ability to perform the test and interpret the results prior to performing the assay independently.
• Performance of the CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel has only been established in upper and lower respiratory specimens (such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs, sputum, lower respiratory tract aspirates, bronchoalveolar lavage, and nasopharyngeal wash/aspirate or nasal aspirate).
• Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Optimum specimen types and timing for peak viral levels during infections caused by 2019-nCoV have not been determined. Collection of multiple specimens (types and time points) from the same patient may be necessary to detect the virus.
• A false-negative result may occur if a specimen is improperly collected, transported or handled. False-negative results may also occur if amplification inhibitors are present in the specimen or if inadequate numbers of organisms are present in the specimen.
• Positive and negative predictive values are highly dependent on prevalence. False-negative test results are more likely when prevalence of disease is high. False-positive test results are more likely when prevalence is moderate to low.
• Do not use any reagent past the expiration date.
• If the virus mutates in the rRT-PCR target region, 2019-nCoV may not be detected or may be detected less predictably. Inhibitors or other types of interference may produce a false-negative result. An interference study evaluating the effect of common cold medications was not performed.
• Test performance can be affected because the epidemiology and clinical spectrum of infection caused by 2019-nCoV is not fully known. For example, clinicians and laboratories may not know the optimum types of specimens to collect, and, during the course of infection, when these specimens are most likely to contain levels of viral RNA that can be readily detected.
• Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.
• The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection.
• The performance of this test has not been established for screening of blood or blood products for the presence of 2019-nCoV.
• This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.

(Page 37/38) A pretty lengthy list: the test itself seems to be plagued by limitations.

6. CDC On Test’s Intended Use

INTENDED USE
The CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is a realtime RT-PCR test intended for the qualitative detection of nucleic acid from the 2019-nCoV in upper and lower respiratory specimens (such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs, sputum, lower respiratory tract aspirates, bronchoalveolar lavage, and nasopharyngeal wash/aspirate or nasal aspirate) collected from individuals who meet 2019-nCoV clinical and/or epidemiological criteria (for example, clinical signs and symptoms associated with 2019-nCoV infection, contact with a probable or confirmed 2019-nCoV case, history of travel to a geographic locations where 2019-nCoV cases were detected, or other epidemiologic links for which 2019-nCoV testing may be indicated as part of a public health investigation). Testing in the United States is limited to laboratories certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA), 42 U.S.C. § 263a, to perform high complexity tests.

Results are for the identification of 2019-nCoV RNA. The 2019-nCoV RNA is generally detectable in upper and lower respiratory specimens during infection. Positive results are indicative of active infection with 2019-nCoV but do not rule out bacterial infection or coinfection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.

Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or other patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information.

Testing with the CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is intended for use by trained laboratory personnel who are proficient in performing real-time RT-PCR assays. The CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel is only for use under a Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization.

(Page 56) Again, plenty of room for false positives and false negatives from happening. These testing methods can’t even exclude having the virus. They can’t even tell if some other disease is causing the positive result.

7. Testing Has Very Serious Problems

These tests won’t definitively tell people that they have this virus. Nor will they definitively show that a person doesn’t have it. A secondary verification is needed.

The tests also can’t rule out diseases caused by other bacteria or pathogens. So false positives could be cause by other, unrelated illnesses.

The CDC concedes that not enough cell line has been isolated (when at the time of publication), which would further complicate things.

What do Canadian officials have to say about testing and error rates? See the next piece on errors.
-Barbara Yaffe admits up to 50% false positives in virus tests
-Bonnie Henry admits up to 30% false negatives in virus tests
-Bonnie Henry admits high error rates (false positives and false negatives) when it comes to antibody testing.

Do these tests work? Perhaps, but officials admit that the results are highly unreliable. Combine this with the political agendas of many of our leaders, and people have good reason to be skeptical.

Posted on

CV #32(B): BCPHO Bonnie Henry Admits No Science Behind Anything She Does

According to the BC Provincial Health Officer, the current tests can give up to 30% false negatives for people who are actually infected. Don’t worry, things are about to get a lot worse.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. See the lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. There is a lot more than most people realize. For examples: The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies.

2. Henry Admits “No Science” In 50-Person Limit

On May 25, 2020, BC Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry said that “50 cars” was included in the guidelines for limiting groups of people who can get together. At 1:05 she states that there is no real science behind these Provincial dictates. This was addressed in Part 37, but worth a review.

Also, it would be nice to get an explantion about the exemptions. The 50-person limit applies to movie theatres, but not grocery stores. It applies to religious gatherings, but not schools.

3. 2015 Testimony: Limited Evidence For Masks

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2015/2015canlii62106/2015canlii62106.pdf
2015.ontario.college.of.nurses.mask.ruling

134. Dr. Henry agreed with this observation by Dr. Skowronski and Dr. Patrick who are her colleagues at the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control:
.
I do agree, as we’ve discussed earlier, influenza is mostly transmitted in the community and we don’t have data on the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated healthcare workers and individual transmission events…in healthcare settings.
.
135. Dr. Henry agreed that no VOM policy would influence influenza in the community. Dr. McGeer denied that she had used or recommended the use of community burden in the assessment of development of such a policy.

So there is no data on any differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated health care workers. Yet these people are still arguing for VOM (vaccine or mask).

177. Dr. McGeer and Dr. Henry presented the position of the OHA and the Hospital based upon their understanding of the relevant literature. Neither of them asserted that they had particular expertise with respect to masks or had conducted studies testing masks.

So, no actual expertise of research. Bonnie Henry just read what was available. And this is the Provincial Health Officer of British Columbia.

219. Dr. Henry answered the ‘why not mask everyone’ question this way:
.
It is [influenza vaccination] by far, not perfect and it needs to be improved, but it reduces our risk from a hundred percent where we have no protection to somewhat lower. And there’s nothing that I’ve found that shows there’s an incremental benefit of adding a mask to that reduced risk…..there’s no data that shows me that if we do our best to reduce that incremental risk, the risk of influenza, that adding a mask to that will provide any benefit. But if we don’t have any protection then there might be some benefit when we know our risk is greater.
.
When we look at individual strains circulating and what’s happening, I think we need it to be consistent with the fact that there was nothing that gave us support that providing a mask to everybody all the time was going to give us any additional benefit over putting in place the other measures that we have for the policy. It’s a tough one. You know, it varies by season.[320]
.
It is a challenging issue and we’ve wrestled with it. I’m not a huge fan of the masking piece. I think it was felt to be a reasonable alternative where there was a need to do—to feel that we were doing the best we can to try and reduce risk.
.
I tried to be quite clear in my report that the evidence to support masking is not as great and it is certainly not as good a measure

Bonnie Henry admits no strong evidence to support maskings.

4. Henry Admits No Evidence Masks Work

Bonnie Henry admitted on January 30, 2020, that there’s no evidence to support the idea of putting masks on healthy people. See 0:22 in the video for the masks topic.

Note: as of yesterday, masks are now required on BC Transit, due largely to Bonnie Henry’s “new advice”. She is a complete fraud.

5. Bonnie Henry’s New Advice On Masks

Fast forward to July 24, and now Bonnie Henry now says that masks are beneficial to both healthy and sick people. Start at 1:00 in the video.

She says it’s about “courtesy and respect”.
Who knows what the next version will be?

Note: the man in the video is BC Health Minister Adrian Dix. Dix has no medical background whatsoever, (as he went to school for history and political science). Still, he is in this position of power.

6. Bonnie Henry Admits 30% False Negative Rate

Bonnie Henry admitted on April 13 that there is at least a 30% false negative rate in these tests. Apparently, you can be negative one moment, and then positive almost immediately afterwards.

B.C.’s provincial health officer says that mass testing continues to be an ineffective strategy to slow transmission of COVID-19 because it has a false negative rate as high as 30 per cent in people who are infected but don’t show symptoms.

At her daily briefing on Monday, Dr. Bonnie Henry said testing is not as sensitive as health officials expected it to be earlier in the crisis.

“The testing, unfortunately, doesn’t tell us the whole story. People can be negative one minute and positive within an hour.

“The false negative rate can be as high as 30 per cent early on in infection.”

Assuming Bonnie Henry is even telling the truth, these tests don’t actually work properly. Being positive but testing negative is not a sign that it’s accurate.

7. Bonnie Henry Admits High False Positive Rate

Henry said B.C.’s approach to testing is evolving based on epidemiology, testing capacity and methodology and a growing understanding of the virus.

She said routine testing of people -including those in schools, prior to surgery or other procedures, or as a condition of employment or for travel – is not recommended.

“It is important to understand that testing can result in false positive and false negatives, particularly in asymptomatic people and in people who are very early on in the illness or who may be incubating the disease,” Henry said in the letter.

She said serological tests for the virus causing COVID19 is recommended only to focus on informing the public health response and for clinical research investigations.

“If large numbers of false positive tests were to occur through routine testing of asymptomatic people, this could create a significant burden for the public health system and would provide little value in protecting your business and could impede our ability to protect the health of all British Columbians,” Henry said.

There would be large numbers of false positives? Wait a minute. Isn’t this test supposed to be highly accurate and reliable? How then would false positives overwhelm the medical system?

8. Barbara Yaffe Admits 50% False Positives

This was addressed in Part 43. Barbara Yaffe, Ontario’s Deputy Medical Health Officer, admits that there can be a 50% false positive error in PCR testing. She then bizarrely goes on to defend how important testing is. When asked about it, Premier Doug Ford talks in circles rather than give a straight answer.

For some context:
(a) BC admits there is a 30% false negative rate
(b) ON admits there is a 50% false positive rate

These tests are absolutely worthless.

9. BC CDC Has No Idea The Error Rate

5. What is the clinical sensitivity of the NAT test?
A statistic commonly quoted is that there is a 30% chance of a false negative result for a NAT test in a patient with COVID-19 infection (i.e., a 70% sensitivity). These and other similar estimates are based on a small number studies that compared the correlation between CT scan findings suggestive of COVID-19 infection to NAT on upper respiratory tract specimens. In these studies, 20-30% of people with a positive CT scan result had negative NAT results – and as discussed above a number of factors can contribute to false negative results. CT scan is not a gold standard for diagnosis of COVID-19 infection, and CT scan cannot differentiate amongst the many microbiological causes of pneumonia.
.
Ultimately, for COVID-19 testing, there is currently no gold standard, and the overall clinical sensitivity and specificity of NAT in patients with COVID-19 infection is unknown (i.e., how well NAT results correlate with clinical infection, “true positivity” or “true negativity” rate).

http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR

10. Australia: PCR Tests Not Designed For This

Can reinfection occur?
There have been reports of apparent re-infection in a small number of cases. However, most of these describe patients having tested positive within 7-14 days after apparent recovery. Immunological studies indicate that patients recovering from COVID-19 mount a strong antibody response. It is likely that positive tests soon after recovery represent persisting excretion of viral RNA, and it should be noted that PCR tests cannot distinguish between “live” virus and noninfective RNA. Australian guidelines currently require patients who have had COVID-19 to test negative on two tests 24 hours apart before being released from isolation.

https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2020/03/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-clinicians.pdf

According to the Australian Health Department, positive tests are likely due to viral excretion. And the PCR tests cannot distinguish between that and live viruses. In spite of that, Australia has some of the most draconian measures on the planet.

If the Australian Government published this months ago, then why are these tests still being used? This is clearly not their intended purpose. Why doesn’t the BC Government know about this?

11. No Basis For Pandemic Declaration

Of course one has to ask WHY a vaccine is so critical, given how many people have already recovered. However, the obedient puppets in the media never seem to get to such details.

12. Henry Pushes Vaxx, Rejects Antibody Testing

Bonnie Henry dismisses the idea of widespread sampling for antibody testing. Instead, she once again pushes the idea that a vaccine is needed. See the comment at the end.

12. Henry Admits Antibody Testing Doesn’t Work

https://globalnews.ca/video/embed/7160788/”/
bonnie.henry.antibody.tests.false.positives.and.negatives.

And in this recent gem, BCPHO Bonnie Henry admits that there are lots of errors in antibody testing. This actually produces BOTH false positives and false negatives.

13. CDC And Accuracy Of Antibody Testing

Antibody testing is NOT recommended for:
.
The routine diagnosis of acute or recent COVID-19 infections. As antibodies can take 14 days or more to be reliably detected, and by 14 days after symptom onset most patients with COVID-19 infection are no longer considered infectious, serology provides limited information to guide immediate clinical or public health action. NAT remains the test of choice for diagnosis of acute COVID-19 infection. Furthermore as time passes and the SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to circulate, a positive antibody result may be due to a prior infection and not necessarily reflect the cause of an individual’s current symptoms.

Determining an individual’s immune status or past exposure. Antibody testing to document immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is NOT recommended as it has not yet been established whether the presence of antibodies provides protection from re-infection. It is also apparent that not everyone with past COVID-19 infection mounts a measurable antibody response that can be detected by laboratory testing, or for how long the antibodies persist. Therefore, antibody results cannot be used as proof of immunity for subsequent decision-making (e.g., decisions related to the use of personal protective equipment, adherence to physical distancing or other public health or workplace recommendations). Antibody testing is also not recommended to verify past exposure as a condition to employment or travel, in schools, prior to surgery or other medical procedures.

SO what’s the point of antibody testing if it can’t:
[1] Determine infection
[2] Determine immunity
[3] Be used to make medical decisions

http://www.bccdc.ca/health-professionals/clinical-resources/covid-19-care/covid-19-testing/antibody-testing-(serology)
https://archive.is/58jmq

http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_SerologyTestingGuidelines.pdf
COVID19_SerologyTestingGuidelines

14. “Essential Businesses” Is Arbitrary List

In March, all “non-essential” businesses were ordered to close down by the BC Government. But how do they determine what is essential or not? How did they figure this was needed? Well, no real details were ever provided.

15. Bonnie Henry Openly Promotes Degeneracy

This is from Part 54. While she apparently doesn’t have a clue as to what is going on, the Provincial Health Officer still encourages all sorts of degenerate behaviour, as does the BC Center for Disease Control.

If these people weren’t actually in charge of the Province, this would be downright comical. As it is, it’s downright infuriating.

16. Who Are Bonnie Henry & Barbara Yaffe?

According to her LinkedIn profile, Barbara Yaffe graduated medical school in 1978, and was in various post-graduate programs until 1984. There is nothing listed until 1998, where she became a public health official in Toronto. She is registered with the CPSO, but there is no actual medical practice listed. So, why the almost 15 year gap?

Bonnie Henry appears to have graduated from medical school in 1990, and then spent another 11 years in school after that. She then went directly into being a Deputy Medical Officer with Toronto Public Health in 2001. So Henry and Yaffe were colleagues. There are 2 years of experience listed (2005 to 2007), but the overwhelming majority of her time seems to be in various political roles.

And was mentioned in Part 13, there is no record of Theresa Tam ever practicing medicine.

These are the people in charge of making public medical decisions.

Posted on

CV #55: Australian Department Of Health Admitted In April PCR Tests Don’t Work

Victorian Premier Dan Andrews declaring martial law in that part of Australia. This is despite the PCR tests not actually being scientifically valid. Even the Australian Department of Health admits it.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. See the lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. There is a lot more than most people realize. For examples: The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies.

2. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for Australia 7 News, related article.
http://archive.is/rwVq5
CLICK HERE, for Royal Australian College of General Practitioners.
http://archive.is/Mfip7
https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2020/03/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-clinicians.pdf
australia.coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-clinicians
CLICK HERE, for essentials about CV-19, from Australian Gov’t.
http://archive.is/0uizh
https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2020/08/coronavirus-covid-19-at-a-glance-23-august-2020.pdf
australia.coronavirus-covid-19-at-a-glance-23-august-2020

https://www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-testing-australia-information-health-professionals
https://archive.is/dOAWk
http://web.archive.org/web/20200907101958/https://www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-testing-australia-information-health-professionals

3. Australia’s 7 News Reporting

Asked how soon Australia was likely to see an opening of its international borders, Professor Kelly said it was partly dependent on the development of a successful and globally available vaccine.

Australia would need to track infection rates in other countries and study their modelling as they passed the peak of infection rates.

Coronavirus reinfection
.
The Department of Health notes that current tests do not distinguish been live and non-infective RNA (ribonucleic acid) and that most recovering patients develop strong antibodies.

This suggests that the chance of widespread reinfection across the community is not likely.

“There have been reports of apparent reinfection in a small number of cases,” the Department of Health states on its website.

It was admitted back in April that the PCR tests can’t distinguish between live and non-infective virus strains. So the test is basically useless. Nonetheless, the Australian Government (like all of them), is pushing ahead with the vaccine agenda.

4. Royal Aust College of General Practitioners

It is important to note that the relatively small numbers of cases in South Korea were tested within seven to 14 days after apparent recovery, according to the Australian Department of Health (DoH).

‘It is likely that positive tests soon after recovery represent persisting excretion of viral RNA, and it should be noted that PCR [polymerase chain reaction] tests cannot distinguish between “live” virus and non-infective RNA,’ the DoH states on its website.

That is the same point raised by Oh Myoung-don, a professor of internal medicine and member of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Strategic and Technical Advisory Group for Infectious Hazards. Contrary to claims of possible reactivation of the virus, Professor Oh suggests the tests conducted in South Korea likely picked up lingering viral genetic material.

‘Even after the virus is dead, the nucleic acid [RNA] fragments still remain in the cells,’ he said.

Associate Professor Ian Mackay, a virologist at the University of Queensland Child Health Research Centre, told newsGP that until some scientific method is applied to these cases, they are merely ‘anecdotes about reinfection [with] no solid analyses to guide us’.

Even the Australian College of General Practitioners realizes that these PCR tests conflate active virus strains, and dead bits of genetic material. This is from April 15, 2020, some 4 months ago.

5. Australian Department Of Health

Can reinfection occur?
There have been reports of apparent re-infection in a small number of cases. However, most of these describe patients having tested positive within 7-14 days after apparent recovery. Immunological studies indicate that patients recovering from COVID-19 mount a strong antibody response. It is likely that positive tests soon after recovery represent persisting excretion of viral RNA, and it should be noted that PCR tests cannot distinguish between “live” virus and noninfective RNA. Australian guidelines currently require patients who have had COVID-19 to test negative on two tests 24 hours apart before being released from isolation.

https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2020/03/coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-clinicians.pdf
Australia coronavirus-covid-19-information-for-clinicians

According to the Australian Health Department, positive tests are likely due to viral excretion. And the PCR tests cannot distinguish between that and live viruses. In spite of that, Australia has some of the most draconian measures on the planet.

6. No Cure, Yet Aussies Have Recovered

There is no cure, yet some 80% have already recovered, and that is even with the Government screwing with the numbers.

So what exactly is in these vaccines? Will it euthanize people? Sterilize people? Paralyze them? There is definitely something nefarious at play here, and we need answers.

7. PCR Tests Now The Gold Standard?

https://www.tga.gov.au/how-testing-works-covid-19

Detecting the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus
Two types of tests that detect the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus include – nucleic acid tests that detect the virus’s genetic material and antigen tests that detect specific viral proteins.

Nucleic acid tests
These tests detect the presence of the genetic material, called nucleic acids, of the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus. Such tests are good at detecting the virus early in the infection and can sometimes even detect the virus in a person before they become unwell. The nucleic acid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test is currently considered the gold standard for diagnosis of COVID-19.

Nucleic acid tests are complicated to do and usually need specialist scientists to run the tests in a laboratory to get an accurate result. The laboratory scientists can sometimes run these tests on automated machines that can do many tests at once. This means that you can test lots of people quickly.

There are now some SARS-CoV-2 nucleic tests available that can be used outside of a laboratory by trained people. Most of these systems give results quickly but cannot do many tests at once.

In March, Australia said that the PCR tests were unable to differentiate between live or infectious diseases, and “dead” genetic material. Now, in August, it is considered the gold standard of testing. Quite the change.

8. Australia Still Unsure On Testing

https://www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-testing-australia-information-health-professionals

COVID-19 testing in Australia – information for health professionals
26 August 2020
Tests for COVID-19 aim to detect the causative virus, SARS-CoV-2, or an immune response to SARS-CoV-2.

The reliability of COVID-19 tests is uncertain due to the limited evidence base. Available evidence mainly comes from symptomatic patients, and their clinical role in detecting asymptomatic carriers is unclear.

The indications for conducting a COVID-19 test have changed through the course of the pandemic. See the current suspect case definition and the testing criteria on the Department of Health website.

As of August 26, 2020, the Australian Government still doesn’t seem to know. Way to send mixed signals on all of this.

Posted on

CV #52: Ontario Public Health Recommends Wearing Masks, While Admitting They Don’t Work

https://www.ontario.ca/page/face-coverings-and-face-masks
https://www.ontario.ca/page/covid-19-stop-spread#section-1

Supposedly, the masks are not to stop people from getting infected, but from spreading it. However, the recommendations are that EVERYONE wear it, and almost any form of mask will do. They claim masks are useless for preventing someone from catching this virus, but are essential in ensuring it’s not spread. Sure….

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. See the lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. There is a lot more than most people realize. For examples: The Gates Foundation finances many things, including, the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies.

2. PHO Admits No Evidence For Healthy People

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/factsheet/factsheet-covid-19-how-to-wear-mask.pdf?la=en
ontario.admits.masks.dont.work

Wear a mask if:
• You have symptoms of COVID-19 (i.e., fever, cough, difficulty breathing,
sore throat, runny nose or sneezing) and are around other people.
• You are caring for someone who has COVID-19.
• Unless you have symptoms of COVID-19, there is no clear evidence that wearing a mask will protect you from the virus, however wearing a mask may help protect others around you if you are sick.

Wear a mask if you are caring from someone with covid-19? But wait, I thought these masks weren’t effective at preventing someone from catching it, only spreading it.

3. Canada Public Health Recommends Masks

Canada Public Health recommends the use of non-medical masks. This is despite Ontario Public Health saying elsewhere that there is no evidence they actually work. http://archive.is/TWYRq

4. Ontario Admits Overwhelming Recovery

https://covid-19.ontario.ca/

Ontario Public Health admits that over 90% of the people infected have already recovered. So why exactly the huge push for a vaccine? And who can forget Toronto Public Health, and Ontario Health Minister Christine Elliott lying about how deaths are calculated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwwHBpIHEpM

https://twitter.com/TOPublicHealth/status/1275888390060285967

5. Ontario Recommends Masks On Transit Anyway

https://files.ontario.ca/mto-guidance-public-transit-agencies-and-passengers-covid-19-en-2020-06-11-v3.pdf
ontario.transit.mask.recommendations

Ontario recommends masks on all people in all stages on transit, despite Ontario Public Health clearly admitting that they don’t work.

Defenders claim these policies were never meant to prevent people from catching it, but to stop sick people from spreading it. Okay, but why would masks be useless in the first situation, but effective in the second? It’s still the same recirculated air.

It’s actually a pretty good technique for controlling people. Claim that it’s not SELF protection, but for the benefit of OTHERS. Easier to mandate or guilt trip into compliance.

6. WHO Admits Masks Don’t Work

This was addressed in Part 37. The World Health Organization openly admitted on April 6 and June 5 that masks don’t work, but recommends them anyway. It’s also unclear where this 2 metres actually comes from, given WHO only references 1 metre.

7. PCR Tests Get 50% False Positive Rate

In Part 43, it was discussed how Ontario Deputy Medical Officer, Barbara Yaffe admitted that these PCR tests can give up to a 50% false positive, but it was important to test anyway. When called out on it, Ontario Premier Doug Ford danced around the issue.

Posted on

More On Vaccine Hesitancy Research, Convincing People It’s Safe

Go onto Health Canada’s site and search the term “vaccine hesitancy”. You will find over 200 papers, studies, and listings — some very in depth work. Keep in mind, this is ONLY Health Canada. See #6 for mandatory CV-19 vaccines.

1. Other Articles On CV “Planned-emic”

The rest of the series is here. See the lies, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and various globalist agendas operating behind the scenes. There is a lot more than most people realize. For background, check this and this article. The Gates Foundation finances many things, including: the World Health Organization, the Center for Disease Control, GAVI, ID2020, John Hopkins University, Imperial College London, the Pirbright Institute, and individual pharmaceutical companies.

2. Motivational Interviewing

Abstract
According to the World Health Organization, vaccine hesitancy is among the top threats to global health and few effective strategies address this growing problem. In Canada, approximatively 20% of parents/caregivers are concerned about their children receiving vaccines. Trying to convince them by simply providing the facts about vaccination may backfire and make parents/caregivers even more hesitant. In this context, how can health care providers overcome the challenge of parental decision-making needs regarding vaccination of their children?

Motivational interviewing aims to support decision making by eliciting and strengthening a person’s motivation to change their behaviour based on their own arguments for change. This approach is based on three main components: the spirit to cultivate a culture of partnership and compassion; the processes to foster engagement in the relationship and focus the discussion on the target of change; and the skills that enable health care providers to understand and address the parent/caregiver’s real concerns.

With regard to immunization, the motivational interviewing approach aims to inform parents/caregivers about vaccinations, according to their specific needs and their individual level of knowledge, with respectful acceptance of their beliefs. The use of motivational interviewing calls for a respectful and empathetic discussion of vaccination and helps to build a strong relationship.

Numerous studies in Canada, including multicentre randomized controlled trials, have proven the effectiveness of the motivational interviewing approach. Since 2018, the PromoVac strategy, an educational intervention based on the motivational interviewing approach, has been implemented as a new practice of care in maternity wards across the province of Quebec through the Entretien Motivationnel en Maternité pour l’Immunisation des Enfants (EMMIE) program.

vaccine.hesitancy.motivational.interviewing

To be absolutely clear, the above research, and what follows has nothing to do with research into CREATING safe vaccines. Instead, the goal is to CONVINCE you that they already are.

3. Challenges And Approaches

Because causes of vaccine hesitancy and determinants of vaccine acceptance are complex and multidimensional, there is no “magic bullet” that can address vaccine hesitancy and enhance vaccine acceptance. A summary of the findings from 15 published literature reviews or meta-analysis of the effectiveness of different interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy and/or to enhance vaccine acceptance reveals that simply communicating evidence about vaccine safety and efficacy to those who are vaccine hesitant has done little to stem the growth of hesitancy related beliefs and fears (41). Furthermore, failure to properly and systematically evaluate the relevance and effectiveness of these interventions across the spectrum of vaccine hesitant individuals and specific vaccines makes it difficult to know whether the results can be transferable or suitable for widespread implementation.

Should the public health community respond to anti-vaccination activists (48)? Leask suggests that adversarial approaches against such activists can in fact enliven the battle and contribute to a false sense that vaccination is a highly contested topic (49). Most of the time, pro-vaccine advocates should “play the issue, not the opponent” (49). Efforts should be made to stop them only when anti-vaccination activists’ advice could lead to direct harm.

Future public health vaccine promotion efforts need to embrace Internet and social media possibilities and proactively promote the importance and safety of vaccines rather than adopt a reactive approach to anti-vaccination activists’ arguments (47,50,51). The role of social media in vaccine hesitancy creates a need to develop appropriate strategies for online communication. Such strategies should aim to provide vaccine supportive information, address misinformation published online and correspond to parents’ needs and interests (29).

vaccine.hesitancy.challenges.and.approaches

In a parallel with the climate change scam, a technique suggested is to be dismissive of the idea that there is any debate. If you can’t win with facts, then avoid the discussion altogether.

It’s interesting that the recommendation is to avoid engaging with people “vaccine deniers” who bring well researched and well thought out arguments.

4.Best Practices For Addressing Hesitancy

1. Identify target audience and establish trust
“Understanding the perspectives of the people for whom immunization services are intended, and their engagement with the issue”, wrote Goldstein and colleagues, “is as important as the information that experts want to communicate” (8). The amount, content and type of information that is needed to move a vaccine-hesitant individual toward vaccine acceptance differs greatly from the basic information needed by a person who is already favourable to vaccination and intends to vaccinate. Research has shown that vaccine-hesitant individuals are “active information-seekers” that are looking for “balanced” information presenting both pros and cons of vaccination in order to make an informed decision about vaccines (9,10). Their information needs are usually not fulfilled with typical information from public health authorities, as this information generally does not usually provide references to scientific studies and is often perceived as focusing on the benefits of vaccines and not discussing the potential risks of vaccines (11). Addressing those who are strongly anti-vaccines merit specific strategies. This is not the subject of the current paper but will be addressed in a future CANVax Brief.

5. Test communication prior to launching
It is important to test a communication material prior to launching to make sure it is working as intended for the target audience. The results might be surprising: a study showed that information given in frequency formats (e.g. one out of 10 infants will have a fever after a vaccination) were perceived as more risky than the same information conveyed in probabilistic terms (e.g. 10% of infants will have a fever after a vaccination) (27). Studies have also shown that as many as one out of two adults do not have the necessary skills to interpret probabilities and other mathematical concepts

vaccine.hesitancy.promotional.material

This works just like commercial marketing. Target your audience, and avoid getting into “factual” arguments with people who have actually done their homework.

5. Progress Against Vaccine Hesitancy

Fortunately, researchers like Dr. Ève Dubé, with Université Laval are looking into this important issue. Dr. Dubé is an anthropologist, a researcher, and a professor, who works on vaccine hesitancy. Her research aims at understanding the social, cultural, and political contexts that influence individuals’ and groups’ beliefs and practices around vaccination.

She works with various health organizations to transfer research into practice.

One of the aims of her research program is to address vaccine hesitancy by supporting parents to make informed vaccination decisions and by ensuring that healthcare providers are prepared to communicate effectively with vaccine-hesitant parents.

She is currently leading different projects on vaccine hesitancy such as a study based on interviews with vaccine-hesitant parents to look at information sources on vaccination and information needs and preferences of parents to make an informed decision about vaccination. She is also leading a project to develop and pilot-test interventions to address vaccine hesitancy around the HPV vaccine in the context of school-based programs in Canada.

Vaccine hesitancy is a very, VERY widely researched field. A lot of money is tied up in ensuring that people don’t start asking the wrong questions and putting the pieces together.

Ève Dubé also co-authors the next piece, which includes entertaining the idea of making this coronavirus vaccine mandatory.

6. Legislating Vaccine Compliance

Given that queries have also been raised in the press about whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine(s), when available, should be made mandatory for some or all in Canada, this Canadian Vaccination Evidence Resource and Exchange Centre (CANVax) Brief provides an overview and brief discussion of what mandatory childhood vaccination means followed by discussions of scope and framework factors to consider. Also discussed are the reported outcomes, including reports of unintended consequences.

COVID-19 vaccines and consideration for a mandatory approach
While a poll in Canada in late April 2020 reported strong support amongst the general public for making COVID-19 vaccination mandatory (21), this strategy can only be considered when these vaccines become widely available in Canada. Given that a mandatory program has costs both in terms of implementation and monitoring (5), decisions need to rest on what additional benefit is hoped to be achieved. If vaccine uptake is already expected to be high amongst groups deemed necessary for the control of the spread of COVID-19, then the added costs of a mandatory program are likely not justified. In contrast, if the rates of uptake are low and the ease of access and other strategies known to improve uptake have been addressed, then a mandatory approach may be worth pursuing. Careful attention must be paid to whether this will be an incentive or penalty program, how it will be monitored and by whom (5).

vaccine.hesitancy.forced.by.legislation

At least some honesty here. It is acknowledged in writing that the public is wondering if CV-19 vaccines will ever become mandatory. Interestingly, it doesn’t address that concern. Instead, it just defers the issue until later.

7. How Rampant Is This Research?

vaccine.hesitancy.motivational.interviewing
vaccine.hesitancy.challenges.and.approaches
vaccine.hesitancy.promotional.material
vaccine.hesitancy.forced.by.legislation

These are only a few of course. Much more available here.

8. Immunization Partnership Fund

This was addressed in Part 8, but worth another look.

9. Gates Finances Vaccine Hesitancy Research

Although small by its standards, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has made some contributions to vaccine hesitancy work. It’s just good business.

10. WHO Researches Vaccine Hesitancy

A search on the World Health Organization’s site under “vaccine hesitancy” results in 117 possible matches.

The World Health Organization has released several other papers and research findings into vaccine hesitancy. Either they are moronic, or they truly think that what they are doing is for the best of humanity.
hesitancy.research
hesitancy.research.02
hesitancy.research.strategies.for.addressing
hesitancy.conclusions.for.addressing

11. WHO Establishes National Standards


WHO.establishment.national.standards.vaccines

This is a 2011 publication, but the World Health Organization sets national standards for what vaccinations countries need apparently.

12. WHO’s July 9, 2020 Guidance

How to prevent transmission
The overarching aim of the Strategic Preparedness and Response Plan for COVID-19(1) is to control COVID-19 by suppressing transmission of the virus and preventing associated illness and death. To the best of our understanding, the virus is primarily spread through contact and respiratory droplets. Under some circumstances airborne transmission may occur (such as when aerosol generating procedures are conducted in health care settings or potentially, in indoor crowded poorly ventilated settings elsewhere). More studies are urgently needed to investigate such instances and assess their actual significance for transmission of COVID-19.

WHO.july9.new.science.supposedly.uncovered

In this latest version, the World Health Organization has removed earlier comments about there being no evidence to support wearing masks. Now, the deadliest virus in history can be stopped by a simple piece of cloth.

13. WHO: May 22 Guidance On Mass Vaccination

who.mass.vaccination.strategy

Note: the World Health Organization doesn’t have an issue with mass vaccination of an entire population during this “pandemic”. They just want people to be safe, apparently.

14. “Vaccine Hesitancy” Is Just Marketing

They refer to it as overcoming vaccine hesitancy. However these are marketing techniques to convince people that these vaccines are safe, and only crazies are questioning it.

Some of the techniques include pretending to care about people’s concerns, and feigning a legitimate relationship. Also, strong critics should be treated dismissively, and questions evaded. It should not be even entertained that there might be serious questions about these drugs.

There is a strong parallel with the climate change hoax. Both use psychological manipulation to ward off valid questions about what is going on.

This is just a small sample of the work deployed to convince people that these are safe. There is much more to look into.

Posted on

CV #50: BC Transit Mask Policy Is Based On “Rider Comfort” And “Customer Feedback”

1. Important Links

(1) https://www.bctransit.com/media/releases-and-advisories?nid=1529710083644
(2) http://archive.is/sjqEg
(3) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-doctor-mandatory-mask-rules-court-injunction-1.5659495
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzyoWyqBM8k&feature=youtu.be&t=57

2. It’s Not About Science

We recognize the advice from health professionals, including Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry, has been to wear face coverings when physical distancing is not possible including on transit vehicles. Customers have indicated making the use of face coverings mandatory will create a more comfortable environment.

While face coverings will be mandatory, the policy will be implemented as an educational step without enforcement. The educational position is aligned with TransLink and other transit agencies in Canada.

We will work hard to ensure customers are aware of our new policy over the coming weeks, and work together to make transit a comfortable environment for staff and customers.

3. Bonnie Henry

“Transit is an important service for many British Columbians. BC Transit’s decision to make masks mandatory on their vehicles will help make transit safer for fellow passengers. Find one that’s comfortable, and make time to get used to wearing them and taking them on and off as needed. Those of us who are able should be using masks on transit all the time. I do and I expect others to as well.”
.
Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry.

4. Claire Trevena

“Across British Columbia, our response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been rooted in public health. Public transit continues to be an essential service that people rely on, and we appreciate the work of our transit operators to keep these services running throughout the pandemic response and recovery. Knowing your fellow bus passengers will also be wearing a non-surgical mask or face covering will help boost people’s confidence in choosing transit while contributing to a welcoming and safe environment on our buses.”
.
Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Claire Trevena

Wearing masks will make people FEEL more comfortable, and boost their confidence. In other words, this is entirely about feelings.

5. Erinn Pinkerton

“The implementation of a mandatory mask policy is in response to feedback from our customers. I am pleased to have the support of TransLink, Dr. Bonnie Henry and the Province of BC to implement this policy that will make transit more comfortable for our customers.”
.
Erinn Pinkerton, BC Transit President and Chief Executive Officer

This is response to feedback form riders, and to make the ride more comfortable. In other words, BC Transit is imposing this because of feelings, not because of any scientific or medical reasons.

6. CBC Coverage Of Declaration

The new policy will apply to anyone riding the bus, SkyTrain or SeaBus in Metro Vancouver, and on buses operated by BC Transit outside of the region — but there will be some exemptions.

In a statement, TransLink said the move is “essential” to ensuring people feel confident riding transit as the province’s economy reopens and more people resume commuting.

“It’s imperative that our customers … feel safe so that we can recover our ridership over time,” TransLink CEO Kevin Desmond told reporters Thursday.

“We want to ensure that we continue to do our part to minimize any potential for community transmission on public transit.”

In its typical style, CBC doesn’t seem to ask any tough or critical questions about this policy. Reporters also don’t pick up on the policy being founded on “comfort” or “rider feedback”.
http://archive.is/5B4xa

7. Bonnie Henry: Masks Are About Respect

In Thursday’s daily COVID-19 briefing, Henry addressed Li’s application, describing mandatory mask policies as a “heavy handed” approach to public health that she is not considering at this point. She said wearing a mask is a sign of courtesy and respect, but it remains the least effective method of preventing transmission of the virus, behind measures like physical distancing, limits on crowd size and good hygiene.

On July 23, Bonnie Henry responded to a court action filed in Chilliwack that demanding the Province force masks on everyone.

8. Bonnie Henry: No Science In What We Do

Bonnie Henry, the BC Provincial Health Officer, repeatedly jokes that there is no science behind limiting group sizes to 50 people. But then she goes ahead and does it anyway. One then reasonably has to ask: is there any science behind wearing the masks? Or is it really all about comfort and “feeling” better?

Or is it just part of following the Lockstep Narrative?