|
|
As daily news reports are filled with higher and higher numbers of people infected with COVID, and especially the “more contagious” Delta variant (numbers that, curiously, don’t seem to be accompanied by higher numbers of hospitalizations or fatalities), one question persists: Just how accurate or reliable are the tests for COVID infection?
Trends Journal has been addressing this question since March 2020, in articles that revealed the flawed nature of the Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) test (often referred to as simply the PCR test), the test that the CDC has regarded as “the gold standard” for COVID testing around the world.
Among those articles are September 2020’s “COVID GOLD TEST PROVES TO BE ‘WORTHLESS'” and December 2020’s “PRIMARY COVID-19 TEST: ‘ERRORS AND FLAWS’,” and a sampling of highlights from such articles are the following:
- According to The New York Times article of 29 August 2020, “In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus.”
- On 17 September 2020 the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) published a critique of the PCR test that stated: “A PCR test might find the virus it was looking for. This results in a PCR positive, but a crucial question remains: is this virus active, i.e., infectious or virulent? The PCR alone cannot answer this question…if the PCR detects the virus in the human sample, this detection might correspond to a virus that is now incapable of infecting cells and reproducing.”
Even back then, a “Trends in The News” video by Gerald Celente questioning the PCR test was removed from YouTube on the grounds that “content that explicitly disputes the efficacy of local health authorities’ or World Health Organization (WHO) guidance on social distancing and self-isolation that may lead people to act against that guidance” was a violation of YouTube’s “medical misinformation policy.”
It made no difference that Celente’s video quoted factual scientific data, some of which came from the WHO; nor did YouTube provide data to prove it was misinformation; the video dared to dispute the official narrative, and so it had to be removed.
Now comes the latest installment in this ongoing controversy. The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) is a Montreal-based independent research and media organization that describes its mission thusly: “In an era of media disinformation, our focus has essentially been to center on ‘the unspoken truth’.”
On its globalresearch.ca website on 23 July the CRG posted an article by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, first published on 21 March, “The WHO Confirms that the Covid-19 PCR Test is Flawed: Estimates of ‘Positive Cases’ are Meaningless. The Lockdown Has No Scientific Basis,” which uses the WHO’s own documents to show that the organization views the PCR tests as based on a flawed methodology which renders the results invalid.
The CRG re-posted that article in spite of Reuters.com having responded, on 8 April, to the article’s original appearance with a “fact check” that said it was all “misinformation,” that the WHO never challenged the methodology of the PCR tests, and that the WHO’s documents Chossudovsky quoted were merely “clarifications for laboratory professionals on how to interpret PCR results.”
TRENDPOST: Is the Reuters piece “fact-checking,” or is it “spin” for the sake of “damage control”? What is misinformation, and what is disinformation? What is the truth, spoken or unspoken? Will we ever be permitted to know?
It is made clear in yesterday’s New York Times article, “Officials Enlist Stars of TikTok in Vaccine War,” that anyone disputing the “official narrative” believes in misinformation. They go on to say that “The efforts are in part a counterattack against a rising tide of vaccine misinformation where anti-vaccine activists can be so vociferous.”
Thus, the ineffectiveness of masks, social distancing, surface sanitizing, PCR tests and now the COVID vaccine according to hard data, are dismissed as misinformation and those that note it are called conspiracy theorists and, as Piers Morgan says, “selfish pricks.”