Read on Twitter
Peer-review is not some sort of holy grail. It will always be difficult to get mainstream science journals to publish work that challenges official narratives because the research-university complex is so tightly tied into the global corporate-state-capitalist-big pharma system.1 https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1355814409621426176
"Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and medicine." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/ 2
We know peer review is just one of the issues in science and research but it is an important one. Conflict of interest, politicization & outright corruption are also serious problems. See e.g. https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425/rr-13 & https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/7/11-089086/en/ Oh! Gates-funded Guardian anyone?3
You're never going to get a paper called "PCR test scandal" published given how central the test is to #lockdown etc.; the Danish mask study delay showed the difficulty scientists face getting even RCT studies published when they challenge the official narrative. 4
The main PCR paper was peer reviewed and published in Jan 2020 by Eurosurveillance just 1 day after submission and there are have been court cases and appeals for retraction: https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ & https://fos-sa.org/2021/01/12/cease-and-desist-papers-served-on-prof-dr-christian-drosten-by-dr-reiner-fuellmich/ Peer review is politicized 5
PCR scandal: The problem with amplification cycles of pcr is if the cycle threshold is too high the test can detect the 'virus' in pretty much anything, generating a large number of false positives which count as "cases/infections", which are then used to justify #lockdowns etc 6
The WHO re-issued guidance to testers on 20th Jan 2021, although it's been widely known, acknowledged by the inventor of the test & Fauci. High cycle threshold, more false positives, fake cases/infections, misattributed deaths, hysteria, more #lockdowns https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05 7
"Careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed. The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested" 8
"...disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases." 9
"This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity." 10
"PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis...health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information."11
"Careful interpretation of weak positive NAAT results is needed, as some of the assays have shown to produce false signals at high Ct values." Tests are being done at drive-thrus! There is no quality checking. This is not new. Everyone knows this https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/diagnostic-testing-for-sars-cov-2 12
Fauci: PCR cycles above 35 are ridiculous: https://noagendaassets.com/enc/1604001883.242_thisweekinvirology-fauci-1-above35ctpcrisnotaccurate.mp3 and the most recent testing guidance says amplification should be no more than 34 (section 9.2) : https://www.who.int/diagnostics_laboratory/eual/eul_0535_196_00_covid19_real_time_pcr_kit_ifu.pdf 13
Yet testers are consistently using amplification cycles above 40 meaning a large number of false positive, more "cases/infections", more hysteria, everyone's a threat, more #lockdown... 14
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90508 "With these type of tests, it's critical to use an agreed-upon cycle threshold value rather than setting it at a potentially misleading 40 or 45. Many of the current tests in use are preset by the manufacturer to these higher numbers."15
"The WHO issued a notice last week telling the labs "the cut-off should be manually adjusted to ensure that specimens with high Ct values are not incorrectly assigned SARS-CoV-2 detected due to background noise."16
"Could this be a reason why many people test positive but remain asymptomatic?"17
In other words the WHO has told testers to pull back on and reduce the amplification cycle because tests were generating false positives. 17
In other words the WHO has told testers to pull back on and reduce the amplification cycle because tests were generating false positives. 17
Look what happened in Austria when PCR tests were replaced: positives fell from 12% to 0.4%.. https://tkp.at/2021/01/21/das-pcr-testparadoxon-der-drastische-rueckgang-der-positiven-tests/ 18
Fauci is aware. CDC is aware. Mainstream science literature is aware. Governments are aware. WHO is aware. They've known throughout. @GeorgeMonbiot 's faux-ignorance is more about his complicity in and support for #lockdowns and the #GreatReset based on his eco-fascism....19
....and @GeorgeMonbiot 's class position as a propogandist for a pseudo-left corporate rag that provided progressive cover for the Iraq War (and countless others since) and the mass murder of millions of innocent people based on a pack of lies-all pushed by his employer.20
Now @GeorgeMonbiot turns all-out fascist, calling for censorship and suppression of people speaking against the the social devastation, death, suffering and damage to children caused by #lockdown. His progressive-sounding façade masks dangerous paid advocacy for global fascism 21
Pcr tests lead to pseudo-epidemics https://web.archive.org/web/20191019005156/https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html
