Joseph Mercola博士：PCR檢測傳奇：我們被騙了嗎
Dr. Joseph Mercola: PCR Testing Saga: Were We Duped?
Joseph Mercola博士：PCR檢測傳奇：我們被騙了嗎？- Golden Age of Gaia（蓋亞的黃金時代）
February 26, 2021 by Steve Beckow
2021年2月26日，作者：Steve Beckow
Accountability
問責
PCR Testing Saga: Were We Duped?
PCR檢測傳奇：我們被騙了嗎？
Dr. Joseph Mercola, The Defender, 02/23/21
Joseph Mercola醫生，辯護人，02/23/21
Were federal health officials and experts at WHO really unaware that the recommended high cycle count (CT) for PCR tests would produce an exorbitant number of false positives for COVID?
世衛組織的聯邦衛生官員和專家真的不知道，推薦的PCR檢測高週期計數（CT）會產生大量的COVID假陽性嗎？
Story at-a-glance:
故事一覽：
Curative offers a PCR test using spit rather than swabs from the back of your nasal cavity. Initially only authorized for use on symptomatic patients, the company has requested the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expand its authorization for use on asymptomatic individuals.
治療提供了一個PCR檢測使用唾液，而不是從你的鼻腔後面拭子。該公司最初只授權用於有症狀的患者，現在已經要求美國食品和藥物管理局擴大對無症狀患者的使用授權。
According to company data, the spit test accurately identifies about 90% of positive cases when compared against a nasopharyngeal PCR test set to 35 cycle threshold (CT).
根據該公司的數據，當鼻咽PCR檢測設置為35週期閾值（CT）時，唾液試驗準確地識別了約90%的陽性病例。
According to the FDA, that comparative CT is too low, and will produce too many false negatives. This, despite the scientific consensus, which states anything over 35 CTs is scientifically unjustifiable as it produces enormous amounts of false positives
根據FDA的說法，對比CT值太低，會產生太多的假陰性。儘管科學界已經達成共識，認為任何超過35個CT的東西在科學上都是不合理的，因為它會產生大量的假陽性
According to an April 2020 study, a CT of 17 must be used to obtain 100% confirmed real positives. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically. At 33 cycles, the false positive rate is 80%. Beyond 34 cycles, the false positive rate reaches 100%
根據2020年4月的一項研究，必須使用17的CT才能獲得100%的確診真陽性。超過17個週期，精度會急劇下降。33個週期，假陽性率為80%。超過34個週期，假陽性率達100%
Because the PCR test cannot discern between live virus and dead, noninfectious viral debris, the timing of the test is important. Recent research shows the median time from symptom onset to viral clearance confirmed by viral culture is seven days, whereas the PCR test continues to detect nonviable (noninfectious) SARS-CoV-2 for a median of 34 days.
因為PCR檢測不能區分活病毒和死的、非感染性的病毒碎片，所以檢測的時機很重要。最近的研究表明，從症狀出現到病毒培養證實的病毒清除的中位時間是7天，而PCR檢測繼續檢測不可行（非感染性）的SARS-CoV-2的中位時間是34天。
For several months, experts have highlighted the true cause behind the COVID-19 pandemic, namely the incorrect use of PCR tests set at a ridiculously high cycle count (CT), which falsely labels healthy people as “COVID-19 cases.” In reality, the PCR test is not a proper diagnostic test, although it has been promoted as such.
幾個月來，專家們一直在強調COVID-19大流行背後的真正原因，即不正確地使用了設置在可笑的高循環計數（CT）的PCR檢測，將健康的人錯誤地標記為“COVID- 19病例”。事實上，PCR檢測並不是一種正確的診斷檢測，儘管它已經得到了推廣。
An important question that demands an answer is whether the experts at our federal health agencies and the World Health Organization were really too ignorant to understand the implications of using this test at excessive CT, or whether it was done on purpose to create the illusion of a dangerous, out-of-control pandemic.
一個需要回答的重要問題是，我們的聯邦衛生機構和世界衛生組織的專家們是否真的太無知了，以至於無法理解在過度CT上使用這項檢測的含義，或者這項檢測是否是故意製造一種危險的、失控的流行病的假象。
Regardless, those in charge need to be held accountable, which is precisely what the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee (Außerparlamentarischer Corona Untersuchungsausschuss, or ACU), intends to do.
不管怎樣，那些負責人需要被問責，這正是德國科羅納議會外調查委員會（Außerparlamentarischer Corona untersuchungsauschuss，簡稱ACU）打算做的。
They’re in the process of launching an international class-action lawsuit against those responsible for using fraudulent testing to engineer the appearance of a dangerous pandemic in order to implement economically devastating lockdowns around the world. I wrote about this in “Coronavirus Fraud Scandal — The Biggest Fight Has Just Begun” and “German Lawyers Initiate Class-Action Coronavirus Litigation.”
他們正在發起一項國際集體訴訟，起訴那些利用欺詐性檢測來設計一種危險流行病的出現，從而在全球實施經濟毀滅性封鎖的人。我在《冠狀病毒欺詐醜聞——最大的鬥爭剛剛開始》和《德國律師發起集體訴訟冠狀病毒訴訟》中寫到了這一點
FDA demands higher false positives
FDA要求更高的假陽性率
An interesting case detailed in a Jan. 21 Buzzfeed article that raises those same questions in regard to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is its recent spat with Curative, a California testing company that got its start in Jan. 2020. It has since risen to become one of the largest COVID-19 test providers in the U.S.
Buzzfeed在1月21日的一篇文章中詳細描述了一個有趣的案例，這篇文章向美國食品和藥物管理局提出了同樣的問題，這是它最近與加利福尼亞州的一家檢測公司Curtive發生的口角，該公司於2020年1月成立。此後，它已成為美國最大的COVID-19測試提供商之一。
Curative’s most popular PCR test differs from other providers in that it uses spit swabbed from the patient’s tongue, cheek and mouth rather than from the back of the nasal cavity.
治療的最流行的聚合酶鏈反應檢測不同於其他供應商，因為它使用的是從病人的舌頭，臉頰和嘴，而不是從鼻腔後面的唾液拭子。
In April 2020, the FDA issued an accelerated emergency use authorization for the Curative spit test, but only for patients who had been symptomatic within the two weeks prior to taking the test, as the data available at that time showed it failed to catch asymptomatic “cases.”
2020年4月，美國食品藥品管理局（FDA）發布了治療性唾液試驗的加速緊急使用授權書，但僅適用於在接受試驗前兩週內出現症狀的患者，因為當時的數據顯示，沒有發現無症狀的“病例”。
However, the test was subsequently used off-label on individuals without symptoms anyway, and the company has been urging the FDA to expand its authorization to include asymptomatic individuals based on newer data.
然而，這項測試後來被用於標籤外的個人沒有症狀無論如何，該公司一直敦促FDA擴大其授權，包括無症狀的個人根據最新的數據。
In Dec. 2020, Curative submitted that data, showing its oral spit test accurately identified about 90% of positive cases when compared against a nasopharyngeal PCR test set to 35 CT.
在2020年12月，治療提交了數據，顯示其口腔唾液測試準確地確定了約90%的陽性病例相比，鼻咽PCR測試設置為35 CT。
The FDA objected, saying that Curative was comparing its test against a PCR that had a CT that was too low, and would therefore produce too many false negatives. According to the FDA, the bar Curative had chosen was “not appropriate and arbitrary,” Buzzfeed reports.
FDA對此表示反對，稱currenical是將其檢測結果與CT值過低的PCR進行比較，因此會產生太多的假陰性。Buzzfeed報導說，根據FDA的說法，治療藥物選擇的標準是“不恰當和武斷的”。
This is a curious statement coming from the FDA, considering the scientific consensus on PCR tests is that anything over 35 CTs is scientifically unjustifiable.
這是一個來自FDA奇怪的聲明，考慮到PCR檢測的科學共識是任何超過35 CTs的都是科學上不合理的。
From the start, the FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended running PCR tests at a CT of 40. This was already high enough to produce an inordinate number of false positives, thereby labeling healthy people as “COVID-19 cases,” but when it comes to Curative’s spit test, the FDA is demanding they compare it against PCR processed at a CT of 45, which is even more likely to produce false positives.
從一開始，FDA和美國疾病控制和預防中心就建議對40個CT進行PCR檢測。這已經足夠高，產生過多的假陽性，從而將健康的人標記為“COVID-19病例”，但當談到治療性唾液試驗時，FDA要求他們將其與45 CT處理的PCR進行比較，後者更可能產生假陽性。
The FDA’s concern is that Curative’s test is missing infections and giving infectious people a clean bill of health. However, in reality, it’s far more likely that the test is accurately weeding out people who indeed are not infectious at all and rightly should be given a clean bill of health. It seems the FDA is merely pushing for a process that will ensure a higher “caseload” to keep the illusion of widespread infection going.
FDA擔心的是，治療性試驗遺漏了感染，並為感染者提供了一份乾淨的健康證明。然而，在現實中，更可能的情況是，這項測試準確地剔除了那些確實沒有傳染性的人，應該給他們一份乾淨的健康證明。看來FDA只是在推動一個過程，以確保更高的“病例數”，以保持廣泛感染的假象繼續下去。
When are you actually infectious?
你什麼時候會傳染？
A persistent sticking point with the PCR test is that it picks up dead viral debris, and by excessively magnifying those particles with CTs in the 40s, noninfectious individuals are labeled as infectious and told to self-isolate. In short, media and public health officials have conflated “cases” — positive tests — with the actual illness.
PCR檢測的一個持久的癥結在於它能檢測到死亡的病毒碎片，通過在40年代用CTs過度放大這些顆粒，非感染性個體被標記為具有傳染性，並被告知進行自我隔離。簡而言之，媒體和公共衛生官員把“病例”（陽性檢測）與實際疾病混為一談。
Medically speaking, a “case” refers to a sick person. It never ever referred to someone who had no symptoms of illness. Now all of a sudden, this well-established medical term, “case,” has been arbitrarily redefined to mean someone who tested positive for the presence of noninfectious viral RNA.
從醫學上講，“病例”是指病人。它從來沒有提到過沒有疾病症狀的人。現在突然間，這個公認的醫學術語“病例”被任意重新定義為一個非感染性病毒RNA檢測呈陽性的人。
The research is unequivocal when it comes to who’s infectious and who’s not. You cannot infect another person unless you carry a live virus, and you typically will not develop symptoms unless your viral load is high enough.
當涉及到誰有傳染性和誰沒有傳染性時，這項研究是毫不含糊的。除非你攜帶活病毒，否則你無法感染他人，除非你的病毒載量足夠高，否則你通常不會出現症狀。
As it pertains to PCR testing, when excessively high CTs are used, even a minute viral load that is too low to cause symptoms can register as positive. And, since the test cannot distinguish between live virus and dead viral debris, you may not even be carrying a live virus at all.
由於涉及PCR檢測，當使用過高的CTs時，即使一分鐘的病毒載量太低而不能引起症狀，也可以登記為陽性。而且，由於測試無法區分活病毒和死病毒碎片，你甚至可能根本沒有攜帶活病毒。
These significant drawbacks are why PCR testing really only should be done on symptomatic patients, and why a positive test should be weighed as just one factor of diagnosis. Symptoms must also be taken into account. If you have no symptoms, your chances of being infectious and spreading the infection to others is basically nil, as data from 9,899,828 individuals have shown.
這些明顯的缺點是為什麼PCR檢測真的只應該在有症狀的病人身上進行，為什麼陽性檢測應該作為診斷的一個因素來衡量。症狀也必須考慮在內。如9899828人的數據所示，如果你沒有任何症狀，那麼你被傳染並傳播給他人的可能性基本為零。
Of these, not a single person who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ended up testing positive. This study even confirmed that even in cases where asymptomatic individuals had had an active infection, and had been carriers of live virus, the viral load had been too low for transmission. As noted by the authors:
其中，沒有一個曾與無症狀個體密切接觸的人最終檢測呈陽性。這項研究甚至證實，即使在無症狀的個體有活動性感染，並且是活病毒攜帶者的情況下，病毒載量也太低，無法傳播。正如作者所指出的：
“Compared with symptomatic patients, asymptomatic infected persons generally have low quantity of viral loads and a short duration of viral shedding, which decrease the transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2.
“與有症狀的患者相比，無症狀感染者的病毒載量普遍較低，病毒脫落時間短，這降低了SARS-CoV-2的傳播風險。
“In the present study, virus culture was carried out on samples from asymptomatic positive cases, and found no viable SARS-CoV-2 virus. All close contacts of the asymptomatic positive cases tested negative, indicating that the asymptomatic positive cases detected in this study were unlikely to be infectious.”
“在目前的研究中，對無症狀陽性病例的樣本進行了病毒培養，沒有發現有活力的SARS-CoV-2病毒。無症狀陽性病例的所有密切接觸者均呈陰性，表明本研究中檢測到的無症狀陽性病例不太可能具有傳染性。”
PCR picks up dead virus for weeks after infection has cleared
在感染清除後的數週內，聚合酶鏈反應檢測到死亡病毒
Because the PCR test cannot discern between live virus and dead, noninfectious viral debris, the timing of the test ends up being important. One example of this was presented in a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, in which the author describes an investigation done on hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Seoul, South Korea.
因為PCR檢測不能區分活病毒和死的、非感染性的病毒碎片，所以檢測的時機非常重要。這方面的一個例子是在給《新英格蘭醫學雜誌》編輯的一封信中提出的，作者在信中描述了在韓國首爾對住院的COVID-19患者所做的一項調查。
Whereas the median time from symptom onset to viral clearance confirmed by cultured samples was just seven days, with the longest time frame being 12 days, the PCR test continued to pick up SARS-CoV-2 for a median of 34 days. The shortest time between symptom onset to a negative PCR test was 24 days.
從症狀出現到病毒清除的時間中位數僅為7天，最長的時間為12天，而PCR檢測持續檢測SARS-CoV-2的時間中位數為34天。症狀發作至PCR陰性的最短時間為24天。
In other words, there was no detectable live virus in patients after about seven days from onset of symptoms (at most 12 days). The PCR test, however, continued to register them as “positive” for SARS-CoV-2 for about 34 days. The reason this matters is because if you have no live virus in your body, you are not infectious and pose no risk to others.
換言之，患者在症狀出現7天后（最多12天）沒有檢測到活病毒。然而，聚合酶鏈反應（PCR）檢測在大約34天的時間裡繼續顯示他們為SARS-CoV-2“陽性”。這一點之所以重要，是因為如果你體內沒有活病毒，你就沒有傳染性，也不會對他人造成危險。
This then means that testing patients beyond, say, day 12 to be safe, after symptom onset is pointless, as any positive result is likely to be false. But there’s more. As noted in that New England Journal of Medicine article:
這就意味著，在症狀出現後，對超過12天的患者進行安全檢測是毫無意義的，因為任何陽性結果都可能是假的。但還有更多。正如《新英格蘭醫學雜誌》的那篇文章所指出的：
“Viable virus was identified until 3 days after the resolution in fever … Viral culture was positive only in samples with a cycle-threshold value of 28.4 or less. The incidence of culture positivity decreased with an increasing time from symptom onset and with an increasing cycle-threshold value.”
“在退燒3天后才發現活病毒……病毒培養僅在周期閾值為28.4或更低的樣本中呈陽性。隨著症狀出現時間的延長和周期閾值的增加，培養陽性率降低”。
This suggests symptomology is a really important piece of the puzzle. If no viable virus is detectable beyond day 3 after your fever ends, it’s probably unnecessary to retest beyond that point. A positive result beyond day 3 after your fever breaks is, again, likely to be a false positive, as you have to have live virus in order to be infectious.
這表明症狀學是一個非常重要的難題。如果在發燒結束後的第3天之後沒有檢測到活病毒，那麼在這一天之後可能就沒有必要重新檢測了。退燒後第3天出現陽性結果，同樣可能是假陽性，因為你必須有活病毒才能感染。
Even more important, these results reconfirm that CTs above 30 are inadvisable as they’re highly likely to be wrong. Here, they found the CT had to be below 28.4 in order for the positive test to correspond with live virus. As noted by the authors:
更重要的是，這些結果再次證實了CTs超過30是不可取的，因為他們很可能是錯誤的。在這裡，他們發現CT必須低於28.4才能使陽性試驗與活病毒相符。正如作者所指出的：
“Our findings may be useful in guiding isolation periods for patients with Covid-19 and in estimating the risk of secondary transmission among close contacts in contract tracing.”
“我們的發現可能有助於指導Covid-19患者的隔離期，以及在合同追踪中估計密切接觸者之間的二次傳播風險。”
Testing for dead viruses will ensure everlasting lockdowns
對死亡病毒的檢測將確保永久的封鎖
To circle back to the Curative PCR test, the company argues that the test is accurate when it comes to detecting active infection, and as CEO Fred Turner told Buzzfeed:
回到治療性PCR檢測，該公司辯稱，在檢測活動性感染時，該檢測是準確的，正如首席執行官弗雷德·特納（Fred Turner）對Buzzfeed所說：
“If you’re screening for a return to work and you’re picking up everyone who had COVID two months ago, no one’s going to return to work. If you want to detect active COVID, what the ‘early’ study shows is that Curative is highly effective at doing that.”
“如果你在為重返工作崗位做篩選，而你要接走所有兩個月前感染過病毒的人，就沒有人會重返工作崗位。如果你想檢測活躍的COVID，'早期'研究表明，治療是非常有效的。
Again, this has to do with the fact that the Curative spit test has a sensitivity resembling that of a nasopharyngeal PCR set at a CT of 30. The lower CT count narrows the pool of positive results to include primarily those with higher viral loads and those who are more likely to actually carry live virus. This is a good thing. What the FDA wants Curative to do is to widen that net so that more noninfectious individuals can be labeled as a “case.”
同樣，這與治療性唾液試驗的敏感性類似於CT為30的鼻咽PCR的敏感性有關。較低的CT計數縮小了陽性結果的範圍，主要包括那些病毒載量較高的人和那些更可能攜帶活病毒的人。這是件好事。FDA想要做的是擴大這個網絡，以便更多的非感染者可以被標記為“病例”。
In an email to Buzzfeed, Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, stated that using a CT of 45 is “absolutely insane,” because at that magnification, you may be looking at a single RNA molecule, whereas “when people are sick and are contagious, they literally can have 1,000,000,000,000x that number.”
在給Buzzfeed的一封電子郵件中，哈佛THChan公共衛生學院的流行病學家Michael Mina博士說，使用45的CT是“絕對瘋狂的”，因為在這種放大倍數下，你可能看到的是一個RNA分子，而“當人們生病並具有傳染性時，他們實際上可以有10000000000x這個數字。”
Mina added that such a sensitive PCR test “would potentially detect someone 35 days post-infection who is fully recovered and cause that person to have to enter isolation. That’s crazy and it’s not science-based, it’s not medicine-based and it’s not public health-oriented.”
米納補充說，這種敏感的PCR檢測“可能會在感染後35天檢測到完全康復的人，並導致該人必須進入隔離狀態。這太瘋狂了，它不以科學為基礎，不以醫學為基礎，也不以公共衛生為導向。”
While the FDA has issued a warning not to use the Curative spit test on asymptomatic people, Florida has dismissed the warning and will continue to use the test on symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals alike. Only Miami-Dade County is reconsidering how it is using the test, although a definitive decision has yet to be announced.
雖然FDA已經發出警告，不要對無症狀的人使用治療性吐痰試驗，但佛羅里達州已經取消了這一警告，並將繼續對有症狀和無症狀的人使用這種試驗。只有邁阿密戴德縣正在重新考慮如何使用該測試，儘管最終決定尚未公佈。
The lower the CT, the greater the accuracy
CT值越低，準確性越高
While the FDA claims high sensitivity (meaning higher CT) is required to ensure we don’t end up with asymptomatic spreaders in our communities, as reviewed above, this risk is exceedingly small. We really need to stop panicking about the possibility of healthy people killing others. It’s not a sane trend, as detailed in “The World Is Suffering from Mass Delusional Psychosis.”
儘管FDA聲稱需要高靈敏度（意味著更高的CT）來確保我們的社區不會出現無症狀的傳播者，如上所述，這種風險非常小。我們真的需要停止對健康的人殺害他人的可能性感到恐慌。這不是一個理智的趨勢，正如“世界正在遭受大規模妄想性精神病”中所詳述的那樣。
According to an April 2020 study in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, to get 100% confirmed real positives, the PCR test must be run at just 17 cycles. Above 17 cycles, accuracy drops dramatically.
根據《歐洲臨床微生物學與傳染病雜誌》（European Journal of Clinical Microbiology&Infective Diseases）2020年4月的一項研究，要獲得100%的確診真陽性，PCR檢測必須只進行17個週期。超過17個週期，精度會急劇下降。
By the time you get to 33 cycles, the accuracy rate is a mere 20%, meaning 80% are false positives. Beyond 34 cycles, your chance of a positive PCR test being a true positive shrinks to zero.
當你達到33個週期時，準確率只有20%，也就是說80%是假陽性。超過34個週期後，你的PCR檢測呈陽性的機率會縮小到零。
Similarly, a Dec. 3, 2020, systematic review published in the journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases, which assessed the findings of 29 different studies, found that “CT values were significantly lower … in specimens producing live virus culture.” In other words, the higher the CT, the lower the chance of a positive test actually being due to the presence of live (and infectious) virus.
同樣，發表在《臨床傳染病雜誌》（journal of Clinical Influsibility Diseases）上的一篇系統綜述（2020年12月3日）對29項不同研究的結果進行了評估，發現“在產生活病毒培養的標本中……CT值明顯較低。”換句話說，CT值越高，實際出現陽性檢測的可能性越低活的（和傳染性的）病毒的存在。
“Two studies reported the odds of live virus culture reduced by approximately 33% for every one unit increase in CT,” the authors noted. Importantly, five of the studies included were unable to identify any live viruses in cases where a positive PCR test had used a CT above 24.
“兩項研究報告活病毒培養的機率減少約33%，每增加一個單位的CT”，作者指出。重要的是，其中有5項研究無法在PCR檢測陽性的病例中鑑定出任何活病毒，這些病例使用的CT超過24。
In cases where a CT above 35 was used, the patient had to be symptomatic in order to obtain a live virus culture. This again confirms that PCR with a CT over 35 really shouldn’t be used on asymptomatic people, as any positive result is likely to be meaningless and simply force them into isolation for no reason.
在CT值高於35的病例中，患者必須有症狀才能獲得活病毒培養。這再次證實了CT超過35的PCR確實不應該用於無症狀人群，因為任何陽性結果都可能毫無意義，只是無緣無故地強迫他們隔離。
PCR testing based on erroneous paper
基於錯誤論文的PCR檢測
In closing, the whole premise of PCR testing to diagnose COVID-19 is in serious question, as the practice appears to be based on an erroneous paper that didn’t even undergo peer-review before being implemented worldwide.
最後，PCR檢測診斷COVID-19的整個前提受到了嚴重的質疑，因為這種做法似乎是基於一篇錯誤的論文，在全世界實施之前甚至沒有經過同行評審。
Nov. 30, 2020, a team of 22 international scientists published a review challenging the scientific paper on PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 written by Christian Drosten, Ph.D., and Victor Corman (the so-called “Corman-Drosten paper”).
2020年11月30日，一個由22名國際科學家組成的研究小組發表了一篇評論，對克里斯汀·德羅斯滕博士和維克托·科爾曼撰寫的關於SARS-CoV-2 PCR檢測的科學論文（即所謂的“科爾曼·德羅斯滕論文”）提出質疑。
According to Reiner Fuellmich, founding member of the German Corona Extra-Parliamentary Inquiry Committee mentioned at the beginning of this article, Drosten is a key culprit in the COVID-19 pandemic hoax.
根據本文開頭提到的德國科羅納議會外調查委員會創始成員雷納·福爾米奇（Reiner fuelmich）的說法，Drosten是COVID-19大流行騙局的關鍵罪犯。
The scientists demanded the Corman-Drosten paper be retracted due to “fatal errors,” one of which is the fact that it was written, and the test itself developed, before any viral isolate was available. The test is simply based on a partial genetic sequence published online by Chinese scientists in January 2020. In an undercover DC interview, Kevin Corbett, Ph.D., one of the 22 scientists who are now demanding the paper’s retraction, stated:
由於“致命錯誤”，科學家們要求收回科曼·德羅斯滕的論文，其中一個原因是，該論文是在任何病毒分離物出現之前編寫的，而且測試本身也已經開發出來。這項測試只是基於中國科學家於2020年1月在網上公佈的部分基因序列。在華盛頓的一次秘密採訪中，凱文·科貝特博士是22位要求收回論文的科學家之一，他說：
“Every scientific rationale for the development of that test has been totally destroyed by this paper … When Drosten developed the test, China hadn’t given them a viral isolate. They developed the test from a sequence in a gene bank. Do you see? China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate.
“這篇論文徹底摧毀了研製這項試驗的所有科學依據……當Drosten研製這項試驗時，中國沒有給他們一個病毒分離物。他們根據基因庫中的一個序列開發了這個測試。你看到了嗎？中國給了他們一個沒有相應病毒分離物的基因序列。
“They had a code, but no body for the code. No viral morphology … the bits of the virus sequence that weren’t there they made up. They synthetically created them to fill in the blanks …
“他們有密碼，但沒有密碼的主體。沒有病毒的形態…它們組成的病毒序列中沒有的片段。他們綜合創造了它們來填補空白…
“There are 10 fatal errors in this Drosten test paper … But here is the bottom line: There was no viral isolate to validate what they were doing. The PCR products of the amplification didn’t correspond to any viral isolate at that time. I call it ‘donut ring science.’ There is nothing at the center of it. It’s all about code, genetics, nothing to do with reality …
“這張Drosten試卷有10個致命錯誤……但底線是：沒有病毒分離物來驗證他們在做什麼。擴增的PCR產物與當時的任何病毒分離物均不對應。我稱之為“甜甜圈科學”，它的核心是什麼。一切都是關於密碼，基因，與現實無關…
“There have since been papers saying they’ve produced viral isolates. But there are no controls for them. The CDC produced a paper in July … where they said: ‘Here’s the viral isolate.’ Do you know what they did? They swabbed one person. One person, who’d been to China and had cold symptoms. One person. And they assumed he had [COVID-19] to begin with. So, it’s all full of holes, the whole thing.”
“從那以後就有報紙說他們已經產生了病毒分離物。但對它們沒有控制。疾控中心在七月份發表了一篇論文，他們說：“這是病毒分離物。”你知道他們做了什麼嗎？他們擦洗了一個人。一個去過中國有感冒症狀的人。一個人。他們認為他有[COVID-19]開始。所以，這一切都充滿了漏洞。”
The critique against PCR testing is further strengthened by the Nov. 20, 2020, study in Nature Communications, which found no viable virus in any PCR-positive cases. I referenced this study earlier, noting that not a single person who had been in close contact with an asymptomatic individual ended up testing positive.
2020年11月20日《自然通訊》的研究進一步加強了對PCR檢測的批評，該研究發現在任何PCR陽性病例中都沒有活的病毒。我之前引用了這項研究，注意到沒有一個曾經與無症狀個體密切接觸的人最終檢測呈陽性。
But that’s not all. After evaluating PCR testing data from 9,899,828 people, and conducting additional live cultures to check for active infections in those who tested positive, using a CT of 37 or lower, they were unable to detect live virus in any of them, which is a rather astonishing finding.
但這還不是全部。在評估了9899828人的PCR檢測數據，並進行了額外的活培養以檢查那些檢測陽性的人是否有活動性感染後，他們使用了37或更低的CT，卻無法在其中任何人身上檢測到活病毒，這是一個相當驚人的發現。
On the whole, it seems clear that mass testing using PCR is inappropriate, and does very little if anything to keep the population safe. Its primary result is simply the perpetuation of the false idea that healthy, noninfectious people can pose a mortal threat to others, and that we must avoid social interactions. It’s a delusional idea that is wreaking havoc on the global psyche, and it’s time to put an end to this unhealthy, unscientific way of life.
總的來說，似乎很明顯，用PCR進行大規模檢測是不合適的，而且對保證人群安全幾乎沒有任何作用。它的主要結果僅僅是錯誤觀念的延續，即健康、非傳染性的人會對他人構成致命威脅，我們必須避免社會交往。這是一種妄想的想法，正在對全球心理造成嚴重破壞，是時候結束這種不健康、不科學的生活方式了。
留言