Author: Dr. Saeed Qureshi, Ph.D.

Reports have started to appear (1, 2) questioning the validity of the PCR test for COVID-19. The focus of the concerns is improper testing and/or irrelevant data analyses.

Unfortunately, the scientists and experts still do not understand the scientific weaknesses and flaws of the PCR test, including the Lateral Flow (aka Rapid) tests. The PCR test is not a test for the virus or infection. It can’t determine the virus, its infection, or its illness. It only detects some random chemical compounds (named RNA) unrelated to the virus. There is no evidence that a randomly detected chemical compound (RNA or protein) belongs to the virus. In short, the PCR test is a 110% false test for virus detection. This is not an opinion but a scientific fact. Please stop using it!

For further details, please follow the links (1, 2, 3)

Further details (1, 2, 3, and more)

Note that the tests currently conducted for establishing the virus or COVID-19 are scientifically invalid. Therefore, conducting such tests and interpreting their results may be considered fraudulent – punishable by law. See the explanation below, and please take note of it.

A recent (2022) example highlighting the issue is the shutting down of Theranos lab ($9-billion valuation), which claimed to have developed a blood test (link). Article continues here

To treat an illness, first, it has to exist. In the case of COVID-19, which is allegedly a  disease caused by a virus called SARS-CoV-2. However, no one has isolated the virus from any patient; hence, there is no reason to believe that virus exists. Therefore, the associated disease COVID-19 cannot exist either. Unfortunately, people and medical experts, particularly physicians, mistakenly believe in the existence of the virus and the disease (link).

The diagnosis is mainly based on the PCR test, an irrelevant and invalid test because a test cannot be developed for something (the virus or RNA) if the specimen is not available. Therefore, the disease (COVID-19) is undoubtedly a case of false diagnosis.

I live in Ottawa, Canada, the center of the current Truckers’ Protest of the past three weeks. However, the protest seems like a celebration festival, like Canada Day. People (in hundreds and thousands) having a good time, partying, music, dancing,  playing street/ice hockey – without restrictions and worrying. The most surprising aspect is that no one mentions it as a “virus spreader” or “supper-spreader” activity, as it used to be considered. Friends tell me that hospitals activities appear normal as well. The government (the province’s chief medical officer) is considering relaxing or removing the restrictions. It indicates that the virus or scaring is not in the cards, indirectly supporting the view that there is no virus issue.   

But, as some say, why are people get sick then? Firstly, it appears that the illness is infectious (parasitic?), not COVID-19, treatable with anti-infection medications. Secondly, ivermectin appears a good match for the infection, as Dr. Kory here and in one of his published articles suggests (link).

Therefore, if people feel ill, they should immediately consult their physicians for appropriate diagnosis and treatment. Isolation or quarantine with the symptoms should be avoided. It may exacerbate the illness because of not treating it promptly.

A view worth considering to get out of the COVID-19 phobia!

The virus (SARS-CoV-2) existence and its associated illness (COVID-19), and by extension, the pandemic is based on invalid (PCR) testing. Use of an invalid test is a fraudulent act – punishable by law.

In this regard, a recent (2022) example is the shutting down of Theranos lab ($9-billion valuation), which claimed to have developed a blood test (link).

“Holmes and Balwani used advertisements and solicitations to encourage and induce doctors and patients to use Theranos’s blood testing laboratory services, even though, according to the government, the defendants knew Theranos was not capable of consistently producing accurate and reliable results for certain blood tests. It is further alleged that the tests performed on Theranos technology were likely to contain inaccurate and unreliable results.” US v. Elizabeth Holmes, et al., The United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of California. (link)

“Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes has been convicted of defrauding investors after a months-long landmark trial in California. Prosecutors said Holmes knowingly lied about technology she said could detect diseases with a few drops of blood.” (link).

In scientific terminology, the company promoted a non-validated test. The PCR test falls in the same category, i.e., a non-validated swab test to detect a non-existent virus. Regulatory and medical authorities worldwide have avoided this outcome so far, but the end will be the same – probably soon.

Science is the same and will remain unchanged!
Please follow the links for further details (1, 2, 3, 4)

For further details, (1, 2, 3)

Someone inquired, “How would you interpret the 60% efficacy difference (decrease) for Emergency Use Approval? Or is it scandalous?”

For example, in a recent statement from CDC, it is described that “In its latest (27 Dec 2021) official guidelines, the CDC announced that “the efficacy against infection for a two-dose mRNA vaccine is approximately 35% !” (link).

It is one of the examples of the assumptions made in “medical science”/virology of many, I explained in one of my recent blogs (link).

People might have heard the saying lies, damn lies, and statistics – explaining that if one tortures the data enough, it will confess to anything (or any lie).

Calculating efficacy in virology is an example of a lie or torturing the data. First, the vaccine’s efficacy is determined based on a PCR test, which is a scientifically invalid. Therefore, it must never be used. It can never provide valid and relevant results or conclusions. (2) The vaccine efficacy is determined as Relative Vaccine Efficacy (RVE) but presented as the real or true Vaccine Efficacy (VE).

From the CDC website, “vaccine efficacy (VE) is interpreted as the proportionate reduction in disease among the vaccinated group. So a VE (it should be RVE) of 95% indicates a 95% reduction in disease occurrence among the vaccinated group or a 95% reduction from the number of cases you would expect if they have not been vaccinated”. (link). (emphases are mine).

In one of my blog posts, I described how the efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was calculated, which is as follows “… the way the study outcome, i.e., vaccine efficacy, has been calculated is bizarre. The efficacy was calculated as follows; the number of infected people was counted in both groups (treated and placebo, about 20000 volunteers in each group) and found eight vs. 162. An assumption is made that as the treatment group has only eight infected subjects, not 162 as in the placebo, the vaccine treatment stopped 154 (162- 8) people from getting infected. It leads to the vaccine’s efficacy of 95% {(154/162)*100]. How about that!” (link).

On the other hand, there is no way of knowing that 162 or 8 people were really infected. It is just an assumption because these are only PCR positive numbers (not infections) from the invalid test. However, the way the vaccine efficacy is presented undoubtedly helped promote the success or use of vaccines. Now, mind you, interpretation is from a supposedly controlled study (“clinical trial”).

On the other hand, the reduction in numbers (efficacy) appears from hospital data. The actual number of volunteers or patients involved is not published and known to me (please share if anyone has such information). One requires (two PCR-positive) numbers (1) positive with vaccination (2) positive without vaccination. Let us assume one gets 130 positives with vaccination and 200 for unvaccinated for this discussion. The RVE will be 35% [{(200-130)/200}*100], hence a 60% reduction from the earlier 95%. They are finding relatively more positives with vaccination, thus, presumed reduction in efficacy.  

In the real world, such data would be considered a failure of the vaccination, which indeed it is. However, it is promoted as a need for boosters in virology or vaccination. How nice!

In conclusion, “is it scandalous?” indeed, it appears so, as you asked.

First, assume a pandemic and then assume that people are getting sick and dying (starting point). Then “confirm” the pandemic spread based on random evaluation of hospital visits, mostly one (indicator) patient per hospital/country. If most “indicator” patients evaluated were successfully treated with common and standard treatments under the situation and recovered without serious illness or deaths, still assume that countries are in the midst of a deadly pandemic. Next, assume that infection is virus-based and assume the virus is novel, call it SARS-CoV-2, “confirmed” by a PCR test. Understandably, the test has never been shown to work for the virus or its illness (because it cannot test them) but still assume that the test works for the novel virus. It is unnecessary to validate the test against the reference (gold) standard but assume it is validated. To provide “scientific” proof of the novel virus existence, conduct isolation of the “isolate” and assume that isolate/lysate is the virus. Once labeled with the virus infection (i.e., PCR positive), isolate the patients from others and assume they will recover. If not recovered, then assume that they died of virus illness or CVID-19.

Further, assume that the only effective treatment has to be a vaccine and assume it has to be a new one. Assume no current medicine or therapy is workable. Conduct clinical trials in healthy volunteers (not patients sick with the virus). However, assume that with the PCR-test negative results, subjects got protected from the virus, which was assumed to be present. Calculate the RVE (Relative Vaccine Efficacy) not real or absolute Vaccine Efficacy to assume that the vaccines have been highly successful.

Oh, sorry, assume the word assume as “science” and shout out repeatedly. Voila, you have been working with science or following the science – “the medical/pharmaceutical science”!

Further details (1, 2, 3)

Yesterday, someone inquired that the SARS-CoV-2 virus and its variant are commercially available, so why do people say it has not been isolated? If the virus has not been isolated, what are they selling in vials for $1200/vial?

Please consider reading the description carefully. It is not the (isolated) virus but the lysate/isolate, i.e., soup from “culturing” the swab sample. For example, see here

Heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2, Delta variant (link)

Under Detailed product information/Comments

“This isolate is lineage AY.24″

“The following mutations are present in the clinical isolate:”

(Note the word “isolate,” which is cell culture/gunk, not the isolated virus)

Under Shipping information:

“Each vial contains approximately 0.25 mL of heat-inactivated, clarified cell lysate and supernatant”

(note the word “lysate,” which is the soup from the breakup of cells in medium/culture, not the virus).

For $1200, what’s the customer really buying? A diluted human mucus/phlegm/mucus from swab samples with all kinds of added chemicals (30+), including African green monkey kidney cell (Vero cells) broth.

In short, they are faking it and lying all the way with confidence and authority!

No wonder Costcos-, Walmarts, Amazons, etc., of the world, do not sell this stuff. They will be behind bars the following day for making such false claims and marketing. Remember Theranos (link)

The fact remains, no one has isolated, purified, and characterized the virus. Therefore, it is not available from anywhere. Sorry!

For further details, see here (1, 2, 3)