Author: Dr. Saeed Qureshi, Ph.D.

Commonly it is believed and promoted that COVID-19 is a respiratory disease caused by the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), discovered in 2019 (e.g., see here). However, scientifically, it is an incorrect claim because SAR-COV-2 has never been seen or isolated from any human patient. Therefore, the existence of a (new) disease (COVID-19) is a false claim – there should not be an argument about it.

On the other hand, the presence of the disease or the virus is often described based on testing, particularly PCR, e.g., COVID-19 tests can detect either SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, the antibodies that your body makes after getting COVID-19 or after getting vaccinated (link).

Again, scientifically speaking, it is an invalid statement because no test is conducted or available that can detect the virus (SARS-CoV-2) or its illness. It is impossible to develop a test for something for which the reference is not available. As noted above, as the virus has never been isolated, its reference standard cannot be available. Hence there cannot be a test available or developed for it. It is not an opinion but a scientific fact. Therefore, there should not be any argument or discussion about the lack of availability of the virus test.

Furthermore, the often described PCR test as the gold standard is not a virus or disease test. It is a test for a chemical compound called RNA, or its fragment, from the virus presumably present in the swab samples. Please read this statement again and calmly, i.e., the test determines RNA and not the virus, and it has never been established or shown that the detected RNA is part of the virus. To establish the link between the RNA and the virus, one requires a virus specimen. As the virus has not been isolated, its RNA cannot be isolated or identified either.

If the appropriate RNA cannot be isolated, one cannot have its reference standard. It means one cannot have a scientifically valid RNA test as well. Therefore, a PCR test for the RNA becomes an invalid test. There should not be any argument about this as well.

The positive or negative PCR test result tells absolutely nothing about the virus or the illness. Other mentioned tests, i.e., antigen/Rapid test or antibodies test, have the same limitations. There is no evidence that the detected antigens or antibodies are linked to the virus – both require virus specimen which is not available.

The vaccines development exercises (i.e., clinical trials) are based on the flawed PCR test, not the virus or illness; hence, they become flawed by default. However, people, including experts, do not realize that vaccines have never been tested against the virus and its illnesses. Therefore, vaccines development is based on deception, i.e., vaccines cannot treat anything or protect anyone from the virus. Saying otherwise is a lie – that is why vaccination did not help protect against the virus. Therefore, vaccinated people must follow the same preventive measures as the unvaccinated ones. Hence, their use can safely be discontinued- avoiding well noted adverse effects.

On the other hand, continuing with testing is perhaps even more harmful and tragic. Firstly, using an invalid test cannot provide a valid or relevant outcome – so it is a waste of resources and may cause bodily harm by the frequent nose or throat poking.

Secondly, if the test comes out negative, it may indicate that all may be well. But, on the other hand, if the test comes out positive, it would create an unfortunate problem for proper diagnosis, particularly with people having some associated symptoms. They may be incorrectly classified as COVID-19 patients because the test cannot detect the COVID-19 virus or illness. Hence it becomes a sure case of misdiagnosis. As a result, and as per current policies, people will be treated as COVD-19 patients, often by isolation, when patients might be ill from something else. Lack of appropriate diagnosis could exacerbate the underlying illness, which may become untreatable with time, possibly resulting in death.

The positive test results should be considered a misdiagnosis and need to be discontinued urgently. It is inhumane to continue the COVID-19 testing, particularly when it is unpredictable and scientifically invalid.

Further details (1. 2)

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)

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.

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.