Forwarded from Dave Sonntag
Complement Activation Related Pseudo Allergy (CARPA) is a known problem with nanoliposomal drug delivery systems.
EMA reviewers took Pfizer to task over this in leaked regulatory review documents.
So we have at least two potential complement pathway triggers in experimental gene therapy jabs.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molimm.2014.06.038
EMA reviewers took Pfizer to task over this in leaked regulatory review documents.
So we have at least two potential complement pathway triggers in experimental gene therapy jabs.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molimm.2014.06.038
Sciencedirect
Complement activation-related pseudoallergy: A stress reaction in blood triggered by nanomedicines and biologicals
Intravenous injection of a variety of nanotechnology enhanced (liposomal, micellar, polymer-conjugated) and protein-based (antibodies, enzymes) drugs …
Forwarded from Mike Yeadon
Agreed, Matt. Among the many frustrations are not so much those who broadly accept what they’ve been told, but those who darn well know it’s not as described but just say / do nothing to oppose & educate others.
People won’t accept there’s a conspiracy & I understand that. It’s not my crime & I don’t know how we’ve got here.
But I do insist that people who don’t have our best interests at heart have seized the initiative in the chaos & are taking things in a very bad direction.
Now is the time to say loudly in words & deeds that WE DO NOT CONSENT.
People won’t accept there’s a conspiracy & I understand that. It’s not my crime & I don’t know how we’ve got here.
But I do insist that people who don’t have our best interests at heart have seized the initiative in the chaos & are taking things in a very bad direction.
Now is the time to say loudly in words & deeds that WE DO NOT CONSENT.
"Dear friends,
Just to give you the latest news from the European Parliament.
Following several internal meetings of political groups today, it seems that the legislative proposal on the digital green pass would be examined under Rule 163 of the RoP:
Rule 163 : Urgent procedure
1. A request to treat a debate on a proposal submitted to Parliament pursuant to Rule 48(1) as urgent may be made to Parliament by the President, a committee, a political group, Members reaching at least the low threshold, the Commission or the Council. Such requests shall be made in writing and supported by reasons.
2. As soon as the President has received a request for urgent debate this shall be announced in Parliament. The vote on the request shall be taken at the beginning of the sitting following that during which the announcement was made, provided that the proposal to which the request relates has been distributed to Members in the official languages. Where there are several requests for urgent debate on the same subject, the approval or rejection of the request for urgent debate shall apply to all such requests that are on the same subject.
3. Before the vote, only the mover, and one speaker against may be heard, along with the Chair or rapporteur of the committee responsible, or both. None of those speakers may speak for more than three minutes.
4. Questions to be dealt with by urgent procedure shall be given priority over other items on the agenda. The President shall determine the time of the debate and vote.
5. An urgent procedure may be held without a report or, exceptionally, on the basis of an oral report by the committee responsible.
Where an urgent procedure is used and interinstitutional negotiations take place, Rules 70 and 71 shall not apply. Rule 74 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
This would mean that the text of the Commission’s proposal would be adopted as such without any amendment in next week Plenary session, next week.
We have launched with our association Notre Bon Droit, an lobbying action directed to MEPs from Union citizens.
I have prepared the following messages to the attention of the Members of the LIBE, INTA, ITRE, ENVI and TRAN committees in EN and FR. Other linguistic versions will be available soon.
——————————————————
EN
Subject: The European Parliament, as co-legislator, must take time to examine COM (2021)130 under a regular ordinary legislative procedure
Dear Members,
I am contacting you regarding the legislative proposal published on 17 March 2021 by the Commission on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable certificates on vaccination, testing and recovery to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic (Digital Green Certificate) COM (2021)130.
I am worried, because as a European citizen as I would be directly impacted by this Regulation.
I would like to share some of my concerns with you.
Firstly, I would urgently ask you, as Members of the European Parliament, elected by the European people to represent its interests, to refuse a swift adoption of such an important text bearing in mind what is at stake.
The European Parliament, as co-legislator, must take its time to consider this proposal, under the regular ordinary legislative procedure, and amend it as best as it to include legal safeguards, defending the interests of the Union citizens.
It appears that the free circulation of Union citizens within the Schengen space would be rendered temporarily conditional to the possession of a digital green certificate, which would either show:
a. Covid 19 vaccination status: whether the holder has received a COVID-19 vaccine, or
b. Covid 19 test results: including the holder’s result and date of NAAT test or a rapid antigen test, or
c.
Just to give you the latest news from the European Parliament.
Following several internal meetings of political groups today, it seems that the legislative proposal on the digital green pass would be examined under Rule 163 of the RoP:
Rule 163 : Urgent procedure
1. A request to treat a debate on a proposal submitted to Parliament pursuant to Rule 48(1) as urgent may be made to Parliament by the President, a committee, a political group, Members reaching at least the low threshold, the Commission or the Council. Such requests shall be made in writing and supported by reasons.
2. As soon as the President has received a request for urgent debate this shall be announced in Parliament. The vote on the request shall be taken at the beginning of the sitting following that during which the announcement was made, provided that the proposal to which the request relates has been distributed to Members in the official languages. Where there are several requests for urgent debate on the same subject, the approval or rejection of the request for urgent debate shall apply to all such requests that are on the same subject.
3. Before the vote, only the mover, and one speaker against may be heard, along with the Chair or rapporteur of the committee responsible, or both. None of those speakers may speak for more than three minutes.
4. Questions to be dealt with by urgent procedure shall be given priority over other items on the agenda. The President shall determine the time of the debate and vote.
5. An urgent procedure may be held without a report or, exceptionally, on the basis of an oral report by the committee responsible.
Where an urgent procedure is used and interinstitutional negotiations take place, Rules 70 and 71 shall not apply. Rule 74 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
This would mean that the text of the Commission’s proposal would be adopted as such without any amendment in next week Plenary session, next week.
We have launched with our association Notre Bon Droit, an lobbying action directed to MEPs from Union citizens.
I have prepared the following messages to the attention of the Members of the LIBE, INTA, ITRE, ENVI and TRAN committees in EN and FR. Other linguistic versions will be available soon.
——————————————————
EN
Subject: The European Parliament, as co-legislator, must take time to examine COM (2021)130 under a regular ordinary legislative procedure
Dear Members,
I am contacting you regarding the legislative proposal published on 17 March 2021 by the Commission on a framework for the issuance, verification and acceptance of interoperable certificates on vaccination, testing and recovery to facilitate free movement during the COVID-19 pandemic (Digital Green Certificate) COM (2021)130.
I am worried, because as a European citizen as I would be directly impacted by this Regulation.
I would like to share some of my concerns with you.
Firstly, I would urgently ask you, as Members of the European Parliament, elected by the European people to represent its interests, to refuse a swift adoption of such an important text bearing in mind what is at stake.
The European Parliament, as co-legislator, must take its time to consider this proposal, under the regular ordinary legislative procedure, and amend it as best as it to include legal safeguards, defending the interests of the Union citizens.
It appears that the free circulation of Union citizens within the Schengen space would be rendered temporarily conditional to the possession of a digital green certificate, which would either show:
a. Covid 19 vaccination status: whether the holder has received a COVID-19 vaccine, or
b. Covid 19 test results: including the holder’s result and date of NAAT test or a rapid antigen test, or
c.
Forwarded from Mike Yeadon
a proof of recovery: that the holder has recovered from a SARS-CoV-2 infection following a positive NAAT test or a positive rapid antigen test.
I would like you to consider urgently the following points:
I. COVID 19 VACCINATION STATUS
-Although vaccination can play a role in ending the Covid 19 crisis, science has not yet shown them to be 100% safe nor efficient.
-The recent suspension of the AstraZeneca vaccine in many Member States has showed the difficulty of producing safe and efficient vaccines in such a short period of time. So caution should be the rule.
-Following the publication of a legal opinion in Belgium on the legality of the liability and warranty exemption clauses granted to manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines, it seems that these clauses are invalid.
-Manufacturers do not guarantee a minimum efficacy for the vaccines they put on the market, and do not take real responsibility for any harm that such vaccines may cause. Moreover, Member States, and therefore the taxpayers, who are the buyers of the vaccines, ultimately assume all the responsibility and the consequences in terms of harm or inefficacy.
https://plus.lesoir.be/361450/article/2021-03-17/retards-responsabilite-le-contrat-astrazeneca-passe-la-loupe
https://www.lalibre.be/international/europe/la-non-responsabilite-des-fabricants-de-vaccins-anti-covid-est-illicite-affirme-une-etude604e71357b50a60517a2374d
-Furthermore, we still have no guarantee for the moment that vaccination prevents the transmission of the disease.
-Even if Covid19 vaccines were proved to be entirely safe and efficient, it would still take a long time for all European citizens to have access to such vaccines considering the recurrent supply problems faced by Member States.
-Conditioning free circulation to such a vaccination would therefore be discriminatory for those who could not access the vaccines, who could not be vaccinated for medical reasons, or would simply refuse vaccination.
II. TESTING
I would like to emphasise a crucial point:
RT-PCR tests do not accurately measure risk or contagiousness of Covid 19.
-Member States should not continue to use RT-PCR tests as the Covid 19 testing ‘golden standard’.
-Although these tests are very useful for confirming a diagnosis, they have no relevance to asymptomatic people. RT-PCR measures the presence of the genes of the virus, not the disease itself. Having a positive RT-PCR test does not mean being sick or even contagious. This scientific fact has been consistently glossed over since the beginning of the pandemic.
-A recent study published in The Lancet in that regard sums up this reality in crystal clear terms: "The RNA fragments [genes, therefore] can remain present for weeks after the viral infection has disappeared and can, very often, be found in people without symptoms and without known exposure [to the virus].”
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00425-6/fulltext
- Even the WHO itself in January released guidance on RT-PCR tests stating that ‘careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed , recalling that 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 using the same or different NAT technology. WHO reminds (...) that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases. 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.’
https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
-RT-PCR test are very expensive, require specialised medical staff both during sample taking and analysis, and require several hours before knowing the results, resulting in a heavy logistical burden,
I would like you to consider urgently the following points:
I. COVID 19 VACCINATION STATUS
-Although vaccination can play a role in ending the Covid 19 crisis, science has not yet shown them to be 100% safe nor efficient.
-The recent suspension of the AstraZeneca vaccine in many Member States has showed the difficulty of producing safe and efficient vaccines in such a short period of time. So caution should be the rule.
-Following the publication of a legal opinion in Belgium on the legality of the liability and warranty exemption clauses granted to manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines, it seems that these clauses are invalid.
-Manufacturers do not guarantee a minimum efficacy for the vaccines they put on the market, and do not take real responsibility for any harm that such vaccines may cause. Moreover, Member States, and therefore the taxpayers, who are the buyers of the vaccines, ultimately assume all the responsibility and the consequences in terms of harm or inefficacy.
https://plus.lesoir.be/361450/article/2021-03-17/retards-responsabilite-le-contrat-astrazeneca-passe-la-loupe
https://www.lalibre.be/international/europe/la-non-responsabilite-des-fabricants-de-vaccins-anti-covid-est-illicite-affirme-une-etude604e71357b50a60517a2374d
-Furthermore, we still have no guarantee for the moment that vaccination prevents the transmission of the disease.
-Even if Covid19 vaccines were proved to be entirely safe and efficient, it would still take a long time for all European citizens to have access to such vaccines considering the recurrent supply problems faced by Member States.
-Conditioning free circulation to such a vaccination would therefore be discriminatory for those who could not access the vaccines, who could not be vaccinated for medical reasons, or would simply refuse vaccination.
II. TESTING
I would like to emphasise a crucial point:
RT-PCR tests do not accurately measure risk or contagiousness of Covid 19.
-Member States should not continue to use RT-PCR tests as the Covid 19 testing ‘golden standard’.
-Although these tests are very useful for confirming a diagnosis, they have no relevance to asymptomatic people. RT-PCR measures the presence of the genes of the virus, not the disease itself. Having a positive RT-PCR test does not mean being sick or even contagious. This scientific fact has been consistently glossed over since the beginning of the pandemic.
-A recent study published in The Lancet in that regard sums up this reality in crystal clear terms: "The RNA fragments [genes, therefore] can remain present for weeks after the viral infection has disappeared and can, very often, be found in people without symptoms and without known exposure [to the virus].”
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00425-6/fulltext
- Even the WHO itself in January released guidance on RT-PCR tests stating that ‘careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed , recalling that 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 using the same or different NAT technology. WHO reminds (...) that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases. 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.’
https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05
-RT-PCR test are very expensive, require specialised medical staff both during sample taking and analysis, and require several hours before knowing the results, resulting in a heavy logistical burden,
Le Soir Plus
Retards, responsabilité: le contrat AstraZeneca passé à la loupe
Le contrat d’achat avec AstraZeneca est régi par le droit belge. Des avocats en Belgique y ont relevé plusieurs pistes à explorer au cas où les choses tourneraient au vinaigre, que ce soit en matière de retards des livraisons ou des clauses de responsabilité.
Forwarded from Mike Yeadon
-Furthermore, the latest news suggest that some variants are undetectable through RT-PCR tests, like the ‘variant breton’ in France.
https://www.leparisien.fr/societe/sante/covid-19-un-variant-breton-identifie-a-lannion-des-investigations-en-cours-15-03-2021-E7J5FM6RHREZHGDNKOBKSEZDHI.php
-On the other hand, antigenic tests can be easily done by anyone and give results in less than 10 minutes on the basis of a drop of blood of saliva, and they are affordable, between 5 and 10 EUR. These tests if well calibrated are reliable and can say if there is a risk of contagion, at a low cost, without any logistical problem and without having to wait days for the result.
https://www.levif.be/actualite/international/covid-19-et-strategie-de-depistage-mensonges-ou-stupidite/article-opinion-1403483.html?cookie_check=1615902494
The Parliament must ensure that RT-PCR mass-testing on asymptomatic people is abandoned and focus shifted to antigenic tests which should be available to all citizens in all Member States.
III. Proof of recovery vs. natural immunity
-The proof of recovery is the third element of the certificate. I wonder why a positive antibody test is not also an eligible criteria. I understand scientifically it is still not sure how long natural immunity would last, but for those who do have such antibodies a certificate of proof, one that could be renewed by further positive test, would have significant value.
-Moreover, I would like to stress that some studies show that some individuals are immune to Covid 19 without having triggered antibodies. This should also be taken into account.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6512/89.full
IV. Data protection and use by the Member States
I have serious concerns regarding the protection of my personal data, in particular my medical data. Although the proposal states that a very high level of data protection will be ensured, I am, as yet, unconvinced. I worry as all on the potential use of such a certificate at national level. This could be used in a discriminatory manner, and at the expenses of fundamental freedoms and liberties of the Union citizens.
V. Temporary use that would be used permanently?
-How do you intend to ensure that this certificate will be used temporarily? As you know, temporary measures in many cases, once implemented become permanent. Lifting the use of such certificate based on the sole decision of the Secretary General of WHO to declare the end of the pandemic is highly questionable.
-Would it be not better for the Union to implement its own set of criteria to decide when its use should end?
*
I urge you to take all these points into consideration when drafting your amendments.
European citizens across the Union are watching you, their liberty and security is in your hands, do not let them down. Do not put the Union at long term risk by jeopardising one of its founding principles and values, the free circulation of its citizens within the Schengen space.
Yours sincerely,
——————————————————
Feel free to use, adapt, revise this message, if you wish so.
Link to our website for automatic sending to MEPs:
https://notrebondroit.be/action-pass-vaccinal
Otherwise I have already communicated to Senta all the mailing lists of the Members concerned by committee, and I am happy to communicate them to you as well.
Videos have also been put online in several languages FR, IT, ES and IT. I can communicate them if you wish.
I sincerely don’t expect much from this action, nevertheless as explained this week, I still think it is worth it. We empower citizens, give them back some control and hope. At the same time, this would be a kind reminder to Members so they don’t forget they represent the people, and they should serve its interests.
Worst case scenario, the Regulation would be adopted next Wednesday.
I am keeping you posted tomorrow on the latest developments.
We are getting ready to file once the Regulation is adopted in any case.
Thanks,
Best,
Stella
https://www.leparisien.fr/societe/sante/covid-19-un-variant-breton-identifie-a-lannion-des-investigations-en-cours-15-03-2021-E7J5FM6RHREZHGDNKOBKSEZDHI.php
-On the other hand, antigenic tests can be easily done by anyone and give results in less than 10 minutes on the basis of a drop of blood of saliva, and they are affordable, between 5 and 10 EUR. These tests if well calibrated are reliable and can say if there is a risk of contagion, at a low cost, without any logistical problem and without having to wait days for the result.
https://www.levif.be/actualite/international/covid-19-et-strategie-de-depistage-mensonges-ou-stupidite/article-opinion-1403483.html?cookie_check=1615902494
The Parliament must ensure that RT-PCR mass-testing on asymptomatic people is abandoned and focus shifted to antigenic tests which should be available to all citizens in all Member States.
III. Proof of recovery vs. natural immunity
-The proof of recovery is the third element of the certificate. I wonder why a positive antibody test is not also an eligible criteria. I understand scientifically it is still not sure how long natural immunity would last, but for those who do have such antibodies a certificate of proof, one that could be renewed by further positive test, would have significant value.
-Moreover, I would like to stress that some studies show that some individuals are immune to Covid 19 without having triggered antibodies. This should also be taken into account.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6512/89.full
IV. Data protection and use by the Member States
I have serious concerns regarding the protection of my personal data, in particular my medical data. Although the proposal states that a very high level of data protection will be ensured, I am, as yet, unconvinced. I worry as all on the potential use of such a certificate at national level. This could be used in a discriminatory manner, and at the expenses of fundamental freedoms and liberties of the Union citizens.
V. Temporary use that would be used permanently?
-How do you intend to ensure that this certificate will be used temporarily? As you know, temporary measures in many cases, once implemented become permanent. Lifting the use of such certificate based on the sole decision of the Secretary General of WHO to declare the end of the pandemic is highly questionable.
-Would it be not better for the Union to implement its own set of criteria to decide when its use should end?
*
I urge you to take all these points into consideration when drafting your amendments.
European citizens across the Union are watching you, their liberty and security is in your hands, do not let them down. Do not put the Union at long term risk by jeopardising one of its founding principles and values, the free circulation of its citizens within the Schengen space.
Yours sincerely,
——————————————————
Feel free to use, adapt, revise this message, if you wish so.
Link to our website for automatic sending to MEPs:
https://notrebondroit.be/action-pass-vaccinal
Otherwise I have already communicated to Senta all the mailing lists of the Members concerned by committee, and I am happy to communicate them to you as well.
Videos have also been put online in several languages FR, IT, ES and IT. I can communicate them if you wish.
I sincerely don’t expect much from this action, nevertheless as explained this week, I still think it is worth it. We empower citizens, give them back some control and hope. At the same time, this would be a kind reminder to Members so they don’t forget they represent the people, and they should serve its interests.
Worst case scenario, the Regulation would be adopted next Wednesday.
I am keeping you posted tomorrow on the latest developments.
We are getting ready to file once the Regulation is adopted in any case.
Thanks,
Best,
Stella
Le Parisien
Covid-19 : un variant breton indétectable par les tests PCR identifié à Lannion
La direction générale de la santé a annoncé, ce lundi soir, avoir détecté un nouveau variant à l‘hôpital de Lannion (Côtes-d’Armor). Il ne s
❤1
Green Pass proposal from the European Commission
https://youtu.be/V8iwknDwO2s
https://youtu.be/V8iwknDwO2s
Proposition de PASS VERT de la part de la Commission européenne
https://youtu.be/IpwtApTNSYA
https://youtu.be/IpwtApTNSYA
YouTube
Proposition de PASS VERT de la part de la Commission européenne
Comment justifier un Pass vaccinal si :
- les fabricants ne garantissent pas l'efficacité et la sécurité de leur produit?
- les tests PCR ne sont pas fiables?
(c) crédit musique: Stella tout droit réservé 2021
- les fabricants ne garantissent pas l'efficacité et la sécurité de leur produit?
- les tests PCR ne sont pas fiables?
(c) crédit musique: Stella tout droit réservé 2021
Propuesta de Pase Verde de la Comisión Europea
https://youtu.be/gnaJzr5qvwI
https://youtu.be/gnaJzr5qvwI
YouTube
Propuesta de Pase Verde de la Comisión Europea
Cómo justificar un pase de vacunas si :
- ¿los fabricantes no garantizan la eficacia y seguridad de su producto?
- ¿Las pruebas PCR no son fiables?
(c) crédit musique: Stella tout droit réservé 2021
- ¿los fabricantes no garantizan la eficacia y seguridad de su producto?
- ¿Las pruebas PCR no son fiables?
(c) crédit musique: Stella tout droit réservé 2021
Proposta di Green Pass della Commissione Europea
https://youtu.be/hpWih9AzuRU
https://youtu.be/hpWih9AzuRU
"We have recently discovered that UK laboratories have been routinely recording a significant proportion of Covid-19 test results as positive based on the presence of one target gene alone, when there should have been two or more, as required to comply with WHO rules and manufacturer instructions. Without diagnostic validation, for both the original virus and any variants, it is not clear what can be concluded from a positive test resulting from a single target gene call, especially if there was no confirmatory testing. Given this, many of the reported positive results may be inconclusive, negative or from people who suffered past infection for SARS-COV-2"
http://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/02/uk-lighthouse-laboratories-testing-for.html?m=1
http://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/02/uk-lighthouse-laboratories-testing-for.html?m=1
Blogspot
UK lighthouse laboratories testing for SARS-COV-2 may have breached WHO Emergency Use Assessment and potentially violated Manufacturer…
This is an updated version of a previous post. The main findings have been published today as a rapid response in the British Medical ...
"As early as April 2020, the UK lighthouse laboratories were testing for single genes and discounted the S gene as early as mid-May [10], months before the discovery of the new variant B1.1.7. Indeed, in Table 1 of [10] 18% of tests were positive on one gene only. Furthermore, in a Public Health England report on variants [2] published 8 January 2021, it states the goal of using one gene was explicitly to approximate the growth of the new B1.1.7 variant:
“There has recently been an increase in the percentage of positive cases where only the ORF1ab- and N-genes were found and a decrease in the percentage of cases with all three genes. We can use this information to approximate the growth of the new variant.”
Section 10 of this ONS Covid-19 Infection Survey report [11] on 8 January 2021 confirms that one gene is sufficient for a positive result.
Obviously, there is a higher risk of encountering false positives when testing for single genes alone, because of the possibility of cross-reactivity with other human coronaviruses (HCOVs) as well as prevalent bacteria or reagent contamination. The potential for cross reactivity has already been confirmed by the German Instand laboratory report from April 2020 [12] (note that Prof. Drosten, co-author of Corman et al [2] is a cooperating partner listed in this report). The report describes the systematic blind testing of positive and negative samples anonymously sent to 463 laboratories from 36 countries and evaluated for the presence of a variety of genes associated with SARS-COV-2. They reported significant cross reactivity and resultant false positives for OC43, and HCoV 229E (a common cold virus) as well as for SARS-COV-2 negative samples, not containing any competing pathogen. Likewise, 70 Dutch laboratories were surveyed in November 2020, by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment [13], with 76 diagnostic workflows reported as using only one target gene to diagnose the presence of SARS-COV-2 (46% of all workflows).
Without diagnostic validation it is not clear what can be concluded from a positive PCR test resulting from a single target gene call, especially if there was no confirmatory testing. Many of the reported positive results may be inconclusive, negative or from people who suffered past infection for SARS-COV-2. Even with diagnostic validation of the single target gene call, the UK lighthouse laboratories appear not to be in strict conformance with the WHO emergency use assessment and the manufacturer instructions for use. Given this it is clear the ONS and the UK lighthouse laboratories needs to publicly clarify their use of, and justify the reasons for, deviating from these standards."
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n208/rr-3
“There has recently been an increase in the percentage of positive cases where only the ORF1ab- and N-genes were found and a decrease in the percentage of cases with all three genes. We can use this information to approximate the growth of the new variant.”
Section 10 of this ONS Covid-19 Infection Survey report [11] on 8 January 2021 confirms that one gene is sufficient for a positive result.
Obviously, there is a higher risk of encountering false positives when testing for single genes alone, because of the possibility of cross-reactivity with other human coronaviruses (HCOVs) as well as prevalent bacteria or reagent contamination. The potential for cross reactivity has already been confirmed by the German Instand laboratory report from April 2020 [12] (note that Prof. Drosten, co-author of Corman et al [2] is a cooperating partner listed in this report). The report describes the systematic blind testing of positive and negative samples anonymously sent to 463 laboratories from 36 countries and evaluated for the presence of a variety of genes associated with SARS-COV-2. They reported significant cross reactivity and resultant false positives for OC43, and HCoV 229E (a common cold virus) as well as for SARS-COV-2 negative samples, not containing any competing pathogen. Likewise, 70 Dutch laboratories were surveyed in November 2020, by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment [13], with 76 diagnostic workflows reported as using only one target gene to diagnose the presence of SARS-COV-2 (46% of all workflows).
Without diagnostic validation it is not clear what can be concluded from a positive PCR test resulting from a single target gene call, especially if there was no confirmatory testing. Many of the reported positive results may be inconclusive, negative or from people who suffered past infection for SARS-COV-2. Even with diagnostic validation of the single target gene call, the UK lighthouse laboratories appear not to be in strict conformance with the WHO emergency use assessment and the manufacturer instructions for use. Given this it is clear the ONS and the UK lighthouse laboratories needs to publicly clarify their use of, and justify the reasons for, deviating from these standards."
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n208/rr-3
Robin Monotti
Green Pass proposal from the European Commission https://youtu.be/V8iwknDwO2s
ACTION: PLEASE SHARE THIS VIDEO ON ALL YOUR PLATFORMS IF YOU LIVE IN OR NEAR THE EUROPEAN UNION
Green Pass proposal from the European Commission
https://youtu.be/V8iwknDwO2s
https://youtu.be/V8iwknDwO2s
A lot of what I shared today is also on twitter on this account as my main one is suspended
https://twitter.com/robinmonottibot/status/1372875213722038278?s=19
https://twitter.com/robinmonottibot/status/1372875213722038278?s=19
Twitter
Robin Monotti MA FRSA 🤖⭐
PCR👏TESTS👏PICK👏UP👏THE👏COMMON👏COLD👏 https://t.co/BU3NnBSMxw
2014 "Intravenous injection of a variety of nanotechnology enhanced (liposomal, micellar, polymer-conjugated) and protein-based (antibodies, enzymes) drugs can lead to hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs), also known as infusion, or anaphylactoid reactions. The molecular mechanism of mild to severe allergy symptoms may differ from case to case and is mostly not known, however, in many cases a major cause, or contributing factor is activation of the complement (C) system. The clinical relevance of C activation-related HSRs, a non-IgE-mediated pseudoallergy (CARPA), lies in its unpredictability and occasional lethal outcome."
Complement activation-related pseudoallergy: A stress reaction in blood triggered by nanomedicines and biologicals - ScienceDirect
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0161589014001692?via%3Dihub
Complement activation-related pseudoallergy: A stress reaction in blood triggered by nanomedicines and biologicals - ScienceDirect
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0161589014001692?via%3Dihub
Vaccine passports are the rope the masses will gladly accept around their necks so that the oligarchs can then pull the rope and hang them with it at their liking.