Print
Category: Covid
Hits: 1322

2020-12-11

When the pandemic subsided in June and deaths became "normal" again, many of us thought that it was all over.

Not so fast! Deprived of their death statistics, the newspapers and governments world-wide simply transferred their attention to "cases", a suspect figure depending solely on a positive result from the now famous PCR Test.

Medical tests are normally applied at the request of a physician in order to confirm or exclude a suspected diagnosis, but today we see a frantic effort to apply it to all and sundry as widely as possible and to regard every positive result as an infection.

I won't rehearse these arguments yet again here, but a result of this strategy is that:

if the PCR Test should not be worthy of the trust that is currently accorded it, then the pandemic narrative is rebutted in short order.

Now "we all know" that science is advanced by the "scientific method" whereby somebody publishes a paper in as well-known a journal as he can persuade to publish it, and that paper will describe the detailed research undertaken and the results achieved so that other scientists can replicate the work and validate or disprove the original findings. 

Until a sufficient body of confirmatory research/validation has been carried out, the original paper stands as a proposition, rather than as accepted truth.

The "PCR Test" for SARS-Cov-2 was first published in a paper entitled "Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” (Eurosurveillance 25(8) 2020) and was attributed to a number of authors, including Victor M Corman and Christian Drosten in January 2020.

This paper was subsequently adopted by the WHO as the authority upon which the roll-out of the PCR Test world-wide was based.

So it is with great interest that I note the findings of a new paper that seems to be the first peer review of that original paper:

Authored by Pieter Borger, Rajesh K. Malhotra, Michael Yeadon and others, it presents a point-by-point review in which

They point out (amongst many other issues) that

Of particular significance they assert

There is much more and I encourage everyone to read the paper for yourself - the technical parameters may be arcane but the essential message is damning.

Their final assessment is unequivocal:

I wonder who will listen?