Sunday, December 13, 2020
December 10, 2020
DO WE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY?
After a few months, the vaccinations are being propelled forward. There are those- scientists, doctors, investigative journalists- who have spoken out- in articles and in videos. Many of these voices have been removed or censored in social media- all in defense of national and international policies that, like Wall Street, love the vaccination scenario.
Obviously, these censured voices, no matter how credentialed, are conspiracy theorists whose views are competing with governments, giant corporations and Central Banks worldwide. And the claim is that this type of censorship protects human beings lives who need the vaccines, the masks, the social distancing, the quarantines and the lockdowns to keep the pandemic from spreading.
Right now, according to the Los Angeles Tunes in an article by Jaclyn Cosgrove and Luke Money entitled, L.A. County could get 84,000 COVID-19 vaccine does by next week, “After nine months on a seesaw of lockdowns and reopenings, Los Angeles County will likely get its first allocation of COVID-19 vaccine as early as next week…The plan will be to rapidly deploy the 84,000 does to healthcare workers on the front lines of the pandemic.” According to this article, the Public Health Director said that “the county could get its second and third allocations of does later this month, and then weekly allotments starting next year.”
Right there, we can readily understand why, as a measly 84,000 vaccinations will start off an attempt to vaccinate the millions of Americans with a Warp Speed Vaccine that was supposedly created in a few mere months, it will take a great deal of time to roll everything out. We must hurry! Isn’t that what the PCR tests have been telling us?
SADLY, NOT EVERYONE LOVES THE PCR TESTS. AFTER ALL, DIDN’T THESE TESTS GUIDE US IN THE RIGHT LOCKDOWN/PANDEMIC DIRECTION?
One of the “conspiracy theories” is that something might be wrong with the PCR test. In an interview by Spiro Skouras with Dr. Andrew Kaufman, Dr. Kaufman said this:
Although there have been many doctors and scientists that have agreed with this analysis, his voice was censored. But now, following many doctors and scientists also sounding the same warning, we have an-
OPEN LETTER FROM CONSORTIUM OF LIVE SCIENCE EXPERTS REFUTES CLAIMS ABOUT THE PCR TEST THAT ENDORSED ITS USE
Recently, an article posted in Principia Scientific International proclaims: COVID TEST FAIL: External Peer Review Exposes 10 Key Scientific Flaws and lists the ten key problems.
SUMMARY CATALOG OF ERRORS FOUND IN THE PAPER
The Corman-Drosten paper contains the following specific errors:
- There exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. The described concentrations lead to increased nonspecific bindings and PCR product amplifications, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
- Six unspecified wobbly positions will introduce an enormous variability in the real world laboratory implementations of this test; the confusing nonspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
- The test cannot discriminate between the whole virus and viral fragments. Therefore, the test cannot be used as a diagnostic for intact (infectious) viruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus and make inferences about the presence of an infection.
- A difference of 10° C with respect to the annealing temperature Tm for primer pair1 (RdRp_SARSr_F and RdRp_SARSr_R) also makes the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
- A severe error is the omission of a Ct value at which a sample is considered positive and negative. This Ct value is also not found in follow-up submissions making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
- The PCR products have not been validated at the molecular level. This fact makes the protocol useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
- The PCR test contains neither a unique positive control to evaluate its specificity for SARS-CoV-2 nor a negative control to exclude the presence of other coronaviruses, making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
- The test design in the Corman-Drosten paper is so vague and flawed that one can go in dozens of different directions; nothing is standardized and there is no SOP. This highly questions the scientific validity of the test and makes it unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
- Most likely, the Corman-Drosten paper was not peer-reviewed making the test unsuitable as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
- We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman-Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on July 29 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB-Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version); TIB-Molbiol is the company which was “the first” to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted [20]; further, Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there [21] and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.
There is, indeed, an international consortium of experts.
Signing the letter are a ‘who’s who’ of eminent life scientists including:
Dr. Pieter Borger (MSc, PhD), Molecular Genetics, W+W Research Associate, Lörrach, Germany
Prof. Dr. Ulrike Kämmerer, specialist in Virology / Immunology / Human Biology / Cell Biology, University Hospital Würzburg, Germany
Prof. Dr. Klaus Steger, Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Andrology, Molecular Andrology, Biomedical Research Center of the Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany
Prof. Dr. Makoto Ohashi, Professor emeritus, PhD in Microbiology and Immunology, Tokushima University, Japan
Prof. Dr. med. Henrik Ullrich, specialist Diagnostic Radiology, Chief Medical Doctor at the Center for Radiology of Collm Oschatz-Hospital, Germany
Rajesh K. Malhotra (Artist Alias: Bobby Rajesh Malhotra), Former 3D Artist / Scientific Visualizations at CeMM – Center for Molecular Medicine of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (2019-2020), University for Applied Arts – Department for Digital Arts Vienna, Austria
Dr. Michael Yeadon BSs(Hons) Biochem Tox U Surrey, PhD Pharmacology U Surrey. Managing Director, Yeadon Consulting Ltd, former Pfizer Chief Scientist, United Kingdom
Dr. Kevin P. Corbett, MSc Nursing (Kings College London) PhD (London South Bank) Social Sciences (Science & Technology Studies) London, England, UK
Dr. Clare Craig MA, (Cantab) BM, BCh (Oxon), FRCPath, United Kingdom
Kevin McKernan, BS Emory University, Chief Scientific Officer, founder Medical Genomics, engineered the sequencing pipeline at WIBR/MIT for the Human Genome Project, Invented and developed the SOLiD sequencer, awarded patents related to PCR, DNA Isolation and Sequencing, USA
Dr. Lidiya Angelova, MSc in Biology, PhD in Microbiology, Former researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Maryland, USA
Dr. Fabio Franchi, Former Dirigente Medico (M.D) in an Infectious Disease Ward, specialized in “Infectious Diseases” and “Hygiene and Preventive Medicine”, Società Scientifica per il Principio di Precauzione (SSPP), Italy
Dr. med. Thomas Binder, Internist and Cardiologist (FMH), Switzerland
Dr. Stefano Scoglio, B.Sc. Ph.D., Microbiologist, Nutritionist, Italy
Dr. Paul McSheehy (BSc, PhD), Biochemist & Industry Pharmacologist, Loerrach, Germany
Dr. Marjolein Doesburg-van Kleffens, (MSc, PhD), specialist in Laboratory Medicine (clinical chemistry), Maasziekenhuis Pantein, Beugen, the Netherlands
Dr. Dorothea Gilbert (MSc, PhD), PhD Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology. DGI Consulting Services, Oslo, Norway
Dr. Rainer Klement, PhD. Department of Radiation Oncology, Leopoldina Hospital Schweinfurt, Germany
Dr. Ruth Schrüfer, PhD, human genetics/ immunology, Munich, Germany,
Dr. Berber W. Pieksma, General Practitioner, The Netherlands,
Dr. med. Jan Bonte (GJ), Consultant Neurologist, the Netherlands,
Dr. Bruno Dalle Carbonare (Molecular biologist), IP specialist, BDC Basel, Switzerland
Here is a link to the entire letter. In light of happening, please pass this on:
In this next video, Ben Swann interviews Reiner Fullmich, an attorney is an essential part of a German committee investigating the liability for the fraudulent claims that have infected the world’s economies and threatened the prosperity and happiness of so many people. Reiner explains how the falsity of the PCR test plays a major role in a defamation case where a critic of the PCR test was accused of spreading falsehoods:
BREAKING: German Lawsuit Against “FactCheckers”
Would Force Them To Prove Legitimacy of C0VlD Tests
Since we are highlighting the PCR test, Here are a few stories I wish to repeat that you might like to know about if you haven’t seen them–
One country’s high court doesn’t care too much for the PCR test, so much so that they have enjoined their country to abandon the quarantine. One article that documents this GreatGameIndia – Journal on GeoPolitics and International Relations
Portuguese Court Rules PCR Tests
As Unreliable & Unlawful To Quarantine People
The court stated, the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used and the viral load present. Citing Jaafar et al. 2020, the court concludes that
“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the rule in most laboratories in Europe and the US), the probability that said person is infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.”
The court further notes that the cycle threshold used for the PCR tests currently being made in Portugal is unknown.
Click here to read the whole article.
WISCONSIN RESIDENT LOOKS AT HIS LOCKDOWN COMPARED TO THE POSSIBLE BIRTH OF FREEDOM IN PORTUGAL
https://youtu.be/MYk92jxFXOk
Covid-19 PCR Tests Ruled Unreliable By Portuguese Court. Quarantine Lifted.
Take a look at this document, presented in a Tweet from Spiro Skourkas, one of the more coherent and powerful voices of the Resistance.
DISCLAIMER:
We Beg to Differ, a blog presenting alternative media’s view of Mainstream Narratives, basically presents links, most often to whole videos and articles, from Mainstream Media and Alternative Media to contrast their views. If one wonders what alternative media means, it is media developed privately by independent producers, not owned or directed by the handful of media companies that control a vast amount of media output in the world.
We share various types of videos for you to scrutinize. Unless we specifically say so, we do not necessarily agree with their content, in whole or in part. Sometimes, we will present written or audio/video material concerned with health issues. We always recommend that before you try anything, you check with your medical or certified health professional.