CDC and FDA Admit Their Policies are Based on a “Contrived” Model, not a Virus

Unsplash
image_pdf
  • Save
image_print
  • Save
The CDC may withdraw its request to the FDA for the Emergency Use Authorization of PCR tests to be replaced by a PCR test with a better marker. The CDC/FDA admitted there was a problem with the PCR test, which has been used to detect COVID, starting in February of 2020—right up to the present. The CDC also referenced documents that confirmed it did not have a specimen of the SARS-CoV-2 virus when it concocted the PCR test and that it “contrived” samples of the virus. Therefore, it has no proof that a SARS-CoV-2 virus exists! The FDA document said that it granted emergency approval to 59 different PCR tests since the beginning of the pandemic and it was not feasible to compare them to a reliable standard. -GEG

The CDC has issued a document that bulges with devastating admissions.

The release is titled, “07/21/2021: Lab Alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing.” It begins explosively:

“After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.”

Many people believe this means the CDC is giving up on the PCR test as a means of “detecting the virus.” The CDC isn’t saying that at all.

They’re saying the PCR technology will continue to be used, but they’re replacing what the test is looking FOR with a better “reference sample.” A better marker. A better target. A better piece of RNA supposedly derived from SARS-CoV-2.

CDC/FDA are confessing there has been a PROBLEM with the PCR test which has been used to detect the virus, starting in February of 2020—right up to this minute.

In other words, the millions and millions of “COVID cases” based on the PCR test in use are all suspect. Actually, that statement is too generous. Every test result of every PCR test should be thrown out.

To confirm this, the CDC document links to an FDA release titled, “SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel Comparative Data.” Here is a killer quote:

“During the early months of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical specimens [of the virus] were not readily available to developers of IVDs [in vitro diagnostics] to detect SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, the FDA authorized IVDs based on available data from contrived samples generated from a range of SARS-CoV-2 material sources (for example, gene specific RNA, synthetic RNA, or whole genome viral RNA) for analytical and clinical performance evaluation. While validation using these contrived specimens provided a measure of confidence in test performance at the beginning of the pandemic, it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.”

Translation: We, at the CDC, did not have a specimen of the SARS-CoV-2 virus when we concocted the PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. Yes, it’s unbelievable, right? And that’s the test we’ve been using all along. So we CONTRIVED samples of the virus. We fabricated. We lied. We made up [invented] synthetic gene sequences and we SAID these sequences HAD TO BE close to the sequence of SARS-CoV-2, without having the faintest idea of what we were doing, because, again, we didn’t have an actual specimen of the virus. We had no proof THERE WAS something called SARS-CoV-2.

This amazing FDA document goes to say the Agency has granted emergency approval to 59 different PCR tests since the beginning of the (fake) pandemic. 59. And, “…it is not feasible to precisely compare the performance of various tests that used contrived specimens because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.”

Translation: Each of the 59 different PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 told different lies and concocted different fabrications about the genetic makeup of the virus—the virus we didn’t have. Obviously, then, these tests would give unreliable results. THE PCR TESTS USED CONTRIVED SPECIMENS OF THE VIRUS WE DIDN’T HAVE.

Read full article here…

Visit our Classified ads.

Check out our Classified ads at the bottom of this page.

Recent stories & commentary

Classifieds

For classified advertising rates and terms, click here. The appearance of ads on this site does not signify endorsement by the publisher. We do not attempt to verify the accuracy of statements made therein or vouch for the integrity of advertisers. However, we will investigate complaints from readers and remove any message we find to be misleading or that promotes anything fraudulent, illegal, or unethical.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kiwi
kiwi
9 months ago

well this will be a surprise to no one who has been studying this
hoax from the begining, it would be good to get some reliable figures
for % of population vaxxed no of injuries / deaths etc

Tom Ball
Tom Ball
9 months ago

Regardless of whether there is a “covid 19” virus or how severe it is, a couple of things are clear enough. The thing was contrived in a lab in communist China on US tax dollars funneled there by a known liar, and The entire “pandemic” is being used as a cover to promote a “New World Order” of bankster/gangster controlled tyranny. The pharmaceutical companies manufacturing these “vaccines” are going to be racking in money hand over fist. (That alone is sufficient reason to doubt the sincerity of their motives.) For all anyone knows , these “vaccines” could have been contrived… Read more »

Jim
Jim
9 months ago
Reply to  Tom Ball

you make 3 statements that you claim are “clear enough:, however, without a physical specimen, how can you claim, as your first statement, a “thing” was contrived, if there is no evidence of the existence of this ‘thing’? You commit a logical fallacy. There is NO virus in terms of empirical science. In fact no virus has ever been found to exist nor cause any disease, scientifically speaking, in the history of humanity. Disease as a phenomenon exists, yes, but the cause of this “covid” disease symptoms, cannot be tied to any particle man-made or otherwise, neither from a Bat,… Read more »

EJ
EJ
9 months ago

The RT-PCR test tests cell samples seeking genetic sequences (bits of NON-human DNA) not specifically “Covid-19” and are present in dozens of sequences of the human genome and in those of about a hundred microbes. The PCR test does not detect Sars-cov-2 https://tinyurl.com/5hk7zs68 The small genetic snippets must be amplified/cycled to become discernible. Amplification over 30-35x cycles is viewed unusable/scientifically unjustified, yet WHO, recommends 45 cycles. So results will show presence of “some” viral DNA but not amounts to make one ill. Before his death, the inventor of the PCR test, Nobel Prize recipient Kary Mullis, repeatedly stressed it should… Read more »

EJ
EJ
9 months ago

The Virus Has Never Been Isolated According to Koch’s or River’s Postulates https://tinyurl.com/3xt2yc98 Andrew Kaufman MD on Koch’s Postulates https://www.bitchute.com/video/eOGvhrGTVq6N/
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
German journalist Samuel Eckert has offered 1 million dollars for irrefutable proof (Using Koch’s postulates) of the existence of Covid-19. To date, it goes uncollected.

Eyes of Horus
Eyes of Horus
9 months ago

Portugal has declared these tests “unreliable.” They produce too many false positives. Besides, CoVid-19 is 99% survivable. What purpose then does an inoculation serve?

Jim
Jim
9 months ago
Reply to  Eyes of Horus

It is not even enough to say it is a ‘false positive’. because that still indirectly claims that PCR is in any way a diagnostic “TEST”. It is NOT at test AT ALL. It is not a test – PERIOD. the spirit of what you say is good, but we must be very careful with our terminology and how we talk about these things. Also, it is not an ‘inoculation’, nor a ‘vaccine’. It is a genetic engineering injection containing toxic chemicals and nanotechnology. The purpose of the injection is to track, control, maim, sterilize, make you into a patented… Read more »