All COVID-19 Vaccine Studies Used nonQ-RT-PCR to determine case status. All of the estimates of outcome are unreliable. This is the most important study we will ever likely publish in our journal.
NB: The toy math example to show how calculations of False Discovery Rate lead to bias in favor of false positives, an error has been corrected. Corrections and changes are in bold. The original article references to ‘false positive rate’ will also be updated to ‘false discovery rate’. We thank our readers for catching those errors!
We have just published a new study that shows that nonQ-RT-PCR (non-quantitative RT-PCR testing as used to diagnose COVID-19 from 2020 to the present day suffers a flaw that ultimately draws into question all of what has been reported on COVID-19 by official channels, including the results of COVID-19. Specifically, assuming a 5% prevalence rate, the high false discovery rate (42%) of the use of nonQ-RT-PCR means
1. For every 50 true positives out of 1,000, 400 people without SARS-CoV-2 infection or residual fragments will be reported.
2. For every 50 true positives, 400 people without SARS-CoV-2 infection or residual fragments will be have to be isolated/quarantined.
3. For every 50 true positives that are tested and found positive in-hospital, 400 people without SARS-CoV-2 infection or residual fragments will be told that they “have COVID-19”. If they are hospitalized with other COVID-19 patients, they will likely then contract a SARS-CoV-2 infection.
4. The number of “cases” via positive PCR has been overstated by a factor of 8:1 (the original post read “80:1” assuming a prevalence of 5%).
5. This is true for generic case reporting up until May 2021 when CDC decided to reduce the PCR cycle threshold value (Ct) for the vaccinated to less than 27, leaving the unvaccinated rate biased by high false discovery rate of arbitrarily high Ct, biasing all reported rates in these two groups favoring cases in the unvaccinated from that point on.
6. This 8:1 bias is true in any clinical trial or any study that used arbitrarily high Ct values, INCLUDING THE VACCINE STUDIES.
As a direct result of this fatal flaw, combined with CDC’s gaff “PCR+ = COVID-19″?
There are no credible COVID-19 vaccine trial data.
In 2003, CDC took the credit for curtailing the SARS-CoV-1 transmission. Among the method of control they claimed were essential to this included SARS-CoV-1 strain-specific PCR primers used to produce amplicons that were sequenced. The presence of the sequence was used to infer, correctly, whether the PCR reaction had produced a population of SARS-CoV-1 DNA molecules that were sequenced using FDA-designated gold standard – Sanger Sequencing, or an arbitrary population of DNA molecules that represented off-target amplicons.
In 2020, for reasons no one has ever explained, the CDC changed the nucleic acid detection protocol to one that had never been tried before for control of respiratory viruses. Instead of using sequence-based detection, they merely used the results of a non-quantitative reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR as evidence of the presence of the virus, and then, equally inexplicably, decided to determine that a positive nonQ-RT-PCR test result indicated disease (COVID-19).
Anyone trained in nucleic assays would know this would lead to excessive false positives. Somehow, per official narrative, zero false positive test results were expected by CDC – even with their own test, which had an arbitrarily high Ct cutoff of 40.