What Really Makes You Ill | MOB Talks To David Parker & Dawn Lester

 Add to 





3 years ago


Recorded earlier this month, in this essential video The Bernician interviews independent researchers, David Parker and Dawn Lester, about their decade long research into the nature of viruses and disease. Find out more about David and Dawn's courageous work: https://www.whatreallymakesyouill.com Subscribe to The Bernician's blog: https://www.thebernician.net All Right Reserved under Magna Carta 2020 and the Treaty of Universal Community Trust. #PrivateCriminalProsecutions #PandemicFraud


Dear Michael, I just wanted you to have as arsenal these facts which are applicable with the case at hand. The following link will explain the case, and a link to the court decision documents which is in Portuguese and even if you translate it, it is lengthy, however I can attached the main issue a message here. https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/20/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful/ relying chiefly on a study published 28 Sep 2020. https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491/5912603 I hope this might be the smoking gun you were hoping for, as I am aware that the cycles used by UK labs are in excess of the 25 cycle threshold and therefore should according to the above study and the Portuguese court decision be available to UK government advisors who ultimately are culpable and in hand with the ministers you intend taking to court. In addition, the UK Gov website published the PCR test number of cycle guidelines on Published 28 October 2020 but was vague even though the data points clearly to the fact that anything taken above 25 cycle should have been limited as having false positives was in actual fact the goal of some in Government. They could have clearly have said that any RT-PCR test should clearly state the cycles and that any positive results above 20 say cycles eg. should be negative (non-infectious) . But they did not, and continue to deny scientific fact, and keep the casedemic narrative going with unnecessary lockdowns and masks in an effort to trick the public by fear mongering tactics to eventually force unnecessary and unwarranted mandatory vaccination. Attached is the publication on link https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycle-threshold-ct-in-sars-cov-2-rt-pcr NHS guidelines use 45 cycles. That just goes to show what is going on
The Portuguese Court decision in brief is the following: In view of the current scientific evidence, this PCR test is, in itself, incapable of determining, beyond reasonable doubt, that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, by several reasons, of which we highlight two (to which is added the issue of gold standard which, due to its specificity, we will not even address): For this reliability depend on the number of cycles that make up the test; For this reliability depend on the amount of viral load present. ii. Indeed, the RT-PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests, molecular biology tests that detect the RNA of the virus, commonly used in Portugal to test and enumerate the number of infected (after nasopharyngeal collection), are performed by amplifying samples , through repetitive cycles. The number of cycles of such amplification results in the greater or lesser reliability of such tests.
iii. And the problem is that this reliability is shown, in terms of scientific evidence (and in this field, the judge will have to rely on the knowledge of experts in the field), more than debatable. This is the result, among others, of the very recent and comprehensive Correlation study between 3790 qPCR positives samples and positive cell cultures including 1941 SARS-CoV-2 isolates , by Rita Jaafar, Sarah Aherfi, Nathalie Wurtz, Clio Grimaldier, Van Thuan Hoang, Philippe Colson, Didier Raoult, Bernard La Scola, Clinical Infectious Diseases, ciaa1491, https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491,em https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093 / cid / ciaa1491 / 5912603 , published at the end of September this year, by Oxford Academic , carried out by a group that brings together some of the greatest European and world experts in the field. This study concludes [2] , in free translation: “At a cycle threshold (ct) of 25, about 70% of the samples remain positive in the cell culture (ie they were infected): in a ct of 30, 20% of the samples remained positive; in a ct of 35, 3% of the samples remained positive; and at a ct above 35, no sample remained positive (infectious) in cell culture (see diagram). This means that if a person has a positive PCR test at a cycle threshold of 35 or higher (as in most laboratories in the USA and Europe), the chances of a person being infected are less than 3%. The probability of a person receiving a false positive is 97% or higher ”. iv. What follows from these studies is simple -the possible reliability of the PCR tests carried out depends, from the outset, on the threshold of amplification cycles that they contain, in such a way that, up to the limit of 25 cycles, the reliability of the test will be about 70%; if 30 cycles are carried out, the degree of reliability drops to 20%; if 35 cycles are reached, the degree of reliability will be 3%. v. However, in the present case, the number of amplification cycles with which PCR tests are carried out in Portugal, including the Azores and Madeira, is unknown, since we were unable to find any recommendation or limit in this regard. saw. For its part, in a very recent study by Elena Surkova, Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy and Francis Drobniewski, accessible athttps://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/ful ltext , published in the equally prestigious The Lancet, Respiratory Medicine , refers (in addition to the multiple questions that the very the accuracy of the test raises, regarding the specific detection of the sars-cov 2 virus, due to strong doubts regarding the fulfillment of the so-called gold standard ) (free translation):
“Any diagnostic test must be interpreted in the context of the actual possibility of the disease, existing before its realization . For Covid-19, this decision to perform the test depends on previous assessment of the existence of symptoms, previous medical history of Covid 19 or presence of antibodies, any potential exposure to this disease and no likelihood of another possible diagnosis. ” [3] “ One of the potential reasons for presenting positive results may be the prolonged shedding of viral RNA, which is known to extend for weeks after recovery, in those who were previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2. However, and more relevantly, there is no scientific data to suggest that low levels of viral RNA by RT-PCR equate to infection, unless the presence of infectious viral particles has been confirmed by laboratory culture methods . In summary, Covid-19 tests that show false positives are increasingly likely, in the current epidemiological climate scenario in the United Kingdom, with substantial consequences for the personal, health and corporate systems . ” [4] 18. Thus, with so many scientific doubts, expressed by experts in the field, which are the ones that matter here, as to the reliability of such tests, ignoring the parameters of their performance and there being no diagnosis made by a doctor, in the sense of the existence of infection and risk, it would never be possible for this court to determine that AH___ had the SARS-CoV-2 virus, nor that SH_SWH_ and NK_ had high risk exposure.