COVID-19: Vaccine ‘Not Possible’ for a Virus Not Yet Quantifiable
Regulatory authorities, such as the CDC/FDA all insist that their handling of the current Coronavirus pandemic (SARS-CoV2/COVID-19) is based on science and associated data or facts. This is especially the case in the United States.
We are told that an identified virus causes the infection which in turn causes, or may cause, deaths – potentially in the millions.
Furthermore, authorities also claim that the viral disease (COVID-19) can only be treated with a vaccine – which at present does not exist – and must be developed urgently and then made available to the public worldwide.
Let us evaluate these claims on a proper scientific basis. First of all, let us see if the virus has been proven to exist in humans. Then more importantly, determine to what extent, if any, it can be measured as the disease which causes all these alleged deaths.
The presence or absence of COVID-19 in humans has not been determined effectively and efficiently because of the known current technical (scientific) limitations, as explained below.
In most cases (in fact, in almost all cases) the presence/absence of the virus is established by indirect testing. These indirect tests are commonly known as PCR and antibody tests. Without going into technical details, one may consider that these tests monitor specific types of proteins or related chemicals which are produced by the presence of viruses, not only by SARS-CoV2 or COVID-19, but by all pathogenic viruses as a defence mechanism to get rid of the viruses and/or to protect our bodies from their ill effects.
It is important to note here that when someone refers to testing for a virus, one does not determine the actual virus itself but a marker (such as a protein).
The irony is that these markers are not specific to COVID-19, but are generic to all viruses to which we are exposed.
Saying it differently, these tests are never sufficiently specific – and scientifically speaking should not be relied upon for declaring the presence of a specific virus – including COVID-19. Obviously, if a virus cannot be monitored reliably, then by implication the associated disease or deaths cannot be established reliably and accurately – at least scientifically.
Hence, we see confusion and the inaccuracies over the predicted death rate which turns out to be no higher than a normal to severe influenza and concurrent attrition rate. In a simpler and daily life example, one may explain the situation as akin to establishing car safety by monitoring the air pressure levels of the tires (the marker) because someone decided that deviation in car tire pressure is to be the determinant of safety.
It is quite possible (by chance) that a deviation in tire pressure could compromise vehicle performance/safety. However, it is neither accurate or logical using tire pressure alone as your safety criteria and to then label “unsafe” any and all cars with one or more tires with somewhat irregular pressure. One or more tires alone may be the problem – not the car.
Unfortunately, in the extreme, the authorities end up deciding that all car safety will be monitored only on the basis of tire pressure level. Now this would become a “Regulatory Compliance Requirement” or the law for car safety assessment.
On top of this comes the irony that these authorities provide their own version of tire pressure gauges to test all our tires, which happens to show tire failure routinely in otherwise perfectly acceptable cars.
This is exactly the situation we have with the pandemic and COVID-19 monitoring i.e. a regulatory compliance requirement that COVID-19 infection will be established based on PCR/antibody tests (let’s call that the “Official Test”) which, as noted above, is not specific at all to COVID-19. Worst yet, the authorities are specifying the use of a testing protocol instituted and “approved/authorized” by them alone.
It is important to understand that the “Official Test” is solely on a regulatory compliance requirement basis. It is NOT a scientific validation of having COVID-19. Yet it is promoted as scientific.
While it may be true that believers and promoters of this requirement of testing are experts from the areas of pharmacy, epidemiology, virology, genetics, microbiology, immunology, medicines, and biochemistry to name a few. They are not experts in testing.
Where the real capability lies in determining a valid test falls in the category of analytical chemistry. The multiple aforementioned disciplines named are the users of the tests. They should not claim to being the developers and/or validators of the test – they lack the required expertise. I say this as an expert in this field of testing.
To better illustrate the subtlety of this point let us consider the analogy of a baker who uses agricultural products (e.g. flour) and cooking equipment (e.g. oven) to make bread but then believes he is somehow also qualified and holds authority over the developing and manufacturing of the items used to make the bread. If one sees the issue from an analytical chemistry perspective, it should become immediately obvious that such inexpert testing is scientifically invalid and so, too, are all the associated claims based upon it.
The reason that current COVID-19 testing should be considered bogus is that these tests do not meet the basic and fundamental requirements of science (analytical chemistry) which is the procedure of validation of the tests.
This validation step is commonly based on establishing four parameters: (1) accuracy; (2) precision; (3) specificity; (4) references used to validate the test.
No analytical test is accepted without meeting these validation requirements – the most essential scientific requirements.
However, at present no COVID-19 test is used (or is even available) which has such validation. As such, the current practice is ordinarily considered as a cardinal sin in the scientific community.
Pro-PCR/antibody test scientists often argue that seeking a specific test for COVID-19 (or its associated disease) is like seeking “absolute truth” which would hinder the current and (to them) “acceptable” testing/science. This unfortunately is the most deceptive, even fraudulent position possible and yet it is often supported (and promoted) by the regulatory authorities.
Therefore, at present, regulatory authorities are not implementing the true scientific principles applicable to this pharmaceutical issue. Instead, their methodology is self-created and an arbitrary science of “regulatory compliance requirements” with various flashy and catchy marketing phrases.
Now, if the COVID-19 virus cannot be determined (isolated), and by extension the real nature of the pandemic, for what purpose is a vaccine being developed?
Again, this is all just a regulatory requirement because regulatory authorities are asking for it, and as such, it needs to be developed. On the other hand, it is impossible to develop a true vaccine for COVID-19 because – if we are incapable of actually monitoring the virus or disease – how can the effectiveness of a vaccine be established?
In short, it cannot!
Therefore, most likely a fake vaccine will be developed to satisfy the regulators’ wishes (as well as to calm down the created public hysteria and fear). Unfortunately, such vaccines, if developed and administered, will certainly create potentially dangerous side effects, without any presumed benefits, by interfering with the body’s own immune system, as well as other related physiological processes.
The ill-thought out regulatory compliance requirement is not new or just associated with COVID-19, it is pervasive in other pharmaceutical areas as well. For example, it reigns for the approval process of traditional pharmaceutical products such as a tablet or capsule – and it has been standard procedure for at least three decades, which certainly has ruined the science, as well as pharmaceutical product development and manufacturing.
All kinds of enforceable regulatory requirements have been spawned and implemented in the name of quality control of the manufactured products. The irony here is that authorities have never defined what they mean by a “quality product” with some (scientifically) measurable parameter/criteria.
However, there now exists a huge battery of compliance requirements (such as regulatory guidance documents) available from authorities, in particular the FDA. The requirements and guidance, are enforced with or without numerous unrelated testing requirements. They have never been validated to see if they meet their intended purpose or claim. But industry must comply if it wants to survive and the public goes on assuming it is receiving “quality” pharmaceutical products.
In summary, at present there is a serious and fatal flaw in the practice of regulating pharmaceutical products, development and assessment. This can only be addressed by critically evaluating and implementing appropriate scientific principles from relevant scientific disciplines and expertise.
PS: If one requires specific references to the views presented here, they could be obtained by visiting the site (www.drug-dissolution-testing.com) or directly contacting the author at [email protected].
About the author: Saeed A Qureshi PhD gained extensive (30+ year) experience in conducting hands-on and multi-disciplinary laboratory research in pharmaceutical areas for regulatory assessment purposes while working with Health Canada.
He is an internationally recognised expert in the areas of pharmacokinetics, biopharmaceutics, drug dissolution testing, analytical chemistry as related to characterization of pharmaceuticals, in particular, based on in vitro (dissolution) and bioavailability/bioequivalence (humans and animals) assessments.
At present, Dr. Qureshi provides teaching, training and consulting services, in the area of his expertise as noted above, for improved pharmaceutical products development and assessments. Dr. Qureshi can be reached by email ([email protected]) or Tel (+1 613 797 9815)
The above article is derived from the original version published at www.drug-dissolution-testing.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Richard Wakefield
| #
“The presence or absence of COVID-19 in humans has not been determined effectively and efficiently because of the known current technical (scientific) limitations, as explained below”
Why are you publishing this pseudoscience bullshit?
SARS-CoV-2’s RNA sequence is in GenBank. Several strains have been identified from samples obtained from infected people enabling us to know the method and origin of the virus.
For example.
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202006.0329/v1
http://www.sci-news.com/medicine/three-variants-sars-cov-2-coronavirus-08313.html
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
“It is important to note here that when someone refers to testing for a virus, one does not determine the actual virus itself but a marker (such as a protein).”
“Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus is a major public health challenge. Rapid tests for detecting existing SARS-CoV-2 infections and assessing virus spread are critical. Approaches to detect viral RNA based on reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) have potential as simple, scalable, and broadly applicable testing methods. Compared to RT-qPCR-based methods, RT-LAMP assays require incubation at a constant temperature, thus eliminating the need for sophisticated instrumentation. Here, we tested a two-color RT-LAMP assay protocol for detecting SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA using a primer set specific for the N gene. We tested our RT-LAMP assay on surplus RNA samples isolated from 768 pharyngeal swab specimens collected from individuals being tested for COVID-19. We determined the sensitivity and specificity of the RT-LAMP assay for detecting SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA. Compared to an RT-qPCR assay using a sensitive primer set, we found that the RT-LAMP assay reliably detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA with an RT-qPCR cycle threshold (CT) number of up to 30, with a sensitivity of 97.5% and a specificity of 99.7%. We also developed a swab-to-RT-LAMP assay that did not require a prior RNA isolation step, which retained excellent specificity (99.5%) but showed lower sensitivity (86% for CT<30) than the RT-LAMP assay. In addition, we developed a multiplexed sequencing protocol (LAMP-sequencing) as a diagnostic validation procedure to detect and record the outcome of RT-LAMP reactions.”
https://stm.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/07/27/scitranslmed.abc7075.abstract
Reply
Tom O
| #
Back again I see. Say, Richard, are you the assigned COVID troll for this site? Just curious. Hope they pay well. You are aware, I assume, that there is no none SARS-CoV-2 virus, just a construct of individual virus parts found in different people suffering from the same symptoms, right?
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
” You are aware, I assume, that there is no none SARS-CoV-2 virus,”
And I’m the troll…
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0695-z
http://www.sci-news.com/medicine/three-variants-sars-cov-2-coronavirus-08313.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7375210/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/mining-coronavirus-genomes-clues-outbreak-s-origins
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
” You are aware, I assume, that there is no none SARS-CoV-2 virus,”
Yet:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/mining-coronavirus-genomes-clues-outbreak-s-origins
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0695-z
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Richard, you appear to be some type of an imbecile.
From your own source:
“We retrieved 1,346 complete genomes from Australia along with 153 genomes from other countries from the NCBI nucleotide database and Global Initiative On Sharing All Influenza Data (GISAID). We then constructed a representative population of 270 sequences for downstream phylogenetic analysis and ancestral area reconstruction.”
Hmm, strange how a virus can have so much variation.
A computer virus on the other hand literally has 1 tag (plus version) for a UNIQUE set of code.
Your “virus” seems to be a mix of infected computer code, but not a unique code in it of itself.
Which lf course supports the authors’ theory and not yours.
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
“Hmm, strange how a virus can have so much variation.”
If you understood any kind of virology, then YES!!! This is EXACTLY what viruses do.
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/15/713/5780800
Clearly ypu have no clue how evolution works.
And I’m the imbecile. Why do you people always have to resort to insulting on the first sentence? Make you feel superior?
Moffin
| #
Personal abuse is often the last weapon left in the armoury.
Exasperation can be the second to last weapon.
Zoe Phin
| #
Oh Richie richie, don’t you see that “a virus did this” is not a unique explanatory hypothesis?
If you don’t ….
Richard Wakefield
| #
@Zoe Phin so every virologist working on this virus are all incompetent.
You better hope you never get sick or injured and require a medical professional for help.
John
| #
Well what you don’t understand is that RT-qPCR assay is adjusted to get a result. The number of cycles are increased. One of the problems is the RT-PCR cannot identify and discriminate between the different corona virus types. Because this test is not looking for the entire sequence of COVID-19, merely a nucleate common to all coronaviruses; However it is fallible. Against what standard can it be calibrated to determine repeatability? The answer is none. It is also in fact not a diagnostic tool. Its the only low cost toll they have so its being used for a purpose that it is not designed for. i.e. not fit for purpose.https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/ and https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/07/29/another-failure-of-the-covid-diagnostic-test/.
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
“Because this test is not looking for the entire sequence of COVID-19, merely a nucleate common to all coronaviruses;”
You think virologists are THAT stupid? They look for a gene unique to that virus. That’s what molecular phylogenetics is all about. Finding the unique gene sequence to get a pathway of descent which is recorded in the mutations as speciation happens.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2762997
Reply
judy Ryan
| #
Dear Richard,
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. That is why you use linguistic indecipherable terminology. The Principia scientific team adhere to the methodology of Karl Popper. That is real science. Look it up. All you refer to is ABC misinformation
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
So Science Magazine isnt a peer review science journal…
Reply
John
| #
And so is Lancet as is the New England Journal of Medicine. Both have retracted articles on treatment. So because a”peer reviewed does not mean that what you see is always correct. It is also well known as Pal review. The very same issue have emerged in the climate debate where falsified data is used. Ask Michael Mann . The so called IPCC has also had peer reviewed publications called into question for the same reason, Fudged data sand lies..https://www.foxnews.com/science/covid-19-papers-retracted-lancet-new-england-medical-journal. Here is something for you to chew on. Fang, Ferric & Steen, R. & Casadevall, Arturo. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 109. 17028-33. 10.1073/pnas.1212247109. A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
” The very same issue have emerged in the climate debate where falsified data is used.”
So all of science is bogus because of the fraud of human caused climate science. Got it.
You dont see a dramatic difference between virology and climate science?
My son is working on his PhD in genetics. I’ll tell him he’s wasting his time it’s all fake.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Richard W,
I too have a “Piled high and Deep” offspring. He knows now, after a few years of experience, that what you suggested (“…it’s all fake.”) isn’t that much of exaggeration.
To make a point: In an interview with James Lovelock (of 60’s Gaia Hypothesis), he gave an advice to young scientists: “Treat science like art, in other words, don’t expect to make living from it. Enjoy it.”
What we have here, IMHO, is a reaction to the very opposite to the above recommendation; as in: Treat science as an opportunity to make easy money. (As in: Making money by abusing populus ignoramus. Excuse my Latin;~)
Cheers, JaKo
Doug Harrison
| #
Richard: why don’t you got to the author’s site and discuss with him your concerns? I’m sure such an august member of the scientific community will be happy to put you straight or are you just a troll???
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
I dont need to. The science/medical journals prove him wrong. The virus exists, has been sequenced from samples taken from patients. Several strains have been identified.
Reply
Squidly
| #
If that is true, then you cannot produce an effective “vaccine” .. as has been demonstrated time and again for the past 6 decades.
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
Yet we have vaccines for a large number of viruses. You get your dog vaccinated for rabies? They have to try for this one.
Reply
Alan Stewart
| #
I wasn’t able to verity the source of the following but it could possibly be searched. In precis: ‘Research for a vaccine for SARS CoV-1 (2003) is still ongoing.’ Fauchi, ‘We will have a vaccine by early 2021.’ SARS Cov-2 reached it’s apogee in mid April.
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
No it did not. It has not peaked yet. Daily new cases is still increasing.
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&country=~OWID_WRL&casesMetric=true&interval=smoothed&hideControls=true&smoothing=0&pickerMetric=location&pickerSort=asc
Reply
Squidly
| #
🤣🤣🤣 .. wrong .. that data is so polluted .. go look at some of Tony Heller’s analysis (and others) of the various data sets. They are so polluted that at this point the mean absolutely nothing.
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
Then I expect a peer reviewed medical paper from him any day now setting the record straight? Please.
The data I use comes from the most prestigious medical university on the planet.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
JHU aggregates data from other sources, Richard. Why can’t you think?
Richard Wakefield
| #
@Zoe Phin Yes, the health agencies from every country on the planet. You have data that is different? You think JHU wouldnt verify these numbers?
Bailey
| #
]).([ RW – it is your apparent lack of critical scepticism regarding your cited authorities and preferred unwillingness to engage in any meaningful exchange that necessarily undermines your credibility. Your authorities are unreliable one or more of the following objections; flawed, biased, incomplete, self-serving, incompetent, egotistical, devisive/deceptive and are not subject to justifiable accountability. There is no “virus” as claimed, there is no “pandemic” as claimed, the rt-pcr is not a diagnostic instrument nor is there a gold standard compare with if it were one. Not having or not offering a viable sustainable argument extrinsic to your questionable support platform quantifies your contentions as superfluous incoherent diatribe and otherwise, most obvious, is that you are incorrigible and possess no clue as to the true nature of that which is at work compromising even the very purpose of life ...
John
| #
Of course it would show that positives are increasing. The number of tests are also increasing. So its logical. What is not increasing is the number of deaths when compared to to all cause winter burden morbidity. Surely if this contrick19 was in fact an issue one would expect a spike in all cause mortality numbers. I wonder why that is not indicated. Of course data is preliminary as the influenza season on the southern hemisphere is not yet over. Here have a read. Rancourt, D.. (2020). All-cause mortality during COVID-19: No plague and a likely signature of mass homicide by government response. 10.13140/RG.2.2.24350.77125.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Could I have information about Mr. Richard Wakefield’s academic training and work experience and expertise, please – may be a link to his LinkedIn profiles, if available? This will help me address his concerns. Thanks.
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
Majored in Evolutionary Biology at university. Spend 35 years as a professional computer programmer and data analyst. My son is a genetics PhD candidate. We converse about this stuff all the time.
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
Aye, right.
Keep taking the Deludemol.
Reply
Moffin
| #
And some hallucinamycen with a wee dram as a chaser.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Richard,
Imagine…
100,000 people were drowned in highly toxic acids. The gene mutation of 3.5 billion bits of each human genetic code was very unpredictable. Nonetheless you found a tiny sequence of 1,234 bits in common with all victims. Or 1236 bits with 4 variations.
You conclude that they were all killed by a virus. No, they were all killed by the toxic acids.
Your theory is not a unique possibility. You still don’t understand that. Your conclusion simply fits your assumption. PSI is better than that.
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
So you know more than the virologists who study these viruses. Got it. When will your paper be published in Nature?
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
Way before yours.
Richard Wakefield
| #
@Finn McCool Let me know when yours is.
Actual virologists already have,
Saeed
| #
Richard Wakefield: Just to clarify that based on major in (undergraduate) biology with computer programming work experience and talking to son who may get Ph.D. in genetics, in my opinion you would not understand what the article is about. You certainly have the right to have your opinion but that would not be considered a qualified opinion on the subject.
Let me explain, in short in further detail what this article is about. Whenever, you go a gas station to fill up the car tank, you would see a certification sticker on the pump from the Government. The sticker indicates that pump has been validated to provide accurate amount/volume of the gas/petrol. Without this validation sticker, the gas-station will not be allowed to operate, because there is no way to establish that the gas station is providing accurate amount/volume of gas.
Similarly, in case of pandemic, if someone says one has COVID-19 (or CIVID-19 positive), one requires confirmation, validation or certification of the TEST. However, unfortunately, such test and/or its validation/confirmation/certification is not available at present. Therefore, test results cannot be relied upon and by extension existence of COVID-19. The article is about this deficiency.
I hope this will clear the confusion you have in your mind, otherwise let me know, I will try to explain it differently.
Reply
Richard Wakefield
| #
As noted in the links I provided, RNA test for a unique gene of the virus is the most reliable. This is a new virus which evolved back in November. There is still lost that is not known about how this virus behaves. But to claim there is no SARS-CoV-2 virus is just insane. The entire RNA sequence is in GenBank, which is public domain.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Richard Wakefield:
Please share test validation report or data for SARS-COV2/COVID-19, and its link to infection/disease/death from any source (government, industry or journal). If not available (which is the case as described in the article), then there is no point discussing the subject further. Use of the words “most reliable”, “unique gene”, “RNA”, “new virus”, or “evolved back” have no relevance to the topic and the article.
I look forward to seeing a test validation report from you Richard. Thanks.
Richard Wakefield
| #
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/expert-answers/covid-antibody-tests/faq-20484429
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Richard Wakefield:
These are indirect tests, not specifically for COVID-19, as I noted in my article and are known for their serious problems (false positive/negative). Credibility of these tests is almost like weighing something by the feel/putting in the palm of your hand. You may be right, close to actual weight, or completely off in guessing the weight. That is why in science if you apply a test one requires validation step/data. No scientific test comes without validation. People can go to jail if proven of using not properly validated method. (http://www.drug-dissolution-testing.com/?p=3453).
Similarly, one requires validation data for COVID-19, which does not exist. The link you provide describe currently used or recommended tests (as noted in my article) however does not provide an evidence of validation data/results.
Please try again to find or ask someone to help you in finding proper validation data/results. Just a hint – you will fail in finding such, as none is available.
Best of luck!
Thoth al Khem
| #
This so called VIRUS you keep boring us all with……
ONLY EXISTS IN THE ZIONIST MEDIA which obviously has totally BRAINWASHED about 1/2 of the world. The rest of us are smart enough TO KNOW This Pandemic was PLANNED long ago. There is NO PANDEMIC. Koch’s Postulates were NEVER PERFORMED on this FAKE A$$ VIRUS.
ilo
| #
Thank you Richard Wakefield. Your history of comments and tone of discussion is the perfect example of the current pseudo-science the world is dealing with. Opinion masquerades as facts. Ad hominem masquerades as subject matter expertise. The actual truth can not be discussed in a scientific manner because of the self evident bias in every arrogant counterpoint.
Reply
Thoth al Khem
| #
GREAT COMMENT.
Reply
Dev
| #
Thank you Saeed A Qureshi and John O’Sullivan.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Thank you Dev for the feedback and support.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Cheers, Dev. More to come on this controversial topic.
Reply
Mohammed Javed
| #
In his article, Dr. Saeed Qureshi has explained well so that an ‘illiterate’ – Including myself – in analytical chemistry, pharmacy, epidemiology, virology, genetics, microbiology, immunology, medicines, biochemistry and so on and so forth – understands that a vaccine is not yet possible for a virus (covid -19) that is not quantifiable and the present covid-19 tests do not provide an accurate result other than determining ‘markers’ such as protiens.
Some ‘illiterates’ with some half baked knowledge seem to be arguing here without any solid validation and certainly wasting others time too – they need to wakeup and just shut up!
Reply
Finn McCool
| #
It was reported in the press today that Scotland has 18,998 ‘confirmed cases’ of “COVID19”.
UTTER NONSENSE.
The time from infection to death or release from hospital after a serious case, is estimated to be ~22 days.
There have been NO deaths in Scotland in the last 25 days.
Since 17-07 there has been a total of 268,227 tests. 172,087 through UK Government testing programme and 96,140 through NHS labs.
From those tests, 625 people were found to be ‘positive’.
That is: 0.233% of tests were ‘positive’.
These are the Scottish government’s own numbers.
It is irrelevant how accurate RT-PCR tests are when the prevalence in a 5% sample of the population is close to Zero.
Scotland does NOT have 18,998 ‘confirmed cases’. In reality, it is close to zero.
Reply
Michael
| #
That was simply wonderful to read! My favourite bit was when the Corona toad Richard sleepfield finally shut the fuck up when he finally and eventually (thank fuck) realised he had no leg to stand on. It never surprises me how arrogance blinds people. I’ve read literally thousands of peer reviewed papers from seemingly reputable scientific journals and to presume that every single one is right shows how gullible some people really are! Richard is clearly suffering from massive trauma jn his childhood and now through his mad ranting and very poor attempts to try to discombobulate and confound, has got himself all cornered like a rat. I have seen and observed many many many people reacting like this. When they realise that they do not have control it really fucks them up!
A short story to illustrate: hundreds and hundreds of years ago the Mayan priests and priestesses realised that they did not have control and this frightened them greatly. However ironically because they were generally more observant than the general mob they realised that there were cycles in the heavens and the cosmos.
I.o.w. they observed the solar eclipse and they recorded in great detail it’s movement and timing and that it repeated. (Ancient wisdom passed down) they used this knowledge (knowledge is power) to trick the populous into subservience when they pretended that they had ultimate control of the sun and that they could make it go dark and back to light again at will! Of course they knew they couldn’t but the mob didn’t know that. All they had to do was convince them in order to have power over them. However as previously mentioned, knowledge is power. Knowledge is not control. And power is the illusion of control. Do you see where this is going? In other words to accumulate knowledge and facts blah blah blah does not constitute wisdom or ultimate truth, it is merely a shard,a facet, a fractal of the bigger story unfolding. This secret knowledge (although it’s not really that secret and it certainly isn’t control, it’s the illusion of control) has been passed down from generation to generation within the elite “ruling” classes for millennia! They actually believe that they can control everything. Totally deluded, it’s fricking hilarious!
Thus the ever pervasive corporate supremacy these utter morons have manifested is locked in almost from birth for every human being not born into an elite or royal bloodline. This may seem like it has nothing to do with a virus but on the contrary it has everything to do with it and more! Ultimate supremacy and Dominion over all life on earth, including those humans considered as lesser creatures! As kill Bill himself has stipulated many times unabashedly and with no remorse or empathy whatsoever that he hopes to reduce the world population drastically. He also in his delusions of grandeur wants to one day get everyone offworld like in the film Elysium. The final culmination of the great reset, The Green New Deal! So as insane as he is, and as twisted and corrupt as he is, he genuinely believes that he is working towards the greater good as are most if not all these other bastards in these”organisations” clubs, secret societies, whatever. That’s a true psychopath for you, no doubt about that. Btw Richard sleepyfield sounds like a psychopath too.
Hope you enjoyed my little story about how wonderful life is on this planet. I’m really just an alien called Frank who said: Wake Up!
Reply
Lisa Macaulay
| #
Thank you for sharing this. As a person without a scientific background you have explained this very well. I have been trying to research this and have found a few sites saying the same thing as you. Perhaps I am not looking in the right places though. I need all the ammunition I can find against the “Richard trolls” Lol I am also looking for any legitimate studies/sites regarding how ineffective cloth masks are. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
Thank you very much for your kind words.
With regard to cloth masks, or of other types, I am not aware of such a study for evaluating usefulness of the masks to provide protection from the virus. However, it can safely be said that a scientifically valid study cannot be conducted at present.
The reason being to study the mask protection one requires a valid test to measure the virus and as noted in the article a valid test is neither available nor can be developed at present. Hence absorption and/or penetration of the virus through mask cannot be established – at least scientifically.
Hope this will be helpful in answering your query.
Best of luck.
Reply