Public Health England admits using fake virus material to evaluate “COVID-19” tests, the gold standard is not isolated virus, and more

Public Health England admits using fake “SARS-COV-2” material to evaluate “COVID-19” tests and that isolated virus is not the gold standard


Dr. Corbett’s initial email (April 25 2020) to Professor Zambon is shown below.


So Dr. Corbett requested from Professor Zambon, the Director of Reference Microbiology Services, data relating to the positive predictive value (PPV) of the “COVID-19” PCR and antibody tests.

Note that positive predictive value is the proportion of positive test results where the patients tested truly do have the thing tested for – in this case the alleged SARS-COV-2 virus. In the tables at the end of Dr. Corbett’s email PPV = A / (A+B).

[For a virus that is purely theoretical and imaginary, A and C are 0, thus PPV is also 0. Still, it’s important to find out what the Directors of Public Health England had to say on this matter back in April, so that they can be held accountable for their actions.]

Public Health England’s email response to Dr. Corbett is shown below. Note that the response did not come directly from Professor Zambon, rather from some anonymous man or woman at the “PHE COVID-19 Virology Cell” who wasn’t willing to provide their name. Professor Zambon was cc’d.

The PHE COVID-19 Virology Cell admitted flat out, with Professor Zambon cc’d, that “the gold standard for PCR tests is not virus isolation” and “PCR tests are developed using synthetic transcripts; field use data are not widely available yet“.

This admission corresponds to the January 2020 publication by Victor M. Corman, Christian Drosten and others, that describes the development of a “COVID-19” PCR test (“diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available“). According to their own report this group assessed their PCR methodology for accuracy using:
1) the genetic soup referred to as “cell culture supernatant” (alleged but never proven to contain the 2003 SARS-COV), and
2) synthetic “SARS-COV-2” genetic material… since no actual SARS-COV-2 virus was available; see:
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045#html_fulltext

It also parallels the admission made on page 39 of the U.S. Centres for Disease Control’s “2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel” (revision 5, effective 07/13/2020): “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA…”
[Note that 2019-nCoV was the original name given to the alleged “SARS-COV-2”.]
https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download.

The above admission from the Public Health England COVID-19 Virology Cell also fits with a statement published by the British Columbia (Canada) Centre for Disease Control | BC Ministry of Health in a document entitled Interpreting the results of Nucleic Acid Amplification testing (NAT; or PCR tests) for COVID-19 in the Respiratory Tract dated April 30, 2020. In the midst of contradictions and misinformation, the BC CDC disclosed that: “for COVID-19 testing, there is currently no gold standard….”
http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf.

Image

Up to 5% of all “COVID-19” PCR tests could yield a false positive?

The PHE COVID-19 Virology Cell went on to claim that for the RT-PCR tests “Typically specificity exceeds 95%“.

Specificity is the proportion/percentage of those who in fact do not have the thing being tested for, that accurately receive a negative test result. (And 100% – specificity is the percentage of those without the thing tested for who inaccurately test positive.) In the tables at the end of Dr. Corbett’s email specificity = D / (B+D).

In the case of a purely theoretic virus like “SARS-COV-2”, B+D represents everyone who is tested, and specificity is the proportion/percentage of all tests that are negative.

Thus it seems that a straightforward interpretation of the PHE COVID-19 Virology Cell’s response is that anywhere up to 5% of all “COVID-19” PCR tests could yield a false positive. (Keep that in mind when researching Operation Moonshot, the UK government’s proposed “COVID-19” mass testing scheme.)

[Regardless of PHE’s estimates, one thing is certain: if an alleged virus is in fact purely theoretical, all positive test results, 100% of them, are false positives.]


The PHE COVID-19 Virology Cell then went on to cite a pre-publication manuscript providing estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of “COVID-19” antibody tests.

Sensitivity is the proportion/percentage of those who in fact do have the thing being tested for, that receive a positive test result. In the tables at the end of Dr. Corbett’s email sensitivity = A / (A+C).

In the case of a purely theoretical virus like “SARS-COV-2”, A and C are both zero and sensitivity is undefined. Thus estimates of sensitivity for any “COVID-19” tests are nonsensical.

Having as of today, November 26, 2020, collected >40 letters from >34 institutions around the world (obtained by myself and colleagues in various countries) yielding in total zero evidence for the existence of “SARS-COV-2”, I personally do not have any interest or energy left for discussions of sensitivity or “COVID-19” antibody tests at all.

Public Health England admits using fake virus material to evaluate “COVID-19” tests, the gold standard is not isolated virus, and more – Fluoride Free Peel