THE INVENTED PANDEMIC, THE NEW PATHOLOGY OF ASYMPTOMATICITY, AND THE INVALIDITY OF THE COVID-19 TEST
Dr. Stefano Scoglio, Ph.D. B.Sc.
By now the deaths attributed to Covid-19 are reduced to ridiculous numbers (but still pumped up and exploited as much as possible by the corrupt media). So, the problem for the “pandemists” has become how to extend the fake pandemic? The main objective is possibly to extend it at least until the next American presidential elections, with the hope that the false pandemic and the consequent economic crisis will weaken President Trump and his chance of being re-elected. Their dream would be to extend the pandemic indefinitely, because this would allow them to reshape society in the direction of a tyrannical political civilization without freedom and with the masses living in constant fear. And so they invented the new pathology of asymptomaticity, which consists in testing positive for the Covid-19 swab, even if you are perfectly healthy. In fact, the reality has been even worse, as the CDC, last May, circulated a new definition of a "probable case" of Covid-19: just live in a state labeled by its governor as a state of emergency Covid-19 (epidemiological criterion) and having even just a little cough or a combination of two other symptoms, such as headache and chills, or stiffness and myalgia, to be defined as a "probable case" of Covid-9, and so immediately equated to a confirmed Covid-19 case. After that, the number of positives is multiplied by involving all the people with whom the "probable" Covid case has been in contact. At the heart of the pandemic project is the Covid swab, which is based on RT-PCR (Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction or Reverse Transcriptase - Polymerase Chain Reaction): a sample of organic material is taken from the throat, or more rarely from the broncho-alveolar fluid of the individual tested, and is then subjected to an RT-PCR procedure to verify the presence of the SARS-Cov-2 virus in the sample. This is the same RT-PCR methodology used to originally "isolate" the virus from patient zero. Therefore, the Covid test essentially depends on the original isolation of the SARS-Cov2 virus, because the original PCR isolation of the virus is the gold standard needed to validate subsequent Covid tests.
The problems with the isolation of the original virus, and therefore with the consequent swab test, are many, and all point to the truth that the SARS-Cov2 virus has never been isolated and never tested for its pathogenicity. As is known, at the base of microbiology there are the famous Koch's Postulates, which establish common sense principles of microbiological research: to determine that a microorganism is the cause of a disease, it is necessary to proceed through 4 fundamental steps: a) physically isolate the microorganisms, through filtering methods, from a sick patient; b) growing the isolated microorganisms in a culture broth; c) Inject this microorganism broth into a guinea pig, and assess whether the symptoms generated by that injection are similar to the original patient's symptoms; d) re-isolate the microorganism from the newly infected patient and culture it in a culture broth. These postulates have been applied to live microorganisms such as bacteria, but because they are logical postulates they also apply to non-living "non-organisms" such as viruses, which are non-living particles made up of a strand of RNA (or DNA) covered with an envelope ( capsid) lipoprotein. Well, even if at least one article has been published stating that Koch's postulates have been fulfilled, the reality is that the SARS-Cov2 virus has never been isolated and tested. I've looked at all the studies that claim to have isolated and even tested the virus, but they all did something very different: They took patients' pharyngeal or bronchoalveolar fluid, then centrifuged it to separate the larger, heavier molecules from the smaller and lighter molecules, such as the alleged viruses; they then took the supernatant (the upper part of the centrifuged material) and called that extremely complex matrix "virus isolate" to which they then applied RT-PCR. It's a rather technical thing, but I'll try to simplify: the supernatant contains different types of molecules, billions of different micro and nano particles, including what are called extracellular vesicles (EVs) and exosomes, useful particles produced by our body and absolutely indistinguishable from viruses: "Nowadays, it is a nearly impossible mission to separate extracellular vesicles and viruses through canonical methods of vesicle isolation, such as differential ultra-centrifugation, because they are often co-pelleted (collected together) to because of their similar size. "
So how do you isolate a specific virus from this huge mixture of billions of indistinguishable particles, which includes beneficial exosomes? Well, it is not done, it is impossible, and then the virus is "recreated" through RT-PCR: take two primers, two already existing genetic sequences available in genetic banks, and put them in contact with the supernatant broth, until they anneal to some RNA fragment in the broth, thus creating an artificial DNA molecule, which is then multiplied with a certain number of PCR runs: each run doubles the amount of DNA, so in theory the more runs the greater it is the amount of DNA produced; but the greater the number of strokes, the lower the reliability of the PCR, that is its ability to actually "produce" something significant from the supernatant, something that has minimal to do with the virus you are looking for: over 30 runs the result it is essentially meaningless (as also stated by one of the world's leading PCR experts, Prof. Stephen Bustin). All studies, as well as current swab tests, always use between 35 and 40 strokes. The first unanswered question is: primers consist of 18-24 bases (nucleotides) each; the SARS-Cov2 virus is presumably composed of 30,000 bases; thus the primer represents only 0.07% of the virus genome. How can you select the specific virus you are looking for based on such a minute primer, and furthermore in a sea of billions of virus-like particles? It would be like looking for an elephant using very small gray hairs on the tail: looking with such gray hairs you can find gray cats, gray dogs, graying humans and so on. But there is more. Since the virus you are looking for is new, there are clearly no ready-made genetic primers to match the specific fraction of the new virus; then you take primers that are thought to resemble the hypothesized virus structure, but it's a mere guess, and when you apply the primers to the supernatant broth, they can attach to any of the billions of molecules present, and there is no certainty that what you have thus generated is the virus you are looking for. It is, in fact, a new artificial creation created by researchers, which is then called the "SARS-Cov2 virus", but there is no connection with the alleged virus responsible for the disease.
The standard RT-PCR methodology is plagued with fundamental problems, and this is the reason why they are now trying to develop a new technology, called NGS (new generation sequencing), which is also full of limitations. the most honest researchers aware: “The most commonly used PCR-based methodologies require knowledge of the genomic sequences of the microorganism; however, this knowledge is not always available. A typical case is outbreaks of emerging pathogens ... Because random / impartial amplification amplifies host nucleic acids along with microbial ones, looking for microbial nucleic acids is like looking for a needle in a haystack. “And this, which corresponds to what has been said so far, concerns both RT-PCR and NSG. This is also because many studies have shown that up to 95% of the virus-like particles present in the patient's body belong to the patient's own genome: "The identification of pathogen nucleic acids in clinical samples is complicated by the presence of the usual predominant host background ... In the study by Brown and colleagues, it was possible not to assign only 0.4% of the total readings to the human genome. "
Which confirms my metaphor of the patient's pharyngeal or bronchoalveolar fluid as a sea of billions of viral-like particles, most of which, such as extracellular vesicles and exosomes, belong to the patient's genome.
And that raises the next question: If you have no idea what the virus is, how it is made, how can you say it is responsible for anything? However, Chinese researchers also tried to prove the pathogenicity of the virus. In one specific Chinese study, they took the supernatant of the pharyngeal fluid (passing it off as an isolated virus), and injected it into mice, comparing it to a placebo. Now, even if it has not been isolated, if there was indeed a virus responsible for the disease, it would still be present in significant quantities in the supernatant of the patient's pathological fluid. Therefore, once injected into guinea pigs it should still produce devastating effects on animals. But the worst effect it produced was some "bristling bristles" and a minimal 8% weight reduction (perhaps the virus should be suggested as a weight loss aid?); but even these minimal effects were obtained only on genetically modified mice, while there was absolutely no effect on natural, non-genetically modified or "wild" (WT) mice. This means that the virus, if there is one, is unable to do the slightest damage to normal mice, and therefore to normal humans. The mice were genetically engineered to over-produce the special ACE2 enzyme, the overproduction of which could explain some of the mild symptoms found in the genetically engineered mice.
What is certain is that no effect whatsoever was produced by the so-called virus on normal mice (normal people). And this is the most important study that demonstrates the pathogenicity of the Covid-19 virus, the article par excellence published in the most important scientific journal, Nature! As this virus has never really been isolated, and therefore there is no gold standard to support further studies or tests , no standard to guide them, anyone is free to build their own private SARS-Cov2 virus! This is why there are now, in GISAID genome bank, the organization that collects and stores all genomic sequences, over 70,000 gene sequences of the SARS-Cov2 virus, each claiming to be the real one. To adapt to this madness, we are now told that the virus mutates, which is why there are so many different sequences. But is it credible that 70,000 different gene structures all correspond to the same virus? It would be as if you had a John, of which there are 70,000 different images, in each of which he looks like a man, then a woman, then a dog, then a snake, and so on, yet you would like to convince me that they are all and always John! This, among other things, raises a further very important question: if the alleged virus mutates so much that it has produced over 70,000 different genetic sequences, which of these will be selected for the vaccine? And how can the vaccine cover something if the other body , and 69,999 Sequential and are not indoor and and the virus, however, continues to change constantly? And here we are with the problem of the swab, the real engine of this pseudo-pandemic. As we explained at the beginning, the swab test uses the same technique we saw above for pseudo-isolation, starting with the patient's presumptively infected liquid. This liquid is centrifuged, then placed in the predetermined test which should have the viral standard, i.e. the isolated virus, incorporated. But if the virus has never been isolated, what standard is used? Various studies have found many mutations and variations between different geographic strains: one article, which also includes Robert Gallo among the authors, found dozens of mutations increasing over time in parallel with the alleged spread of the virus from Asia to Europe to the USA ; while another author has analyzed 85 different genomic sequences SARS-Cov2 available at GISAID, and found no less than 53 divers the SARS-Cov2 strains from different areas of China, Asia, Europe and the United States.
So which of these viral strains is looking for the swab? If the virus constantly changes (assuming and not granted that the virus exists), then the test is useless, because it searches for a virus that is always older than the one currently in circulation. This alone would be enough to understand that the Covid-19 swab test is completely, 100%, fallacious! This is really what happens in reality. The "Drosten PCR Test" and the "Institute Pasteur" test, the two tests considered to be the most reliable (although neither has been externally validated), both use an E gene test, although the Drosten test uses it as a preliminary test, while the Institut Pasteur uses it as a definitive test. According to the authors of the Drosten test , the E-gene test is 8 capable of detecting all Asian viruses, thus being both very non-specific (all viral strains) and limited to a geographic area (Asia). Still, the test of the ' Institut Pasteur , one of the existing in Europe, uses the test E-Gene as a final test, although it is now known that the virus (or the virus) SARS-Cov2 believed to circulate in Europe would other than Asian ones. And then in April, WHO changed the algorithm "... recommending that from now on a test can be considered positive even if only the dosage of gene E (which will probably detect all Asian viruses!) Gives a result positive". 
Clearly all of this is only good for fueling false positives and the social panic associated with the explosion of the Covid asymptomatic “disease”! That Covid-19 of the swab test is intended to produce many false positives as it was already found at the beginning in China, when an article was published on March 5, 2020 (thus referring to the tests carried out in February) and reporting a number of 80.3% of false positives. Interestingly, after the "pandemic" exploded, the Chinese newspaper withdrew the article!
But the official sanction for the ineffectiveness and total unreliability of the Covid-19 test came from an unexpected area, that of the European Union. In the Working Document of the European Commission of 16 April, that is, after the peak of the pseudo-pandemic, the European Commission states:
" Timely and accurate COVID-19 tests are an essential part of managing the COVID-19 crisis ... after being placed on the market the performance of the devices can be validated, ie confirmed by additional tests that confirm the manufacturer's specifications. , e.g. in reference laboratories, academic institutions or national regulatory agencies. Such validation is not legally mandatory but highly recommended for public health decision making ” .
One would expect there to be a standard, a fundamental testing methodology that is validated and pre-authorized. Here it is not a question of a luxury product left to the management of the free market, but of an instrument that was essential to justify the power of governments to impose the worst dictatorial closure of civil and economic rights that can be remembered in living memory! Instead, this is the situation described by the EU Commission itself:
" In total, 78 RT-PCR based devices ... 101 for antibody detection and 13 for antigen detection were evaluated."
Of these 78 devices, some imported from China, none have ever been checked or inspected, let alone validated, in advance. Only 3, "... those of the Institut Pasteur , the Hong Kong Faculty of Medicine and the Charité have been validated internally", that is, certified as valid by the manufacturer itself, which is to say that even those have never been validated or authorized by any independent or governmental body. Furthermore: "The most crucial information in relation to RT-PCR methods for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 are the sequences of the oligonucleotides (primers and probes) used for cDNA amplification ... except for a few cases, we could not find any information on the actual sequences of primers and probes used in the devices. ”In other words, the devices in circulation could contain any type of thing, as far as the authorities know. And the same level of unreliability also applies to serological or antibody tests not only because, as we have seen above, more than 100 different types circulate without any prior evaluation or authorization, but because the same fundamental limit that afflicts the serological test is based. the swab, i.e. the absence of a reliable standard due to the failure to isolate the virus. When we talk about serological we talk about antibodies, and everyone probably thinks that specific antibodies exist for each virus. Nothing could be further from reality: the antibodies that are found with the serological are only two, and only always those, the IgG and the IgM, the latter early immune responses, while the IgG are generated later. Now, if they are always and only two, how do you know if they are referring to SARS-Cov2 and not a cold, or emotional stress, a bruise, and so on? In theory, these antibodies are extracted from the serum, and subjected to the same PCR methodology used for the swab, to see if they are activated in contact with SARS-Cov2. But since, as we have seen, SARS-Cov2 has never been isolated, and it is only an artificial laboratory construction, the result of the serology is a mere batch, which probably activates or does not activate randomly, without no real relationship with the alleged virus that is the alleged cause of Covid-19. In short, we have entrusted the end of our freedom to such uncontrolled, never validated and never authorized tests, be they swabs or serological! All the world's media are crying out that this alleged pandemic has already caused more than 750,000 deaths. We know that this number has also been very inflated: the deaths of very old people (80+ years) and very sick (2-3 fatal pathologies), deaths of any serious pathology from which they were affected, have been attributed to Covid-19 only because the patients, even after the autopsy, tested positive for the unreliable test, or even without any tests. However, even if actually 750,000 deaths from COVID-19 would be clearly within the norm of the number of deaths from respiratory diseases, as shown by the following graph:
Each year, as shown by these official statistics, in the world die nearly 7 million people respiratory diseases. The 750,000 deaths attributed to Covid-19 in the past 6 months, even if they were to double (which is unlikely, as current Covid-19 mortality is declining sharply worldwide), would result in around 1.5 million deaths, still well below the nearly 7 million deaths a year from respiratory problems (and certainly the deaths declared for Covid were all dead in previous years would have been classified as deaths from respiratory diseases). And finally, EU statistics also confirm that the current level of mortality is absolutely normal:
At the end of July 2020, according to EuroMoMo, the official agency that oversees mortality within the EU, across Europe, except for a slight increase in Spain and Portugal, and including countries that are theoretically very hard hit by the pandemic, like Italy and the UK, there has been no increase in mortality. All good, therefore, were it not for the devastating and dictatorial political-economic decisions.
 Zhu N et al, A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019, N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 20; 382 (8): 727-733.
 Giannessi F. et al., The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS Viruses, Viruses 2020, 12, 571; doi: 10.3390 / v12050571, p.4.
 Calistri A. Palù G., Unbiased Next-Generation Sequencing and New Pathogen Discovery: Undeniable Advantages and Still-Existing Drawbacks, Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2015; 60 (6): 889–91, p. 889.
 Just to give an example, the ACE2 enzyme disaggregate, or breaks down, the hormone ghrelin, responsible for stimulating hunger, so the over-production of ACE2 can decrease hunger and contribute to weight loss. Unger T, Ulrike M, Steckelings UM, dos Santos RA (eds.). The protective arm of the Renin Angiotensin System (RAS): functional aspects and therapeutic implications, Academic Press. pp. 185–189.
 Phan Tung, Genetic diversity and evolution of SARS-CoV-2, Infection, Genetics and Evolution, 81 (2020), doi: 10.1016 / j.meegid.2020.104260
 Corman VM et al., Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR, Euro Surveill. 2020 Jan 23; 25 (3): 2000045
 Engelbrecht T, Demeter K., COVID19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless, Jun 27 2020, 9p.21. https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/
 Zonghua L et al, Potential false-positive rate among the 'asymptomatic infected individuals' in close contacts of COVID-19 patients, 2020 Msr 5; 41 (4): 485-488. doi: 10.3760 / cma.j.cn112338-20200221-00144
 European Commission, Working Document of Commission Services, Current performance of COVID-19 test methods and devices and proposed performance criteria, April 16 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/40805