Connect with us

Political News

New Academic Study Confirms: Mass Testing of Asymptomatics Was a ‘Scam’

Ashley Jarrett

Published

on

New Academic Study Confirms: Mass Testing of Asymptomatics Was a ‘Scam’


The Journal of Infection has published a new study that confirms what many have already come to conclude: Mass testing of asymptomatic members of the general population was unnecessary and only served to exaggerate the number of COVID “cases.”

Throughout medical history, including in prior pandemics, the term “cases”  has generally referred to patients demonstrating symptoms from infections. The media’s language about “cases” was ‘updated’ to the more commonly used term “infections” after President Biden took office. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

The distinction is important because the belief that millions of COVID “cases” of asymptomatic people throughout the general population were deemed to be an existential threat to the health and welfare of the American public. Indeed, the scientific establishment and the echoing mainstream media arguing that ‘asymptomatic spread’ was a serious factor in the spread of COVID appeared to justify mass testing for the virus.

That belief has proven to be false. The Journal of Infection uses direct language to explain its technical findings. The article is called, “The performance of the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test as a tool for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection in the population.” It is based on a population of 162,457 tested individuals in Germany.

“Of 162,457 tested individuals, 4,164 (2.6%) had a positive RT-PCR test. The positive rate was lower among children aged 0-9 years (2.2%) and among adults aged 70 or more (1.6%), compared to the intermediate group aged 10-69 years (2.8%). The positive rate was strongly linked to the national SARS-CoV-2 test strategy. During the first and third phase of national testing, predominantly symptomatic people were tested. During these phases, the positive rates were higher than during the intermittent second phase corresponding to the summer season, when predominantly asymptomatic individuals were tested. The positive rate during the third phase was considerably higher than during the first phase.”

The following section explains the importance of the Ct values for determining if there has been an ‘infection.’ The higher the number, the lower the viral load.

“During the peak of testing asymptomatic individuals, only 0.4% tested positive with a mean Ct value of 28.8. Higher mean Ct values were observed among children aged 0-9 years (28.6) and adults above 70 years (27.0). Only 40.6% of positive tests showed Ct values below the threshold of 25, indicating a likelihood of the person being infectious (Table 1). In the small group of individuals for whom clinical information was available, symptomatic subjects had a markedly lower mean Ct value of 25.5 compared to asymptomatic subjects, who showed a mean Ct value of 29.6 (Figure 1).”

The review of the test results showed that most of them had a Ct value higher than 25, which indicated a “low viral load.”

“Most positive tests in our sample showed Ct values of 25 or higher, indicating a low viral load. Ct values were on average lower in symptomatic than in asymptomatic individuals. Our results are similar to the observations made in the ONS Survey with consistently low positive rates (0.06%) during the summer months, followed by a rise to more than 1% by the end of October 2020. A substantial proportion (45%-68%) of test positive individuals in the UK did not report symptoms at the time of their positive PCR test.”

Now for the key passage that contain the conclusions and the recommendation.

“In light of our findings that more than half of individuals with positive PCR test results are unlikely to have been infectious, RT-PCR test positivity should not be taken as an accurate measure of infectious SARS-CoV-2 incidence. Our results confirm the findings of others that the routine use of “positive” RT-PCR test results as the gold standard for assessing and controlling infectiousness fails to reflect the fact “that 50-75% of the time an individual is PCR positive, they are likely to be post-infectious.”

This is very plain language that is not difficult to understand. The obvious implications are underscored below.

Asymptomatic individuals with positive RT-PCR test results have higher Ct values and a lower probability of being infectious than symptomatic individuals with positive results. Although Ct values have been shown to be inversely associated with viral load and infectivity, there is no international standardization across laboratories, rendering problematic the interpretation of RT-PCR tests when used as a tool for mass screening.

Now, for the U.S. and international context of these findings. In January, the WHO issued a memorandum that errors processing PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests could lead to people wrongly being labeled infected. It then provided new guidance that the PCR tests be more carefully interpreted:

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

It furthermore warned about a PCR test potentially getting a “false positive”:

WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity.

The reports about PCR test “cycle thresholds” being too high was nothing new. If the cycle thresholds are too high, it suggests the viral load of the patient is too low to truly qualify as a “case.” As reported by the Telegraph:

Prof Carl Heneghan, director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, said eight days after contracting Covid-19, the chances the infected person will pass the virus on “goes down to zero” if they have no symptoms.

However, he said fragments of the virus can still remain in the body for many weeks afterwards – with some studies showing intermittent shedding up to 70 days later – leading to a positive test and skewing the real picture of how many people are at risk of passing on the virus.

The BBC gave further context:

Prof Carl Heneghan, one of the study’s authors, said instead of giving a “yes/no” result based on whether any virus is detected, tests should have a cut-off point so that very small amounts of virus do not trigger a positive result.

He believes the detection of traces of old virus could partly explain why the number of cases is rising while hospital admissions remain stable.

The New York Times also reported on the presence of “false positive” tests. Dr. Anthony Fauci warned about the possibility of tests picking up “dead” virus strands in an interview from July.

The subsequent data from the COVID-19 tracking project coinciding with the week the WHO guidance was released on January 13th, showed the weekly “cases” were down over 20% from the previous week, despite the tests going up 1%.

New Academic Study Confirms: Mass Testing of Asymptomatics Was a ‘Scam’

The COVID-19 “cases” and mortality rate would actually peak just after Biden’s election certification. The real “case” that the American people have is that mass testing leading up to the Biden administration was a ‘scam.’

As seen on Becker News. Follow Kyle Becker and Becker News on Twitter.



Political News

Donald Trump Warns GOP to Get ‘Proper Election Results in 2022’ Before Making Deal with Democrats on Infrastructure

Ashley Jarrett

Published

on

Donald Trump Warns GOP to Get ‘Proper Election Results in 2022’ Before Making Deal with Democrats on Infrastructure


Donald Trump has some advice for Republicans who may be tempted to cut a deal with Democrats on their colossal $3.5 trillion infrastructure package.

“Senate Republicans are being absolutely savaged by Democrats on the so-called ‘bipartisan’ infrastructure bill,” Trump wrote. “Mitch McConnell and his small group of RINOs wants nothing more than to get a deal done at any cost to prove that he can work with the Radical Left Democrats.”

“It is so important to him that he is agreeing to almost anything,” Trump added. “Don’t do the infrastructure deal, wait until we get proper election results in 2022 or otherwise, and regain a strong negotiation stance.”

“Republicans, don’t let the Radical Left play you for weak fools and losers!” he concluded.

Last Monday, a failed Senate test vote dealt a blow to the $3.5 trillion spending blowout. The Republicans have countered with a $1.2 trillion proposal that sheds a lot of the ‘progressive’ items on climate change, union handouts, and kickbacks to radical groups.

Also buried in the infrastructure bill was a ‘pathway to citizenship’ for tens of millions of illegal immigrants/prospective Democrat voters. The Democrats were seeking to pass the bill through reconciliation, although this would be an egregious abuse of the process that is of dubious constitutional merit.

Even a CNN host highlighted the infrastructure bill was “very progressive,” meaning radical and costly.

“The policy is very progressive,” Abby Phillip confessed. “The policy is not, you know, moderate. This is someone who is proposing $3.5 trillion in spending in a reconciliation bill on top of over a trillion dollars in spending on an infrastructure bill.”

At a “Rally to Protect Our Elections” in Phoenix on Saturday night, Donald Trump gave some of his strongest criticism yet of the 2020 election.

“The 2020 election was a total disgrace,” Trump said. You can watch the clip below:

“And I tell this to people, I tell it to Republicans, and a lot of them are very good people,” he continued. “And they say, ‘well, sir, we have to get on to the future’.”

“Let me tell you, you’re not going to have a future,” Trump added. “First of all, our nation is being destroyed. But you’re not going to have a future in ’22 or ’24 if you don’t find out how they cheated with hundreds of thousands and even millions of votes, because you won’t win anything. You won’t win anything.”

Syndicated with licensed permission from Becker News. Follow Kyle Becker and Becker News on Twitter.



Continue Reading

Political News

After Confrontation with Tucker in Fly Fishing Shop, Montana Man’s Real Identity Comes Out

Ashley Jarrett

Published

on

After Confrontation with Tucker in Fly Fishing Shop, Montana Man’s Real Identity Comes Out


Tucker Carlson was recently accosted in a fly fishing shop in Livingston, Montana by someone who people have referred to as ‘Montana man.’ The video has captured widespread attention, but new information has arisen about the man who called Tucker the “worst human being.”

The belligerent man berating Carlson in front of his daughter uploaded the video of the incident onto Instagram under the account Dan Bailey.

Dan Bailey posted it onto Instagram with the comment: “It’s not everyday you get to tell someone they are the worst person in the world and really mean it! What an asshole!”

Bailey had more to say about Carlson on his Instagram video excerpt: “This man has killed more people with vaccine misinformation, he has supported extreme racism, he is a fascist and does more to rip this country apart than anyone that calls themselves an American.”

While in the store, however, Tucker Carlson handled the aggressive man’s tirade coolly. The audience can decide for themselves who came off as an “asshole.”

“I don’t care, man,” Bailey said as he got in Carlson’s face. “Dude, you are the worst human being known to man. I want you to know that.”

“I’m not going to debate you,” Carlson said. Then he turned to look at the person recording the video.

“I don’t care that your daughter’s here,” Bailey ranted. “What you’ve done to people’s families, what you have done to everybody else.”

“Son,” Carlson said as he walked away.

Improbably, although the name of the store was Dan Bailey’s Fly Shop, this Dan Bailey is not affiliated with the shop, according to a release by the store owner Dan Sexton.

“This person has no affiliation with our business, other than he shares the same name as our founder, who passed away in 1982,” the shop’s statement said. “To be clear, we treat every customer equally and respectfully. Our staff was professional and cordial to Mr. Carlson, as we are with all of our customers.”

But to nobody’s surprise, it look like Dan Bailey is a public sector worker with a few quite interesting connections. Dan Bailey is a Yellowstone Program Manager.

According to his LinkedIn profile, he still works with the National Parks Conservation Association.

After Confrontation with Tucker in Fly Fishing Shop, Montana Man’s Real Identity Comes Out

He is fairly well-educated, as he received an M.S. from the University of Montana, as well as a B.S. from Montana State University-Bozeman.

After Confrontation with Tucker in Fly Fishing Shop, Montana Man’s Real Identity Comes Out

But most interesting of all is an association that was uncovered through a description of his background as a Board Member of the Taimen Fund. The connection was located by a Twitter user named JLaw, who noted it was “kinda odd.”

After Confrontation with Tucker in Fly Fishing Shop, Montana Man’s Real Identity Comes Out

“Dan began his work in Mongolia during the summer of 2007 as a river ecologist working on the Asia Foundation’s ‘Securing Our Future’ project,” the fund’s page says. “During his first field season Dan performed numerous river assessments across Mongolia with a team of Mongolian and American scientists.  If you ask Dan the real reason behind his trip to Mongolia it was for a chance at the elusive taimen. ‘I saw a photo of a taimen when I was 14 and knew from that date forward I would catch one of these beautiful fish.’”

“Following his work with the Asia Foundation Dan began guiding on the Delgermörön, where the perilous situation that confronted taimen in Mongolia was experienced first-hand,” the description continues. “As a result he started working on a project that was intended to inform foreign anglers about taimen conservation and protection.  This project was the foundation for a master’s degree from the University of Montana, which Dan completed in 2013.”

The Asia Foundation itself has a colorful past, which includes a prior known association with the Central Intelligence Agency. Although the Asia Foundation formally separated from the CIA years ago, it still receives sizable government funding, including from the U.S. State Department.

Based on declassified CIA documents and NY Times reporting, the Asia Foundation has a history of misleading the public about its ties to the CIA. It also has a history as a propaganda front for U.S. intelligence activities.

“The Asia Foundation is, on the surface, a private non-profit that contributes to the development of Asia, including donating millions of books,” a 2017 MuckRock article notes. “In reality, since it was created by Central Intelligence Agency in 1951, TAF has engaged in a decades long campaign to misrepresent its origins, purpose, and funding.”

“Originally conceived by CIA as a propaganda machine and a front for covert activities including psychological warfare, TAF has controlled its narrative by becoming the primary source of information on its organization,” the article goes on. “The narrative presented by TAF effectively erases the first years of its history and misleads the public about its sources of funding over the years. TAF’s deceptions aren’t limited to the public, either. Declassified documents reveal that TAF provided information to the State Department that was incorrect and misleading; this information was subsequently given to Congress. These misrepresentations were then cited in the findings of Congress’ ‘Asia Foundation Act’, which provides funding for the Foundation, and have become commonly referenced.”

Despite the Asia Foundation’s evolving revisionist history about its origins, a November 2017 article at Muck Rock follows the money and exposes that the Asia Foundation (TAF) is still a tool of U.S. foreign policy.

“TAF portrays itself as having been created ‘with the approval of the National Security Council’ and later being funded by, but remaining functionally independent from, the CIA,” the article notes. “In reality, it was a weapon crafted by CIA explicitly for political warfare. Armed with CIA propaganda products, guided by CIA priorities, staffed with CIA contract employees and former CIA staffers, TAF spent the first 16 years of its existence under the direct control of the Agency. For more than a year after that, it relied on funds that the Agency had covertly provided. TAF did not lose touch with the Agency in the following decades, nor did it lose its support.”

“While TAF has done good work, it also misleads the public about its origins with CIA, and about the current source of its funding,” the article’s author Emma North-Best adds.

There is no evidence to suggest that Dan Bailey was working with the CIA or was tipped off by intel about Tucker Carlson being in Livingston, Montana. Bailey appears on the surface to be a public sector employee whose behavior may have crossed an ethical line, but he may have acted within his legal rights.

However, it is undeniable that the U.S.’s intel services are being weaponized against dissident patriotic voices such as Tucker Carlson’s. There is no doubt the U.S. government is engaging in a ‘shadow game’ with Americans over narratives and appearances. This is where any video-recorded public confrontation of a dissident conservative voice becomes potentially scary.

Tucker Carlson’s public confrontation comes amidst a backdrop of his controversy over alleged NSA spying. Carlson attests the agency has admitted to his “unmasking”; meanwhile, the NSA denies “targeting” Carlson, even as one of CNN’s sources confirmed he was “unmasked.”

The Fox News host has a history with public confrontations, including with Antifa activists who vandalized his home, screamed intimidating chants, and even threatened his family in 2018. When it comes to public intimidation, it appears to be the radical left’s preferred method to attempt to silence those who speak out against them.

Syndicated with licensed permission from Becker News. Follow Kyle Becker and Becker News on Twitter.



Continue Reading

Political News

Donald Trump Packs Phoenix Rally, But Look Behind the Scenes at Biden’s ‘Town Hall’ to See Who Can Draw a Bigger Crowd

Ashley Jarrett

Published

on

Donald Trump Packs Phoenix Rally, But Look Behind the Scenes at Biden’s ‘Town Hall’ to See Who Can Draw a Bigger Crowd


Donald Trump has packed an auditorium at a “Rally to Protect Our Elections” event in Phoenix, Arizona on Saturday. There was an estimated 4,000 members in attendance at the rally.

Trump is expected to speak sometime in the 6 p.m. hour. Watch the event below

But Joe Biden’s “town hall” with CNN, sold as a highly anticipated event, fell far short of even one of Trump’s speeches at an event.

Donald Trump Packs Phoenix Rally, But Look Behind the Scenes at Biden’s ‘Town Hall’ to See Who Can Draw a Bigger Crowd

The photo comparison was shown by Newsmax’s Benny Johnson:

“Which is the crowd for the sitting President of The United States?” Johnson asked.

On Saturday, Joe Biden attended a fundraiser for Terry McCauliffe, who is again running for Virginia governor. Biden was heckled at the event. While the crowd sounded noisy, there was only about 500 in attendance.

“About an hour before Biden took the stage, some 500 people were seen attending the event, with the venue roughly half empty,” Fox News reported. “However, later in the hour, a White House official said nearly 3,000 people were in attendance there. On YouTube, fewer than 500 people were watching on the main channel streaming the event channel at any given time.”

“Earlier this week at a CNN town hall event, Biden was criticized for speaking to a half-empty room,” the report added.

When Biden isn’t protected by friendly news outlets like CNN, it becomes obvious that he does not have the support that the media lets on. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has a loyal and rabid audience that is not going anywhere. There is even talk that Donald Trump is considering a run for the presidency again in 2024..

Syndicated with licensed permission from Becker News. Follow Kyle Becker and Becker News on Twitter.



Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2021 Federal Inquirer. All rights reserved.