Calling Out Fauci By Mrs Vera West
Dr Fauci has been slammed by the inventor of the PCR test, used to detect Covid-19, so will the establishment take note? Sure, and stand firm with Fauci, no doubt.
“The inventor of the PCR test, which has been widely used in detecting COVID-19, previously slammed Dr. Anthony Fauci by calling him a liar. He also strongly criticized Fauci’s understanding of science, while revealing that the PCR test is not suitable as a diagnostic tool, in the way it is being used for COVID-19.
Dr. Kary Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1993, along with Dr. Michael Smith, for inventing the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, which has recently sprung to the forefront of conversation across the world, due to its prominent usage as a way to detect COVID-19.
PCR tests were hastily pushed into the global sphere when only days after first reports about COVID-19 emerged, the Corman-Drosten paper was submitted to medical journal Eurosurveillance, promoting their use. Just two days later, the paper was published on January 23, 2020. In fact, even prior to that, a copy of the paper was published on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) website on January 13, one day after scientists in China shared the sequence of the virus.
Since then, it has become a standard testing method for the virus, proposed by governments and health agencies across the world, including America’s Dr. Anthony Fauci. Fauci is the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and, before becoming Joe Biden’s Chief Medical Adviser, was former President Donald Trump’s top COVID advisor.
“Guys like Fauci get up there and start talking, you know, he doesn’t know anything really about anything, and I’d say that to his face. Nothing. The man thinks you can take a blood sample and stick it in an electron microscope, and if it’s got a virus in there you’ll know it.”
Mullis continued his attack on Fauci’s scientific understanding: “He doesn’t understand electron microscopy and he doesn’t understand medicine and he should not be in a position like he’s in. Most of those guys up there on the top are just total administrative people and they don’t know anything about what’s going on in the body.”
“You know, those guys have got an agenda, which is not what we would like them to have being that we pay for them to take care of our health in some way. They’ve got a personal kind of agenda. They make up their own rules as they go. They change them when they want to, and they smugly — like, Tony Fauci does not mind going on television in front of the people who pay his salary and lie directly into the camera.”
He mentioned that “the main problem with science in this century” was that “science is being judged by people, funding is being done by people, who don’t understand it.”
“Who do we trust? Fauci,” he answered with obvious contempt. “Fauci doesn’t know enough to, you know …”
Mullis died in August 2019, interestingly just months before his invention would be used to test for COVID, and its results to determine the lockdown of entire nations. Yet, before his death he spoke against PCR tests being used in the manner in which they came to be used, just months after his death.
In another video clip, Mullis noted how PCR tests can be amplified so much as to make them unreliable for diagnostic testing: “With PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody.”
“Because if you can amplify one single molecule up to something that you can really measure, which PCR can do, then there’s just very few molecules that you don’t have at least one single one of them in your body. So that could be thought of as a misuse of it, just to claim that it’s meaningful.”
“It allows you to take a very minuscule amount of anything and make it measurable and then talk about it …like it is important … see that’s just a misinterpretation,” Mullis stated.
He described PCR testing as “a process that’s used to make a whole lot of something out of something. That’s what it is. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that.”
With Mullis no longer alive to repeat his arguments, the PCR test has been promoted by individuals such as Fauci, with health agencies and politicians seemingly blind to the growing evidence of false positives resulting from PCR tests.
However, Mullis has been vindicated by a group of 22 international scientists, called the International Consortium of Scientists in Life Sciences (ICSLS), who have identified “ten fatal problems” with the Corman-Drosten (CD) paper which was used back in January 2020 to promote PCR tests as the diagnostic tool for COVID-19. Each of the flaws is enough to render the test “useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” and the group points to the “worldwide misdiagnosis of infections,” which have resulted from PCR tests for COVID-19.
As Mullis noted himself, the ICSLS observed that PCR tests are unable to distinguish between “the whole virus and viral fragments,” meaning that a so-called positive test, as mentioned in the CD paper, cannot determine if one is infected with the virus, but “merely indicates the presence of viral RNA molecules.”
Once again, as Mullis had mentioned, the group said that PCR tests can be amplified to a level which renders the results “completely unreliable,” and echoed Mullis’s very words — “amplified PCR products can be anything.”
An article in The New York Times last year admitted that PCR tests can amplify a small amount of the virus to such an extend as to make it meaningless.
“In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus,” The New York Times found by reviewing the data.
Instead of using 37 to 40 cycles, which is common practice right now, the article suggested anything under 30 to 35 cycles to indicate a positive.
“Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk – akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left,” one doctor argued, according to the article.”
Fauci has admitted that there is no scientific evidence supporting continuous lockdowns but is a “judgment call.” That is hardly good enough when the livelihood of millions is at stake. If his salary was on the line, would he be so bold?
“American infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted there is no science justifying a continued lockdown. He said during a March 10 television appearance that keeping lockdown mandates in place was a “judgment call” made in the absence of data and actual evidence. But despite the lack of proof, Fauci insisted that Americans ought to trust guidance coming from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
News anchor John Berman asked Fauci if there was existing science behind preventing fully vaccinated people from travelling. The director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) answered: “When you don’t have the data and … the actual evidence, you’ve got to make a judgment call.” Fauci continued that Americans will just have to trust the public health body’s guidance for COVID-19.
Fauci’s comments followed a report that the CDC is “graciously allowing” Americans who already received COVID-19 vaccines some “limited freedoms.” Many did not take the report too kindly, pointing out on social media that the public health body is in no position to grant God-given freedoms.
The NIAID director’s admission that there was no science behind continued lockdowns did not dissuade him from warning states that loosened coronavirus restrictions. Fauci exhorted Americans to stick to existing public health measures amid new infection spikes in Europe, CNBC reported on March 14. The infectious disease expert also warned that the U.S.’s battle with the Wuhan coronavirus “is not in the end zone yet.”
“When I hear [states] pulling back completely on public health measures, saying no more masks, no nothing like that, that is risky business,” he said during a Meet the Pressinterview. Pulling away from public health measures could prolong the pandemic, he continued. During a subsequent Fox News appearance, Fauci explained that relaxation of safety measures played a part in the recent spike in COVID-19 cases throughout Europe.
Meanwhile, other experts have advised against lockdowns to address COVID-19.
The World Health Organization (WHO), which initially advocated lockdowns, eventually did a complete 180-degree turn after seeing the economic impact of these mandates. WHO Special Envoy on COVID-19 Dr. David Nabarro said the global health body “does not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus.”
Some officials of the global health body had earlier said that lockdowns were necessary to contain the pandemic. In April 2020, WHO Western Pacific Regional Director Dr. Takeshi Kasai said lockdowns were going to be the “new normal,” and that people must adapt their lives and health systems alongside the current situation. WHO Health Emergencies Program Executive Director Dr. Michael Ryan warned in July 2020 that countries that fail to address early signs of resurging COVID-19 outbreaks could have full lockdowns as the “only option” available.
According to Nabarro, the only time a lockdown should be justified is when countries need to reorganize their efforts, rebalance their resources and protect their exhausted health workers. Otherwise, he suggested that countries develop “better systems” for controlling the pandemic, “work together” and “learn from each other.”
Another expert espoused Nabarro’s sentiments against stringent lockdowns. Stanford University professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya called COVID-19 lockdowns “the single worst public health mistake in the last 100 years.” He commented: “We will be counting the catastrophic health and psychological harms imposed on nearly every poor person on the face of the earth for a generation.”
According to Bhattacharya, areas that imposed the most draconian lockdown laws were ironically unsuccessful in containing the spread of COVID-19. Citing the U.S. as an example, the professor said lockdowns “protected the ‘non-essential’ class from COVID while exposing the essential working class to the disease.” A better option would have been to implement policies designed to protect vulnerable people such as the elderly instead of putting entire populations under arrest, Bhattacharya added.
“Lockdowns themselves impose great harm on people: [They] are not a natural, normal way to live,” the Stanford University professor ultimately remarked.”
And yet lockdowns are the new normal, to condition people to the life of dogs in kennels, as Brian Simpson put it the other day at this blog.