{"id":121490,"date":"2023-05-29T15:35:48","date_gmt":"2023-05-29T15:35:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/?p=121490"},"modified":"2023-06-01T17:56:20","modified_gmt":"2023-06-01T17:56:20","slug":"40-facts-you-need-to-know-the-real-story-of-covid-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/40-facts-you-need-to-know-the-real-story-of-covid-1\/","title":{"rendered":"40 Facts You Need to Know: The Real Story of \u201cCovid\u201d (1)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Part I: Symptoms<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cCovid-19\u201d and the flu have identical symptoms<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are no symptoms or collections of symptoms unique or specific to \u201ccovid\u201d and only \u201ccovid\u201d. All \u201ccovid\u201d symptoms are common to many other diseases and conditions, including the collection of common respiratory infections colloquially known as \u201cthe flu<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

This is readily admitted by mainstream sources and \u201cexperts\u201d, who routinely describe \u201ccovid\u201d symptoms as \u201cflu like<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

According to the US Center for Disease Control\u2019s own website<\/a> comparing \u201ccovid\u201d and the flu:<\/p>\n

\u201cYou cannot tell the difference between flu and covid-19 just by looking at the symptoms alone because they have some of the same symptoms<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

While the UK\u2019s NHS states<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe symptoms [of covid] are very similar to symptoms of other illnesses, such as colds and flu<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

While all mainstream sources couch the admission in soft language \u2013 \u201csome of the same symptoms<\/em>\u201d, \u201cvery similar<\/em>\u201d \u2013 the truth is the symptoms are identical. The only points of difference ever observed are equivocations on severity and onset time.<\/p>\n

This article<\/a> from Health Partners highlights that \u201ccovid\u201d can be both more severe OR milder than the flu, noting that \u201ccovid\u201d can sometimes \u201cfeel more like a cold<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

While according to the Mayo Clinic, in their article on \u201ccovid\u201d vs. the flu, the only difference in symptoms is that they \u201cappear at different times<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cGround glass opacities\u201d are NOT unique to \u201ccovid\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Early in the pandemic, it was reported that medical imaging revealed what they call \u201cground glass opacity<\/em>\u201d in the lungs of suspected \u201ccovid\u201d cases and that this was being used to diagnose patients, but ground glass anomalies are not unique to \u201ccovid\u201d.<\/p>\n

According to a German paper published in the Radiografie<\/em> journal in 2010:<\/p>\n

\u201cGround glass opacity (GGO) is defined as diffuse pulmonary infiltration [which can be caused by] edema, airspace and interstitial pneumonia. non-infectious pneumonitis as well as tumor manifestations. Physiological processes, such as poor ventilation of dependent lung areas and effects of expiration can also present as ground glass opacity<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2012 the Journal of Respiratory Care <\/em>published a paper<\/a> on The Imaging of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome<\/em> which described GGOs:<\/p>\n

\u201cGround-glass opacification on CT is a non-specific sign that reflects an overall reduction in the air content of the affected lung<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2022, the Lancet<\/em> published a case study<\/a> from an Indian doctor literally titled Ground glass opacities are not always covid-19<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Another article<\/a>, published by Health.com<\/em> in May 2022, underlines that:<\/p>\n

\u201cGround-glass opacities (GCOs) aren\u2019t specific to covid-19. They can show up due to other conditions and infections<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

In short, GGOs are a common presentation of pulmonary illness or injury, and are associated with pneumonia, pneumonitis, tuberculosis, and many other conditions.<\/p>\n

A loss of smell and taste is NOT unique to \u201ccovid\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

As with GGOs, it has been widely reported that a loss of the sense of taste and sense of smell is the telltale sign of \u201ccovid\u201d, but that is a known symptom of many upper respiratory infections.<\/p>\n

According to a 2001 article<\/a> published on the website of the University of Connecticut School of Medicine:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn adults, the two most common causes of smell problems that we see at our Clinic are: (1) Smell loss due to an ongoing process in the nose and\/or sinuses such as nasal allergies and (2) smell loss due to injury of the specialized nerve tissue at the top of the nose (or possibly the higher smell pathways in the brain) from a previous viral upper respiratory infection<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Many common medical conditions are known to cause both acute and chronic damage to the sense of smell and taste, according to the UK\u2019s NHS<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cChanges in sense of smell are most often caused by a cold or flu, sinusitis (sinus infection) [or] allergies (like hay fever)<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Part II: Diagnosis & PCR Tests<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is not possible to clinically diagnose \u201ccovid19\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Clinical diagnosis is the practice of diagnosing a disease based on a unique symptom or collection of symptoms. Wiktionary<\/em> defines it<\/a> as:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe estimated identification of the disease underlying a patient\u2019s complaints based merely on signs, symptoms and medical history of the patient rather than on laboratory examination or medical imaging<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Since \u201ccovid19\u201d has no unique symptomatic profile, and since ALL major symptoms of \u201ccovid\u201d can potentially apply to literally every common respiratory infection, it is impossible to do to diagnose \u201ccovid19\u201d based on symptoms.<\/p>\n

Lateral flow tests are unreliable<\/strong><\/p>\n

Throughout the \u201cpandemic\u201d the most frequently used \u201cself-test\u201d for \u201ccovid\u201d were Lateral Flow Tests (LFTs). These tests are highly unreliable, and known to return positive test results from household liquids such as fruit juice and soda.<\/p>\n

Children in the UK frequently \u201cbroke\u201d their LFTs using vinegar or coca-cola<\/a> in order to create false-positive tests and get a few days off school.<\/p>\n

In February 2022, an \u201cexpert\u201d told The Guardian<\/em><\/a> that LFTs could create false positives based on the diet of the person being tested, or through \u201ccross-reacting<\/em>\u201d with a different virus.<\/p>\n

In February 2022, it was also reported by a team of \u201cexperts\u201d from Imperial College that LFTs can \u201cmiss\u201d infectious people. In other words, the official position is that LFTs produce false negative results AND false positive results.<\/p>\n

Further, it is acknowledged \u2013 and the subject of explainer articles \u2013 that LFT and PCR results will often contradict one another. Meaning you can test positive on one, but not the other.<\/p>\n

In short, lateral flow tests are of almost no diagnostic value whatsoever.<\/p>\n

PCR tests were not designed to diagnose illness<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Reverse-Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test is described in the media as the \u201cgold standard<\/em>\u201d for \u201ccovid\u201d diagnosis.<\/p>\n

But Kary Mullis, the Nobel Prize-winning inventor of the process, never intended it to be used as a diagnostic tool and said so publicly:<\/p>\n

\u201cPCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn\u2019t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

PCR tests have a history of being inaccurate and unreliable<\/strong><\/p>\n

The \u201cgold standard<\/em>\u201d PCR tests for \u201ccovid\u201d are known to produce a lot of false-positive results, by reacting to DNA material that is not specific to Sars-Cov-2.<\/p>\n

A Chinese study<\/a> found the same patient could get two different results from the same test on the same day. In Germany, tests are known to have reacted to common cold<\/a> viruses. Some tests in the US even reacted to<\/a> the negative control sample.<\/p>\n

The late President of Tanzania, John Magufuli, submitted samples of goat, pawpaw and motor oil for PCR testing, all came back positive for the virus<\/a>.<\/p>\n

As early as February of 2020 experts were admitting the test was unreliable. Dr. Wang Cheng, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences told Chinese state television \u201cThe accuracy of the tests is only 30-50%<\/em>\u201d. The Australian government\u2019s own website<\/a> claimed \u201cThere is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available covid-19 tests<\/em>.\u201d And a Portuguese court ruled<\/a> that PCR tests were \u201cunreliable<\/em>\u201d and should not be used for diagnosis.<\/p>\n

The unreliability of PCR tests is not unique to \u201ccovid\u201d, either. A 2006 study<\/a> found PCR tests for one virus responded to other viruses too. In 2007, reliance on PCR tests resulted in an \u201coutbreak\u201d of Whooping Cough that never actually existed.<\/p>\n

You can read detailed breakdowns of the failings of PCR tests here<\/a>, here<\/a> and here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The CT values of the PCR tests are too high<\/strong><\/p>\n

PCR tests are run in cycles, the number of cycles you use to get your result is known as your \u201ccycle threshold\u201d or CT value. Kary Mullis said: \u201cIf you have to go more than 40 cycles there is something seriously wrong with your PCR<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

The MIQE PCR guidelines<\/a> agree, stating: \u201cCT values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

Dr. Fauci himself even admitted<\/a> anything over 35 cycles is almost never culturable.<\/p>\n

Dr. Juliet Morrison, virologist at the University of California, Riverside, told<\/a> the New York Times<\/em>: \u201cAny test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive. I\u2019m shocked that people would think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positive. A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

In the same article Dr. Michael Mina, of the Harvard School of Public Health, said the limit should be 30, and the author goes on to point out that reducing the CT from 40 to 30 would have reduced \u201ccovid cases\u201d in some states by as much as 90%.<\/p>\n

The CDC\u2019s own data<\/a> suggests no sample over 33 cycles could be cultured, and Germany\u2019s Robert Koch Institute says nothing over 30 cycles is likely to be infectious.<\/p>\n

Despite this, it is known almost all the labs in the US are running their tests at least 37 cycles and sometimes as high as 45. The NHS \u201cstandard operating procedure<\/em>\u201d for PCR tests rules set the limit at 40 cycles.<\/p>\n

Based on what we know about the CT values, the majority of PCR test results are at best questionable.<\/p>\n

The World Health Organization (Twice) Admitted PCR tests produced false positives<\/strong><\/p>\n

In December 2020 WHO put out a briefing memo<\/a> on the PCR process instructing labs to be wary of high CT values causing false positive results:<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Then, in January 2021, the WHO released another memo<\/a>, this time warning that \u201casymptomatic<\/em>\u201d positive PCR tests should be re-tested because they might be false positives:<\/p>\n

\u201cWhere test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

These announcements coincided with the initial launch of the \u201ccovid vaccines\u201d.<\/p>\n

The scientific basis for ALL \u201ccovid\u201d tests is questionable<\/strong><\/p>\n

The genome of the Sars-Cov-2 virus was supposedly sequenced by Chinese scientists in December 2019, then published on January 10th 2020. Less than two weeks later, German virologists (Christian Drosten et al.) had allegedly used the genome to create assays for PCR tests.<\/p>\n

They wrote a paper<\/a>, Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR<\/em>, which was submitted for publication on January 21st 2020, and then accepted on January 22nd. Meaning the paper was allegedly \u201cpeer-reviewed\u201d in less than 24 hours. A process that typically takes weeks.<\/p>\n

Since then, a consortium of over forty life scientists has petitioned for the withdrawal of the paper, writing a lengthy report detailing 10 major errors in the paper\u2019s methodology.<\/p>\n

They have also requested the release of the journal\u2019s peer-review report, to prove the paper really did pass through the peer-review process. The journal has yet to comply.<\/p>\n

The Corman-Drosten assays are the root of every \u201ccovid\u201d PCR test in the world. If the paper is questionable, every PCR test is also questionable.<\/p>\n

Read\u00a0the second part<\/a>\u00a0of the article<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

yogaesoteric
\nMay 29, 2023<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Part I: Symptoms \u201cCovid-19\u201d and the flu have identical symptoms There are no symptoms or collections of symptoms unique or specific to \u201ccovid\u201d and only \u201ccovid\u201d. All \u201ccovid\u201d symptoms are common to many other diseases and conditions, including the collection of common respiratory infections colloquially known as \u201cthe flu\u201d. This is readily admitted by mainstream […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":121494,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1362],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-121490","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-covid-19-crisis-1602-en"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121490","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=121490"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121490\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":121889,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121490\/revisions\/121889"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/121494"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121490"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121490"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/yogaesoteric.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121490"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}