Exposing the COVID narrative — setting the record straight

Absolutely Ludicrous — This article will reveal how the government is manipulating the data to suit their narrative. A narrative that is pitting neighbours against each other, keeping families from seeing each other, and is putting our future at risk through its constant attacks on small business.

Let’s break down cases

PCR test — Ontario runs their PCR tests cut-off threshold at 40 cycles, which is a fraudulent level to run at. Why is that? Dr. Anthony Fauci is on the record stating that anything over 35 cycles can pick up dead nucleotides and it is unlikely it can even be cultured. He also said there is a minuscule chance of passing anything on to anyone at such a high testing threshold. In essence — if you don’t have symptoms and test “positive” it doesn’t mean much of anything.

“If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more that the chances of it being replication-competent are minuscule. And you know we do, we have patients and it’s very frustrating for the patients as well as for the physicians. You almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle. I think if someone does come in with 37, 38, even 36 – you got to say you know, it’s just dead nucleotides period.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci on high PCR threshold cycles

Dr. Anthony Fauci National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Legend of terms

  1. CT = Cycle Threshold
  2. > = greater than
  3. < = less than
  4. STT = Symptoms to test (number of days with symptoms until a test was taken)
  5. PHO = Public Health Ontario

The estimated probability of recovering a “virus from samples with Ct > (greater than) 35 was 8.3%”. The Covid-19 Real-Time Learning Network is brought to you by the CDC, who said the following on their site “viral load in the upper respiratory tract peaked around the time of symptom onset.” Essentially, the viral load was highest when people were sick with symptoms – imagine that.

The page on PCR testing then goes on to say “no growth (viral) was observed in samples with a Ct > (greater than) 24 or STT of > 8 days.” This means no viral growth was observed in the 90 samples tested that ran at a cycle threshold (CT) of more than 24 cycles. In essence, they weren’t able to demonstrate that the virus was infectious by showing it could infect another cell culture if it was run with a cycle threshold of greater than 24 cycles.

https://www.idsociety.org/covid-19-real-time-learning-network/diagnostics/RT-pcr-testing/

Ontario runs their CT cut-off at anything > 40 cycles, although as you will see later in the article some labs run higher CT cut-offs. This means anything under that number is fair game to them to classify as a positive. They then try to bait and switch the reader in the Ontario Public Health document that overviews the PCR cycle count thresholds by stating that “some assays include an indeterminate zone, the Ct range of which falls between the cut-offs for detected and not detected results.” There is no mention as to what assays these are, or where they are used.

This is different than the information I was provided on the phone with an Ontario Public Health service rep, who stated that all Labs are running at 40 cycles.

Sorry about the baby! Diverge Media channel

Other things that affect the results of a PCR test

The type of swab used, the transport method, the method and quality of specimen collection, and even the PCR assay used can all provide different results.

“There is much more variability, which can affect the result and is unrelated to the actual quantity present in the specimen. This includes the type of swab used for collection, the transport media, the method and quality of specimen collection, the PCR assay itself, and the way that the threshold line is set for each run (predetermined, de novo (run again), by a human, or by software, etc.).” – Ontario Public Health PCR overview

Public Health Ontario Overview of PCR testing

They also admit that the PCR test is more suited to blood-borne virus diagnosis when they say “blood-borne viruses are more amenable to being measured quantitively, because blood is a more standardized speciment type.”

https://www.wordnik.com/words/amenable

Depending on where your tested could yield two different results

In April of 2020 IQMH (The Institute of Quality Management in Healthcare) sent a proficiency testing panel to 26 different testing laboratories in Ontario who reported the following;

“Variability of Ct values of up to 8 cycles were observed for the same specimen material tested across the participating laboratories.” The Institute of Quality Management in Healthcare (IQMH), is the organization that “administers the Quality Management Program for laboratory services in Ontario.” – Public Health Ontario PCR overview

There is a Freudian slip in the document for those able to catch it when they say “Ct cut-offs cannot be reliably used for the determination of virus viability.” Put another way, cycle threshold cut-offs cannot be reliably used for the determination that a virus is able to grow, live and develop.

The true narrative continues to be revealed PHO document

“In complex laboratory network environments, such as in Ontario, where specimens may be tested at one of several laboratories > (greater than) 40 laboratories conducting SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR in the province on a variety of different extraction and PCR platforms), utility of such reporting is questionable. Moreover, test results are received and reviewed by a myriad of healthcare providers, as well as patients, with varying understanding of Ct values.

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/main/2020/09/cycle-threshold-values-sars-cov2-pcr.pdf?la=en

The documents go on to say that “false positives” are rare – but we must keep it fresh in our mind that a “positive case” doesn’t mean much of anything based on the available literature that stated, “no growth (viral) was observed in samples with a Ct > (greater than) 24.” We must prove that growth is possible to deem someone Covid “infectious.” This was done at the beginning of the “pandemic” when results were sent to the National Microbiology Lab in Canada.

This puts the NFL’s Covid testing in perspective as they run at 25 (although this info has since been hidden) cycles for their CT cut-off.

Article: Staley: The Joke That Is Covid-19 Testing

Article: How to fake a pandemic

During the early days of Canada’s response to COVID-19, all laboratory samples were sent to the NML from provincial and territorial public health labs to confirm the presumptive results. Still, now, the NML continues to work in close collaboration with these public health labs to ensure that the test we use to diagnose COVID-19 remains accurate.” – Diverge Media The Joke that is Covid-19 Testing

This again is another example of a bait and switch enacted on the reader. This is a fancy academic way of saying we no longer send our results there – we just work with the labs to ensure testing “remains accurate.” This means they aren’t being tested to see if they can be cultured anymore.

Recap of findings so far

  • Dr. Anthony Fauci Director of NIH said any PCR test that runs over 35 cycles picks up dead nucleotides and almost always can’t be cultured (paraphrased)
  • Ontario Labs run at 40 cycles (sometimes more)
  • The Institute of Quality Management in Healthcare sent tests to 26 different labs that ran their cycles and determined “variability of Ct values of up to 8 cycles were observed for the same specimen material tested across the participating laboratories.” (different labs – potentially different results)
  • Ct cut-offs cannot be reliably used for the determination of virus viability.
  • Canada used to send results off to confirm they could infect others to the NML (National Microbiology Lab) but no longer do

NFL highlights problems in our testing

“The league,” Schachtel explains, “has had well-defined testing protocols in place since the season began. When an athlete or staff member tests positive on the PCR method, the league does not hit the panic button.” – IFB.org

Instead the NFL after being confronted with an initial “positive test”, continues to follow up with two more tests and a nasal swab to be tested in a lab as well as a point of care test.

Dr. Sills the man in charge of the protocols for COVID in the NFL had this to say following positive tests on 77 individuals which included 44 players and 33 staff members from across 11 clubs that were all associated with one regional lab;

“Suffice to say,” Dr. Sills explained, “these are really sensitive, delicate tests, which again, are subject to irregularities of this type. The key for us and our testing partner is to quickly recognize that and to act upon that, which is what happened here.”

The medical team immediately snapped into action. And, come to find out, all of the positive tests were the result of cross-contamination within the lab. Are these type of follow-ups being done in Ontario labs – very unlikely. Turns out the NFL only wants to use legitimate testing protocols to protect their multi-million dollar investments. Canadians on the other hand can lose time from work on the merit of a deeply flawed test.

https://lfb.org/nfl-reveals-how-we-should-be-testing-for-covid-19/

Covid Hospitalization definition changes everything

In typical government fashion this information is not centralized in any one report – but rather I found it on the bottom of a daily epidemiological report.

Definition of hospitalized cases is as follows;

“Hospitalization includes all cases for which a hospital admission date was reported at the time of data extraction. It includes cases that have been discharged from hospital as well as cases that are currently hospitalized. Emergency room visits are not included in the number of reported hospitalizations.” – Daily epidemiological summary November 25th, 2020 (page 15)

So hospital cases that are no longer active and have been discharged from hospital are included in the cases that currently hospitalized. It’s worth telling you at this point that hospitals often test before someone enters the hospital, and after admittance. This happened to my wife’s Grandmother who was tested every day – even while unconscious.

So someone hypothetically could be in hospital with a broken arm and forced to take a PCR test that gives a “positive”, that then would then be included in the overall hospitalization count. Just before you think I’m being a bit extreme here’s Manitoba Lanette Siragusa, the provincial lead of health system integration and quality, as well as chief nursing officer for Shared Health giving the real numbers in their hospital.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvKRju6_UlU Roughly 52 mins in

ICU definitions

“ICU admission includes all cases for which an ICU admission date was reported at the time of data extraction. It is a subset of the count of hospitalized cases. It includes cases that have been treated or that are currently being treated in an ICU.” This means that cases that were in ICU that “tested positive” for Covid and have left because they’ve been treated are also included in the data for ICU cases. When you are testing almost anyone who comes through the doors with inherently flawed testing – it isn’t hard to see how these numbers could be inflated.

https://files.ontario.ca/moh-covid-19-report-en-2020-11-26_1.pdf page 15

Like Lanette Siragusa, the provincial lead of health system integration said when questioned, 105 cases were reported but only 10 were actually active Covid cases. Can you say manipulating the data to fear monger and support your narrative?

Deaths

“Deaths are determined by using the outcome field in CCM plus. Any case marked ‘Fatal’ is included in the deaths data. The CCM field Type of Death is not used to further categorize the data.” This means that if you came in from a heart attack and died but tested positive for Covid – you could be marked as a Covid death.

page 16

Anti-bodies test can be a confirmed Covid case

On positive case definition: “This includes persons with a positive detection of serum/plasma immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, which was added to the confirmed case definition on August 6, 2020.” – Case definition Coronavirus health.gov

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/publichealth/coronavirus/docs/2019_case_definition.pdf

The final nail in the Covid narrative

“The number of tests performed does not reflect the number of specimens or persons tested. More than one test may be performed per specimen or per person. As such, the percentage of tests that were positive does not necessarily translate to the number of specimens or persons testing positive.” So to conclude, the number of cases could include the same person testing positive multiple times – at least that’s what their documents say.

https://files.ontario.ca/moh-covid-19-report-en-2020-11-26_1.pdf page 14

Do you feel swindled yet? Now before you say our hospitals are being over-run by Covid cases – just remember Doug Ford ran on ending hallway medicine in Ontario. Healthcare has been underfunded and in bad shape for many years – all before Covid came on the scene. Source: CBC “‘We’re doing everything we can’ to end hallway medicine, says Premier Doug Ford”

Diverge Media is an independent media organization dedicated to bringing you the stories that matter. We don’t receive government funding, and from our work you can tell we never will – nor would we ever accept that funding if the bribe was dangled. If you want to support our work of exposing the Covid narrative and other stories that matter – donate in the form below.

Diverge Media Donation

$
Personal Info

1.00
Diverge Media Donation
Terms

Donation Total: $20.00

Published by Greg Staley

Greg Staley is a husband, and a father to 3 beautiful girls. He is a concerned citizen who is closely watching his government's actions through critical thinking, and assessment of all qualified and relevant data. He believes in going to the Primary sources of data at all times if possible.