THE PAIN, ANGUISH NZ GOVT KEEPS INCREASING ON THOUSANDS OF NEW ZEALANDERS LIVES

67,000 New Zealanders overdue for hospital treatment and specialist appointment. Minster Of Health reported “This will take some time for marked improvements to happen” This is an extremely serious situation that effects peoples health and wellbeing, that will shorten peoples lives if not diagnosed, treated quickly enough.

Andrew Little to the rescue (NOT). May 2022 he announced ‘a high powered taskforce, a national plan of action to clear hospital backlogs. Today’s Sunday Herald reports “hospital backlogs (waiting lists) have deteriorated. Since March 2022 to November 2022  4,131 people have been added to hospital waiting lists (backlogs)  The 2020 Budget $283 million over next three years was to be used to decrease the hospital waiting list. NZ Herald reported 25/3/2022 ‘Cancer Patients wait 3 months for URGENT treatment. Stuff NZ reported 1/2/2022 ‘Dying patients say they are waiting too long for diagnosis, treatments.

Stuff NZ report 13/1/2022 ‘Extraordinarily distressing cancer patients forced to wait months. Cancer patients missing out on precious survival time, suffering from treatable pain, experiencing mental anguish whilst waiting for recommended radiation, oncology treatment. Cancer patients and their families were speaking out about the devastating impact of waiting too long for standard treatments including chemo and radiation therapy. Some waiting 4 months. A Medical Oncologist with Auckland District Health Board reported his concerns – referring to the national monitoring of waiting times for cancer treatment, he said “these are not prioritized by the government”

A  government had introduced a new health system in 2021 which does not include cancer services. Oncologists report that consistent clear reporting on the performance of cancer care is urgently needed, transparency needs to be ensured. Lucy Elwood Cancer Society NZ. Chief Executive said “We are concerned there is no longer ‘at the top of the table measuring targets, specifically looking at how cancer services are performing. Given that cancer is the top cause of death in New Zealand”. Te Aho o Te Kahu, Cancer Control Agency said “they are developing systems to collect share cancer services performance data, but that wont be finished until 2025. In the meantime the hospital backlog (waiting list) continues to increase.

Dr Shaun Costello -Oncologist-College of Radiologists (RANZCR) reported “In some cases a persons cancer has grown so much whilst waiting for treatment that they had to have surgery instead of radiation. He said the “number of Kiwi’s with cancer is expected to double in the next 20years, however the health workforce is projected to shrink. Many Health professionals are leaving New Zealand for better pay and conditions elsewhere. Canterbury Health Board states “shortage of staffing has been known over last 4 yrs. It will take years to clear the backlog, waiting list. “excess deaths are likely”.

As for Oncology services the long waiting times means the prognosis, including chance of survival worsens if treatment is delayed. The longer a person waits, the worse the prognosis, the longer the pain. Obviously this new government health plan involves  Peeni Henare and Andrew Little as key players consequently bear a large part of the responsibility for causing serious health consequences and consequently shortening of peoples life spans. Robbing them of precious time with family, loved ones, friends etc., The govt as a whole must be held accountably, responsible.

Beehive website 21st April 2021– Speeches were given by Andrew Little and Peeni Henare. Announcing the plan Andrew Little’s speech included:- A truly national public health service. Which will take health to the people, in their own homes. To those that need it, no matter where they live. Treating people when they get sick, then they wont need to go to hospital. An emphasis on primary and community healthcare. So the Govt can start giving Te Tino Rangatiratanga and fulfil the governments obligations under the Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Dept of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Health & Disability Transition Unit had been working together for months on the new health service plan. (A plan for the future). A transformation to help ALL New Zealanders to live longer, healthier lives.

2.Fast Forward to day – a complete failure, a huge increase in the suffering, pain, anxiety on peoples lives . The hospital waiting time(backlog ) almost 67,000 people. But Andrew Little says the new health service is “So the govt can start giving Te Tino Rangatiratanga, fulfilling its obligations to the Treaty of Waitangi.” Saying this is smarter, works more effectively, intelligently, cohesively”

Little referred to the Five System Shifts to ensure a health system that serves ALL New Zealanders (Tell that to the 67,000 people on the hospital waiting list, tell that to the thousands of cancer patients whom you have robbed them of a longer life expectancy and enhancement of life, tell that to their loved ones, families). Little said “This new health transformation will help NZrs live longer, in good health, have the best quality of life. The government will always prioritise this. The new health system will be smarter, work more effectively, intelligently, cohesively.  The ‘Health System Shifts (transformation) will ensure it will serve ALL NZrs. Reinforce Te Tiriti principles, govts obligations to the Treaty. There will be a comprehensive range of support within community settings. All NZrs will have access to high quality emergency, specialist care when they need it.. Digital services will provide more care for people in their own homes. Health workers will be trained for the ‘Future Health System’. A dynamic fundamental shift in ethos and culture for MOH services. To operate as one system. A common leadership. Simplifying, consolidating functions. A unifying purpose to achieve pae-ora ‘A Good Health for ALL’

The new health service system no longer directly fund and commission the health service, instead it will be leaner, sharper, more agile, focused on its core role. Will replace 20 DHBs, will become the first truly national public health service.. Working on the basis of four regional divisions of Health NZ, district offices throughout NZ, will ensure they are truly in touch with the needs of NZrs. Each four regional divisions of Health NZ being responsible, overseeing, managing a network of hospitals, commissioning primary and community healthcare services in their region. A nationwide approach.

Andrew Little added “the system must work in a ‘partnership’ with Maori. The Govt (Crown) has specific obligations to Maori under the Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Govt now have the opportunity the truly live up to the vision of the Treaty of Waitangi” (NO PARTNERSHIP documented in Treaty Of Waitangi). He added “by monitoring the state of Maori health, hence helps health policies. The Maori Health Authority having the power to commission health services for Maori and to partner with Health NZ in all aspects of the health service system.

Andrew Little said “the establishment of the Maori Health Authority is a real step towards Tino rangatiratanga in health. (Two tier Society). Peeni Henari then concluded with his speech in the House. As he spoke about the improved new health services to protect the health of the population, where Health NZ will work closing with Maori Health Authority. Saying “the government have specific obligations to Maori, the system must listen to the voices of Pacific people including ‘rainbow’ and ‘diverse people. The govt is designing services that work for them There will be a new consumer forum a voice for health service providers.

The health of Pacific people will come under Health NZ not the Maori Health Authority. One of the criticisms is “the new health system does NOT adequately address concerns, needs of the disabled community”. However Henare spoke of digital options and bringing health services closer to home (tele-health-Tele-medicine)

Shifting the focus away from hospitals, virtual diagnosis testing at home, digital monitoring. Iwi/Maori Partnership Boards and locality networks. To tackle the complex needs of an aging population at the time of global health shortages. Henare referred to the ‘Govt planning of the health workforce for the future’. The creation of a new culture, a new  NZ Health Charter, the maintaining of services including the COVID19 vaccination programme. This will be a priority during the transition.  He said “We MUST move forward, DELIBERATELY and with DETERMINATION, and it starts today – the start transition date was 21st April 2021.

3.Henare said “ The new health plan is expected to come into effect July 2022”. The partnership of Health NZ and the Maori Health Authority, which would include a smooth handover to new entities once the law was established. Henare concluding “the New Health Plan, a lifetime change to put in place a new health system, to improve the health of this and future generations’ To make a once-in-a-lifetime change to put in place a new system and to improve the health of this and future generations. A change for tomorrow that will not compromise the care we give today”. Henare  said “He reassure NZrs that the care they rely on will still be available. From your GPs, Local pharmacists, midwives hospital, specialist will still provide the care they did before . He referred to “a greater investment in health, smart, fairer national health system. This transformation is necessary. This time must be different (A New Normal- A small window of opportunity-(New Zealands Great Reset)

Transformation and Investment, achieving pae – ora reshaping NZ health system to be ‘One Truly Fit For Future Generations” As Peeni Henare said “A Transformational Government, big infrastructure build, massive policy commitments leading up to a Single Grand Reveal.. The Maori Health Authority and Health NZ embedding a partnership and this must happen at a local level. Iwi/Maori Partnership Boards. And still they persist although many, many  people of NZ are significantly suffering and needlessly dying.

And today 29th January 2023 .HOSPITAL BACKLOGS CLIMB TO ALMOST 67,000.

67,000 Thousand people in NZ overdue for treatment or specialist appointments. And Ministry Of Health state “this will take some time for marked improvements to take place”.

YET  THE GOVERNMENT SO CALLED  HEALTH NZ-MAORI AUTHORITY TREATY PARTNERSHIP Failure. THE PLUNDERING AND SUFFERENCE FAR TOO MANY NEW ZEALANDERS ARE SUFFERING.

Cancer patients wait up to 12 weeks for urgent treatment – NZ Herald

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/127641449/dying-cancer-patients-say-they-are-waiting-too-long-for-diagnosis-treatments

See here for full documents about the reforms https://dpmc.govt.nz/our-business-units/transition-unit/response-health-and-disability-system-review/information

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/building-new-zealand-health-service-works-all-new-zealanders

 

...

Other Blog Posts

PFIZERS STATE CORPORATE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

PFIZER POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE AND POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS REPORT
The Pfizer political action committee, Pfizer PAC, is a nonpartisan organization that provides opportunities for employees to participate in the American political process. The Pfizer PAC is an employee-run organization with a steering committee made up of Pfizer employees from around the country. When choosing to make a contribution to a candidate, the Pfizer PAC considers candidates’ views on issues that impact Pfizer and its employees as well as the presence of Pfizer facilities or employees in the candidate’s district or state. The PAC steering committee reviews and approves all recommendations for PAC contributions on a monthly basis.

Pfizer’s procedure that limits Pfizer colleagues’ campaign and election activities during working hours also restricts the use of Pfizer resources to support federal and state candidates, political parties and political committees.

PFIZER PAC Leading the Conversation. What is a PAC? PAC stands for Political Action Committee. A political action committee is a government-regulated organization that anyone can form to raise money for political campaign donations. PACs are formed by individuals, non-profits, and even many major corporations. How Does P izer PAC Work? The Pfizer political action committee, Pfizer PAC, is a nonpartisan organization that provides opportunities for employees to participate in the American political process.

The Pfizer PAC is an employee-run organization with a Steering Committee made up of Pfizer employees from different divisions of the company. All corporate PACs are funded by voluntary employee contributions. Pfizer PAC is no different; it relies on the participation of Pfizer colleagues. Who Receives Pfizer PAC Contributions? Pfizer PAC is nonpartisan. It supports Democrats and Republicans who support policies that impact our purpose: Breakthroughs that change patients’ lives. From January 2019 through December 2020, Pfizer PAC supported 950 candidates. When choosing to make a contribution to a candidate, our Government Relations colleagues consider candidates’ views and voting record on policy issues that impact patient access to breakthrough medicines and vaccines as well as the impact on our employees and Pfizer facilities in the candidate’s district or state. A complete list of Pfizer PAC and state corporate political contributions for January 2019 – December 2020 is included in this report.

...

PFIZER 2017 ANNUAL REVIEW – THE POWER OF SCIENCE

The year 2017 was the second year supporting our 2020 Supply Chain Environmental Sustainability Goals. We have an extensive supply chain, ranging from suppliers of general commodities to specialized active pharmaceutical ingredient manufacturers. All are expected to adhere to Pfizer’s supplier code of conduct and align with the PSCI principles. In addition, we have chosen to engage with a subset of our key suppliers to advance our environmental sustainability program. One hundred and fifty-eight suppliers were part of the 2017 survey and we have seen progress made on all elements of the 2020 Goal, including managing environmental impacts and instituting sustainability reduction goals.

Transforming Our Approach to Clinical Trials Clinical trials have long been the most time-consuming, complex and expensive element of drug development. Today’s leaps in technology and ‘big data’ analytics, combined with breakthroughs in the understanding and medical application of human biology, are radically transforming the way drugs are developed; however, new methodologies must preserve the paramount goals of protecting patients and evaluating potential risks as well as benefits. Pfizer is seeking to modernize clinical trials by pursuing what Rod MacKenzie, Pfizer’s Chief Development Officer, calls ‘extreme optimization.’ He explains: “We have one big job

It centers on the unique relationship between grandparents and grandchildren in Europe and the importance of protecting your heroes. In France, Precious Moments demonstrates the importance of vaccination to new parents through an engaging and relatable narrative

It centers on the unique relationship between grandparents and grandchildren in Europe and the importance of protecting your heroes. In France, Precious Moments demonstrates the importance of vaccination to new parents through an engaging and relatable narrative

An innovative partnership with the International Rescue Committee that provides access to vital health interventions by creating a one-stop-shop for the delivery of immunization and family planning services. Through a collaboration with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation we are working to help broaden access to Pfizer’s long-acting injectable contraceptive, Sayana® Press (medroxyprogesterone acetate), for women most in need in some of the world’s poorest countries. Since the collaboration launched, with the help of a consortium of organizations from both the private and public sectors, more than 16 million units have been shipped across 23 countries in the developing world, potentially reaching more than 4 million women

PLEASE FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW FOR THE FULL PFIZER 2017 REPORT:-

https://www.pfizer.com/sites/default/files/investors/financial_reports/annual_reports/2017/assets/pdf/pfizer-2017-annual-review.pdf

...

PFIZER COMBINES SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS PHILANTHROPY – AN APPROACH TO ACCELERATE UN AGENDA 2030

AUG 09, 2018

Whether you are taking a look at its business model or its corporate headquarters in New York City, it does not take long to realize that Pfizer is all in on the U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Pfizer was the first multinational pharmaceutical giant to join the U.N. Global Compact in 2002. Now, the company is utilizing its resources in conjunction with SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), to bring health care to people around the world — but the company is not stopping there.
Understanding its role as a global leader in care, Pfizer has moved to bring its business and social initiatives together, explained Chris Gray, senior director for institutions and public reporting. The results have led to a cohesive business plan while also advancing the greater good through the SDGs.
“The way in which Pfizer and other corporations are addressing these types of societal challenges [addressed by the SDGs] has evolved significantly in the past decade,” said Gray during a recent edition of 3BL Media’s webcast series titled “Aligning Business With the Global Goals.” “We approach our social mission in a much more holistic manner today with the SDGs, including not only traditional philanthropy but a blended approach through commercially and socially sustainable business models and many more partnerships. We have the passion and commitment among our employees and our leadership to be addressing the goals that were set by the U.N. under the SDGs.”

Pfizer sees a connection between its work with SDG 3 and the other 16 goals laid out by the U.N. almost three years ago. Gray explained the interdependency between the goals means that making good health care accessible could, for example, keep children in school and allow women more freedom to pursue opportunities. This is a driving force for the company’s corporate responsibility goals, made evident by its 2017 Annual Review, and has led to numerous present and future initiatives to achieve various health targets within SDG 3.
But how does a Fortune 500 company, or any company for that matter, strike a balance between people and profit? According to Gray, the process starts by properly positioning the SDGs in business terms for Pfizer’s commercial partners.

While substantial investment will be needed, the Business and Sustainable Development Commission (BSDC) estimated that fulfilling the SDGs could lead to $12 trillion in estimated market opportunities across food and agriculture, cities, energy and health and well-being. According to the BSDC’s 2017 “Better Business Better World” report, health-related opportunities within the goals have a potential value of $1.8 trillion in 2030.
“The role of the business sector is critical, and what we found was some of the support we need internally from our business colleagues requires some proofpoint,” Gray said. “Some of the thought leadership, research and publications that have come out around the SDGs provides a more precise articulation around the alignment between the private- and public-sector benefits. As we work to marshall the engagement and commitment of our commercial colleagues, these types of engagements are really important.”

https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2018/pfizer-combines-sustainable-business-philanthropy-holistic-approach-sdgs/11211

...

HOW TO LOCKDOWN SOCIETY AND HOW TO MISLEAD HUMANITY

DOCUMENTATION FROM THE: Global Research Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization. By Dr. Pascal Sacré
October 17, 2021…Global Research 5 November 2020 Theme: Science and Medicine- First published by Global Research on November 5, 2020
Introduction: using a technique to lock down society

It is time for everyone to come out of this negative trance, this collective hysteria, because famine, poverty, massive unemployment will kill, mow down many more people than SARS-CoV-2!

All current propaganda on the COVID-19 pandemic is based on an assumption that is considered obvious, true and no longer questioned:
Positive RT-PCR test means being sick with COVID. This assumption is misleading.
Very few people, including doctors, understand how a PCR test works.
RT-PCR means Real Time-Polymerase Chain Reaction.

In medicine, we use this tool mainly to diagnose a viral infection.
Starting from a clinical situation with the presence or absence of particular symptoms in a patient, we consider different diagnoses based on tests.
In the case of certain infections, particularly viral infections, we use the RT-PCR technique to confirm a diagnostic hypothesis suggested by a clinical picture.

We do not routinely perform RT-PCR on any patient who is overheated, coughing or has an inflammatory syndrome!
It is a laboratory, molecular biology technique of gene amplification because it looks for gene traces (DNA or RNA) by amplifying them.
In addition to medicine, other fields of application are genetics, research, industry and forensics.
The technique is carried out in a specialized laboratory, it cannot be done in any laboratory, even a hospital. This entails a certain cost, and a delay sometimes of several days between the sample and the result.

Today, since the emergence of the new disease called COVID-19 (COrona VIrus Disease-2019), the RT-PCR diagnostic technique is used to define positive cases, confirmed as SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus responsible for the new acute respiratory distress syndrome called COVID-19).
These positive cases are assimilated to COVID-19 cases, some of whom are hospitalized or even admitted to intensive care units.
Official postulate of our managers: positive RT-PCR cases = COVID-19 patients.
This is the starting postulate, the premise of all official propaganda, which justifies all restrictive government measures: isolation, confinement, quarantine, mandatory masks, color codes by country and travel bans, tracking, social distances in companies, stores and even, even more importantly, in schools

This misuse of RT-PCR technique is used as a relentless and intentional strategy by some governments, supported by scientific safety councils and by the dominant media, to justify excessive measures such as the violation of a large number of constitutional rights, the destruction of the economy with the bankruptcy of entire active sectors of society, the degradation of living conditions for a large number of ordinary citizens, under the pretext of a pandemic based on a number of positive RT-PCR tests, and not on a real number of patients.
Technical aspects: to better understand and not be manipulated
The PCR technique was developed by chemist Kary B. Mullis in 1986. Kary Mullis was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993.
Although this is disputed [3], Kary Mullis himself is said to have criticized the interest of PCR as a diagnostic tool for an infection, especially a viral one.
He stated that if PCR was a good tool for research, it was a very bad tool in medicine, in the clinic [4].
Mullis was referring to the AIDS virus (HIV retrovirus or HIV) , before the COVID-19 pandemic, but this opinion on the limitation of the technique in viral infections , by its creator, cannot be dismissed out of hand; it must be taken into account!
PCR was perfected in 1992.

As the analysis can be performed in real time, continuously, it becomes RT (Real-Time) – PCR, even more efficient.
It can be done from any molecule, including those of the living, the nucleic acids that make up the genes:
 DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)
 RNA (Ribonucleic Acid)

Viruses are not considered as “living” beings, they are packets of information (DNA or RNA) forming a genome.
It is by an amplification technique (multiplication) that the molecule sought is highlighted and this point is very important.
RT-PCR is an amplification technique

If there is DNA or RNA of the desired element in a sample, it is not identifiable as such.
This DNA or RNA must be amplified (multiplied) a certain number of times, sometimes a very large number of times, before it can be detected. From a minute trace, up to billions of copies of a specific sample can be obtained, but this does not mean that there is all that amount in the organism being tested.
In the case of COVID-19, the element sought by RT-PCR is SARS-CoV-2, an RNA virus
There are DNA viruses such as Herpes and Varicella viruses.

The most well known RNA viruses, in addition to coronaviruses, are Influenza, Measles, EBOLA, ZIKA viruses.
In the case of SARS-CoV-2, RNA virus, an additional specific step is required, a transcription of RNA into DNA by means of an enzyme, Reverse Transcriptase.
This step precedes the amplification phase.

It is not the whole virus that is identified, but sequences of its viral genome.
This does not mean that this gene sequence, a fragment of the virus, is not specific to the virus being sought, but it is an important nuance nonetheless:
RT-PCR does not reveal any virus, but only parts, specific gene sequences of the virus.
At the beginning of the year, the SARS-CoV-2 genome was sequenced.
It consists of about 30,000 base pairs. The nucleic acid (DNA-RNA), the component of the genes, is a sequence of bases. In comparison, the human genome has more than 3 billion base pairs.
Teams are continuously monitoring the evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 viral genome as it evolves [9-10-11], through the mutations it undergoes. Today, there are many variants

By taking a few specific genes from the SARS-CoV-2 genome, it is possible to initiate RT-PCR on a sample from the respiratory tract.
For COVID-19 disease, which has a nasopharyngeal (nose) and oropharyngeal (mouth) entry point, the sample should be taken from the upper respiratory tract as deeply as possible in order to avoid contamination by saliva in particular.
ll the people tested said that it is very painful

The Gold Standard (preferred site for sampling) is the nasopharyngeal (nasal) approach, the most painful route.
If there is a contraindication to the nasal approach, or preferably to the individual being tested, depending on the official organs, the oropharyngeal approach (through the mouth) is also acceptable. The test may trigger a nausea/vomiting reflex in the individual being tested.
Normally, for the result of an RT-PCR test to be considered reliable, amplification from 3 different genes (primers) of the virus under investigation is required.
“The primers are single-stranded DNA sequences specific to the virus. They guarantee the specificity of the amplification reaction.
“The first test developed at La Charité in Berlin by Dr. Victor Corman and his associates in January 2020 allows to highlight the RNA sequences present in 3 genes of the virus called E, RdRp and N. To know if the sequences of these genes are present in the RNA samples collected, it is necessary to amplify the sequences of these 3 genes in order to obtain a signal sufficient for their detection and quantification.

The essential notion of Cycle Time or Cycle Threshold or Ct positivity threshold [16].
An RT-PCR test is negative (no traces of the desired element) or positive (presence of traces of the desired element).
However, even if the desired element is present in a minute, negligible quantity, the principle of RT-PCR is to be able to finally highlight it by continuing the amplification cycles as much as necessary.
RT-PCR can push up to 60 amplification cycles, or even more!

Here is how it works:
Cycle 1: target x 2 (2 copies)
Cycle 2: target x 4 (4 copies)
Cycle 3: target x 8 (8 copies)
Cycle 4: target x 16 (16 copies)
Cycle 5; target x 32 (32 copies)
Etc exponentially up to 40 to 60 cycles!
When we say that the Ct (Cycle Time or Cycle Threshold or RT-PCR positivity threshold) is equal to 40, it means that the laboratory has used 40 amplification cycles, i.e. obtained 240 copies.

This is what underlies the sensitivity of the RT-PCR assay.
While it is true that in medicine we like to have high specificity and sensitivity of the tests to avoid false positives and false negatives, in the case of COVID-19 disease, this hypersensitivity of the RT-PCR test caused by the number of amplification cycles used has backfired.
This over-sensitivity of the RT-PCR test is deleterious and misleading!
It detaches us from the medical reality which must remain based on the real clinical state of the person: is the person ill, does he or she have symptoms?
That is the most important thing!

As I said at the beginning of the article, in medicine we always start from the person: we examine him/her, we collect his/her symptoms (complaints-anamnesis) and objective clinical signs (examination) and on the basis of a clinical reflection in which scientific knowledge and experience intervene, we make diagnostic hypotheses.
Only then do we prescribe the most appropriate tests, based on this clinical reflection.
We constantly compare the test results with the patient’s clinical condition (symptoms and signs), which takes precedence over everything else when it comes to our decisions and treatments.

Today, our governments, supported by their scientific safety advice, are making us do the opposite and put the test first, followed by a clinical reflection necessarily influenced by this prior test, whose weaknesses we have just seen, particularly its hypersensitivity.
None of my clinical colleagues can contradict me.
Apart from very special cases such as genetic screening for certain categories of populations (age groups, sex) and certain cancers or family genetic diseases, we always work in this direction: from the person (symptoms, signs) to the appropriate tests, never the other way around.

This is the conclusion of an article in the Swiss Medical Journal (RMS) published in 2007, written by doctors Katia Jaton and Gilbert Greub microbiologists from the University of Lausanne :
PCR in microbiology: from DNA amplification to result interpretation:
“To interpret the result of a PCR, it is essential that clinicians and microbiologists share their experiences, so that the analytical and clinical levels of interpretation can be combined.”
It would be indefensible to give everyone an electrocardiogram to screen everyone who might have a heart attack one day.
On the other hand, in certain clinical contexts or on the basis of specific evocative symptoms, there, yes, an electrocardiogram can be beneficial.
Back to RT-PCR and Ct (Cycle Time or Cycle Threshold).

In the case of an infectious disease, especially a viral one, the notion of contagiousness is another important element.
Since some scientific circles consider that an asymptomatic person can transmit the virus, they believe it is important to test for the presence of virus, even if the person is asymptomatic, thus extending the indication of RT-PCR to everyone.
Are RT-PCR tests good tests for contagiousness?

This question brings us back to the notion of viral load and therefore Ct.
The relationship between contagiousness and viral load is disputed by some people [18] and no formal proof, to date, allows us to make a decision.
However, common sense gives obvious credence to the notion that the more virus a person has inside him or her, especially in the upper airways (oropharynx and nasopharynx), with symptoms such as coughing and sneezing, the higher the risk of contagiousness, proportional to the viral load and the importance of the person’s symptoms.

This is called common sense, and although modern medicine has benefited greatly from the contribution of science through statistics and Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), it is still based primarily on common sense, experience and empiricism.
Medicine is the art of healing.

No test measures the amount of virus in the sample!
RT-PCR is qualitative: positive (presence of the virus) or negative (absence of the virus).
This notion of quantity, therefore of viral load, can be estimated indirectly by the number of amplification cycles (Ct) used to highlight the virus sought.
The lower the Ct used to detect the virus fragment, the higher the viral load is considered to be (high).
The higher the Ct used to detect the virus fragment, the lower the viral load is considered to be (low).
Thus, the French National Reference Centre (CNR), in the acute phase of the pandemic, estimated that the peak of viral shedding occurred at the onset of symptoms, with an amount of virus corresponding to approximately 108 (100 million) copies of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA on average (French COVID-19 cohort data) with a variable duration of shedding in the upper airways (from 5 days to more than 5 weeks)
This number of 108 (100 million) copies/μl corresponds to a very low Ct.
A Ct of 32 corresponds to 10-15 copies/μl.
A Ct of 35 corresponds to about 1 copy/μl.
Above Ct 35, it becomes impossible to isolate a complete virus sequence and culture it!
In France and in most countries, Ct levels above 35, even 40, are still used even today!

The French Society of Microbiology (SFM) issued an opinion on September 25, 2020 in which it does not recommend quantitative results, and it recommends to make positive up to a Ct of 37 for a single gene
With 1 copy/μl of a sample (Ct 35), without cough, without symptoms, one can understand why all these doctors and scientists say that a positive RT-PCR test means nothing, nothing at all in terms of medicine and clinic!
Positive RT-PCR tests, without any mention of Ct or its relation to the presence or absence of symptoms, are used as is by our governments as the exclusive argument to apply and justify their policy of severity, austerity, isolation and aggression of our freedoms, with the impossibility to travel, to meet, to live normally!

There is no medical justification for these decisions, for these governmental choices!
In an article published on the website of the New York Times (NYT) on Saturday, August 29, American experts from Harvard University are surprised that RT-PCR tests as practiced can serve as tests of contagiousness, even more so as evidence of pandemic progression in the case of SARS-CoV-2 infection
I’m a Clinical Lab Scientist, COVID-19 Is Fake, Wake Up America!
According to them, the threshold (Ct) considered results in positive diagnoses in people who do not represent any risk of transmitting the virus!
The binary “yes/no” answer is not enough, according to this epidemiologist from the Harvard University School of Public Health.
“It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the course of action for each patient tested. »
The amount of virus (viral load); but also and above all the clinical state, symptomatic or not of the person!
This calls into question the use of the binary result of this RT-PCR test to determine whether a person is contagious and must follow strict isolation measures.

These questions are being raised by many physicians around the world, not only in the United States but also in France, Belgium (Belgium Health Experts Demand Investigation Of WHO For Faking Coronavirus Pandemic), France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, the United States and the United Kingdom. in Germany, Spain…
According to them: “We are going to put tens of thousands of people in confinement, in isolation, for nothing. And inflict suffering, anguish, economic and psychological dramas by the thousands!

Most RT-PCR tests set the Ct at 40, according to the NYT. Some set it at 37.
“Tests with such high thresholds (Ct) may not only detect live virus but also gene fragments, remnants of an old infection that do not represent any particular danger,” the experts said.
A virologist at the University of California admits that an RT-PCR test with a Ct greater than 35 is too sensitive. “A more reasonable threshold would be between 30 and 35,” she adds.
Almost no laboratory specifies the Ct (number of amplification cycles performed) or the number of copies of viral RNA per sample μl.
Here is an example of a laboratory result (approved by Sciensano, the Belgian national reference center) in an RT-PCR negative patient:
No mention of Ct.
In the NYT, experts compiled three datasets with officials from the states of Massachusetts, New York and Nevada that mention them.

CONCLUSION:-
“Up to 90% of the people who tested positive did not carry a virus. »
The Wadworth Center, a New York State laboratory, analyzed the results of its July tests at the request of the NYT: 794 positive tests with a Ct of 40.
“With a Ct threshold of 35, approximately half of these PCR tests would no longer be considered positive,” said the NYT.
“And about 70% would no longer be considered positive with a Ct of 30! “
In Massachusetts, between 85 and 90% of people who tested positive in July with a Ct of 40 would have been considered negative with a Ct of 30, adds the NYT. And yet, all these people had to isolate themselves, with all the dramatic psychological and economic consequences, while they were not sick and probably not contagious at all.
In France, the Centre National de Référence (CNR), the French Society of Microbiology (SFM) continue to push Ct to 37 and recommend to laboratories to use only one gene of the virus as a primer.
I remind you that from Ct 32 onwards, it becomes very difficult to culture the virus or to extract a complete sequence, which shows the completely artificial nature of this positivity of the test, with such high Ct levels, above 30.
Similar results were reported by researchers from the UK Public Health Agency in an article published on August 13 in Eurosurveillance: “The probability of culturing the virus drops to 8% in samples with Ct levels above 35.”
In addition, currently, the National Reference Center in France only evaluates the sensitivity of commercially available reagent kits, not their specificity: serious doubts persist about the possibility of cross-reactivity with viruses other than SARS-CoV-2, such as other benign cold coronaviruses.
It is potentially the same situation in other countries, including Belgium.

Similarly, mutations in the virus may have invalidated certain primers (genes) used to detect SARS-CoV-2: the manufacturers give no guarantees on this, and if the AFP fast-checking journalists tell you otherwise, test their good faith by asking for these guarantees, these proofs.
If they have nothing to hide and if what I say is false, this guarantee will be provided to you and will prove their good faith.

1. We must demand that the RT-PCR results be returned mentioning the Ct used because beyond Ct 30, a positive RT-PCR test means nothing.

2. We must listen to the scientists and doctors, specialists, virologists who recommend the use of adapted Ct, lower, at 30. An alternative is to obtain the number of copies of viral RNA/μl or /ml sample.

3. We need to go back to the patient, to the person, to his or her clinical condition (presence or absence of symptoms) and from there to judge the appropriateness of testing and the best way to interpret the result.

Until there is a better rationale for PCR screening, with a known and appropriate Ct threshold, an asymptomatic person should not be tested in any way.
Even a symptomatic person should not automatically be tested, as long as they can place themselves in isolation for 7 days.
Let’s stop this debauchery of RT-PCR testing at too high Ct levels and return to clinical, quality medicine.
Once we understand how RT-PCR testing works, it becomes impossible to let the current government routine screening strategy, inexplicably supported by the virologists in the safety councils, continue.
My hope is that, finally, properly informed, more and more people will demand that this strategy be stopped, because it is all of us, enlightened, guided by real benevolence and common sense, who must decide our collective and individual destinies.
No one else should do it for us, especially when we realize that those who decide are no longer reasonable or rational.
Summary of important points :-
 The RT-PCR test is a laboratory diagnostic technique that is not well suited to clinical medicine.
 It is a binary, qualitative diagnostic technique that confirms (positive test) or not (negative test) the presence of an element in the medium being analyzed. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, the element is a fragment of the viral genome, not the virus itself.
 In medicine, even in an epidemic or pandemic situation, it is dangerous to place tests, examinations, techniques above clinical evaluation (symptoms, signs). It is the opposite that guarantees quality medicine.
 The main limitation (weakness) of the RT-PCR test, in the current pandemic situation, is its extreme sensitivity (false positive) if a suitable threshold of positivity (Ct) is not chosen. Today, experts recommend using a maximum Ct threshold of 30.
 This Ct threshold must be informed with the positive RT-PCR result so that the physician knows how to interpret this positive result, especially in an asymptomatic person, in order to avoid unnecessary isolation, quarantine, psychological trauma.
 In addition to mentioning the Ct used, laboratories must continue to ensure the specificity of their detection kits for SARS-CoV-2, taking into account its most recent mutations, and must continue to use three genes from the viral genome being studied as primers or, if not, mention it.

OVERALL CONCLUSION:-
Is the obstinacy of governments to use the current disastrous strategy, systematic screening by RT-PCR, due to ignorance?
Is it due to stupidity?
To a kind of cognitive trap trapping their ego?
In any case, we should be able to question them, and if among the readers of this article there are still honest journalists, or naive politicians, or people who have the possibility to question our rulers, then do so, using these clear and scientific arguments.
It is all the more incomprehensible that our rulers have surrounded themselves with some of the most experienced specialists in these matters.
If I have been able to gather this information myself, shared, I remind you, by competent people above all suspicion of conspiracy, such as Hélène Banoun, Pierre Sonigo, Jean-François Toussaint, Christophe De Brouwer, whose intelligence, intellectual honesty and legitimacy cannot be questioned, then the Belgian, French and Quebec scientific advisors, etc., know all this as well.

So..What’s going on? Why continue in this distorted direction, obstinately making mistakes?
It is not insignificant to reimpose confinements, curfews, quarantines, reduced social bubbles, to shake up again our shaky economies, to plunge entire families into precariousness, to sow so much fear and anxiety generating a real state of post-traumatic stress worldwide, to reduce access to care for other pathologies that nevertheless reduce life expectancy much more than COVID-19! [24]
Is there intent to harm? Is there an intention to use the alibi of a pandemic to move humanity towards an outcome it would otherwise never have accepted? In any case, not like that!

Would this hypothesis, which modern censors will hasten to label “conspiracy”, be the most valid explanation for all this? Indeed, if we draw a straight line from the present events, if they are maintained, we could find ourselves once again confined with hundreds, thousands of human beings forced to remain inactive, which, for the professions of catering, entertainment, sales, fairgrounds, itinerants, canvassers, risks being catastrophic with bankruptcies, unemployment, depression, suicides by the hundreds of thousands. [25-26-27-28]
The impact on education, on our children, on teaching, on medicine with long planned care, operations, treatments to be cancelled, postponed, will be profound and destructive.
“We risk a looming food crisis if action is not taken quickly.”
It is time for everyone to come out of this negative trance, this collective hysteria, because famine, poverty, massive unemployment will kill, mow down many more people than SARS-CoV-2!
Does all this make sense in the face of a disease that is declining, over-diagnosed and misinterpreted by this misuse of overly sensitively calibrated PCR tests?

For many, the continuous wearing of the mask seems to have become a new norm.
Even if it is constantly downplayed by some health professionals and fact-checking journalists, other doctors warn of the harmful consequences, both medical and psychological, of this hygienic obsession which, maintained permanently, is in fact an abnormality!
What a hindrance to social relations, which are the true foundation of a physically and psychologically healthy humanity!
Some dare to find all this normal, or a lesser price to pay in the face of the pandemic of positive PCR tests.
Isolation, distancing, masking of the face, impoverishment of emotional communication, fear of touching and kissing even within families, communities, between relatives…
Spontaneous gestures of daily life hindered and replaced by mechanical and controlled gestures …
Terrified children, kept in permanent fear and guilt…
All this will have a deep, lasting and negative impact on human organisms, in their physical, mental, emotional and representation of the world and society.
This is not normal! We cannot let our rulers, for whatever reason, organize our collective suicide any longer.
Translated from French by Global Research. Original source: Mondialisation.ca

Dr Pascal Sacré is a physician specialized in critical care, author and renowned public health analyst, Charleroi, Belgium. He is a Research Associate of the entre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
Professionals whose references and comments are the basis of this article in its scientific aspect (especially and mainly on RT-PCR):
1) Hélène Banoun. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Helene_Banoun PhD, Pharmacist biologist Former INSERM Research Officer Former intern at the Paris Hospitals
2) Pierre Sonigo Virologist Research Director INSERM, worked at the Pasteur Institute Heads the Virus Genetics Laboratory in Cochin, Paris. Participated in 1985 in the sequencing of the AIDS virus.
3) Christophe De Brouwer PhD in Public Health Science Honorary Professor at the School of Public Health at ULB, Belgium
4) Jean-François Toussaint Doctor, Professor of Physiology at the University of Paris-Descartes Director of IRMES, Institute for Bio-Medical Research and Sports Epidemiology Former member of the High Council of Public Health

...