Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I know I posted this earlier, but it seems even more relevant now, in light of the above.    

Prof Martin Neil of the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the University of London has compiled an extremely important paper which is currently at pre-print stage. The paper is

Jon Rappoport has been outstanding on exposing the issues surrounding the tests.   He has in recent days blogged the following about how wearing masks could increase the incidence of of fals

Posted Images

Hi i am new to the forums after being a lurker for many years, thought i'd put my two-penneth in, though it's probably been said many times already...

 

One of those Covid Test centres appeared by me several weeks ago, every time I go past it no one appears to be there using it and there are many videos uploaded to YouTube of empty test centres since all this bullshit began, the security often getting arsey with those daring to film it!!!

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Incontinentia_Buttux said:

Hi i am new to the forums after being a lurker for many years, thought i'd put my two-penneth in, though it's probably been said many times already...

 

One of those Covid Test centres appeared by me several weeks ago, every time I go past it no one appears to be there using it and there are many videos uploaded to YouTube of empty test centres since all this bullshit began, the security often getting arsey with those daring to film it!!!

They test kids and then whole family with friends needs to isolate... Enough to keep BS going 🙄

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, elongated1 said:

Does anyone have a link to the vaccine booking website?

This page says that it reveals if someone had a jab or not. I want to check it to see if my mum's neighbour had it so that I can warn her.

 

 

You shouldn't be poking through people's medical records. And if they are public, they shouldn't be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DarianF said:

 

You shouldn't be poking through people's medical records. And if they are public, they shouldn't be.

 

Well it's designed in a way for everyone to see, not my making.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Nemuri Kyoshiro said:

Some good pictures of DARPA hydrogel in swabs. Good link here:

 

https://rense.com/general96/hydrogel-lithium-photos.php

 

As you know crystals are good transmitter.

i see why they use Lithium. it's given to Schizophrenics to dumb them down.

People who has to stick swabs regularly should have an antidote for Lithium. I don't know what that is but there must be a way.

 

My bad, Invermectin (see Fig 19) is the one that has the anti effect. No wonder it has been banned.

 

21 hours ago, DarianF said:

Why do we no longer have that fighting spirit?

 

Because we have been dumb down with likes of Flouride, mask (lack of oxygen), MSM/smartphone for mass hypnosis and now PCR swab test to mention a few.

Edited by elongated1
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

According to Professor Antonietta Gatti who is an experimental physicist, biomaterial researcher and coordinator of the Italian Institute of Technology’s Project of Nanoecotoxicology, the PCR test swabs contain dangerous fibres. Her analysis revealed that the swabs contain tough materials and large numbers of nano-particles including aluminium, silver titanium and glass fibres which are not included in the package insert.

 

https://dailyexpose.co.uk/2021/05/15/covid-pcr-test-swabs-are-as-dangerous-as-inhaling-asbestos/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

Her findings also suggest that use of the swabs could induce respiratory symptoms by damaging the mucous membrane making it more difficult to repel micro-organisms before they reach the airways - a problem which could be compounded by mask mandates and the breeding of germs. Repeated tests in particular could cause chronic lesions and particular risks could be posed to infants and children.

 

https://evolvetoecology.org/2021/05/05/what-is-in-the-pcr-tests/

 

Quote

The irritating result: the PCR test swabs are made of hard materials and contain a variety of (nano) particles made of silver, aluminium, titanium, glass fibres ect, many of which are undeclared in the package leaflet. When they enter the mucous membrane, they can cause wounds and inflammation, the scientist said. ENT doctors told 2020News that they are finding more hardened mucous membranes in people who are often tested for SARS-CoV-2. No longer intact mucous membranes can no longer fulfil their task of repelling viruses, bacteria and fungi before they reach the airways, as the pediatrician Eugen Janzen also reports. The germs thus penetrate into the airways without any immune filter. Particularly problematic in this context: the warm breath moisture under the masks is the ideal breeding ground for germs of all kinds.

 

Here are some of the electron microscope images of the test swabs analysed by Professor Gatti.

 

image-000-1.png

 

Quote

With a “cotton wool” stick made by Biocomma in Shenzhen, China, it was not possible for Prof. Gatti to determine whether it was made of carbon or cotton. The dirt in the product consisted of calcium corbonate, stainless steel and silicates.

 

image-014-1-1024x652.jpg?resize=639%2C407&ssl=1

 

Quote

A brush-like test stick from Manta, China, showed a large number of broken fibers. Carbon, oxygen, silicon, zirconium, sulfur, aluminum, titanium and sodium were found to be components of the sample.

 

image-018-1.jpg?resize=639%2C459&ssl=1

 

Quote

Another swab from Biocomma appeared to be made of fiberglass, or at least to have a fiberglass coating. Components were carbon, oxygen, aluminum, silicon and titanium. It could not be ruled out that an additional coating was made of organic materials.

 

image-013-1-1024x672.png?resize=639%2C419&ssl=1

 

Quote

The tip of the applicator of another test stick – FLOQSwabs – was coated with short nylon fibers arranged vertically. 

 

  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

“Corona Virus Panic: Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory”

 

Very detailed paper written by David Crowe. (pdf)

 

Must read. Long, but easy to read and well organized with supporting documents well referenced. Thirty-one pages long.

 

Here are some of the section titles:

Virus Existence
Disease Definition
Testing — understanding RT-PCR
Transmission
Treatment

 

From the conclusion: “The coronavirus panic is just that, an irrational panic based on an unproven RNA test that has never been connected to a virus. And which won’t be connected to a virus unless the virus is purified.

 

Furthermore, even if the test can detect a novel virus the presence of a virus is not proof that it is the cause of the severe symptoms that some people who test positive experience (but not all who test positive).

 

Finally, even if the test can detect a virus, and it is dangerous, we do not know what the rate of false positives is. And even a 1% false positive rate could produce 100,000 false positive results just in a city the size of Wuhan and could mean that a significant fraction of the positive test results being found are false positives.”

 

https://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Analysis of test sticks from surface testing in the Slovak Republic - confirmation of genocide.

The analysis was performed in the months November 2020 to March 2021 on test sticks in sets. SD Biosensor, Abbott and Nadal in an unnamed hospital laboratory from Bratislava, Slovakia. The test swabs were from the sets used in surface testing in Slovakia and in hospitals.

https://www.golokaproject.org/documentfiles/Analysis-of-test-sticks-from-surface-testing-in-the-Slovak-Republic.pdf

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

The FDA has, in an update on 10th June 2021, warned the public to stop using lateral flow tests manufactured by Innova. This is because the tests come with a high risk of producing false positive rates.

 

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/stop-using-innova-sars-cov-2-antigen-rapid-qualitative-test-fda-safety-communication

 

Quote

Date Issued: June 10, 2021

 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning the public to stop using the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test for diagnostic use. The FDA has significant concerns that the performance of the test has not been adequately established, presenting a risk to health. In addition, labeling distributed with certain configurations of the test includes performance claims that did not accurately reflect the performance estimates observed during the clinical studies of the tests.  Finally, the test has not been authorized, cleared, or approved by the FDA for commercial distribution or use in the United States, as required by law.

 

The Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test is also distributed under the names Innova COVID-19 Self-Test Kit (3T Configuration), Innova SARS-CoV-2-Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test (7T Configuration), and Innova SARS-CoV-2-Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test (25T Configuration).

 

On April 23, 2021, Innova Medical Group recalled their Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test. The FDA has identified this recall as a Class I recall, the most serious type of recall.

Recommendations for Test Users, Health Care Providers, and Testing Program Organizers

  • Stop using the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test.
    • Destroy the tests by placing them in the trash or
    • Return the tests to Innova using the FedEx return label that was included with the recall letter that Innova sent to customers.
  • Test users and caregivers: Talk to your health care provider if you think you were tested with the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test and you have concerns about your test results.
  • Health care providers: If the test was given less than two weeks ago, consider retesting your patients using a different SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic test if you suspect an inaccurate result. If testing was performed more than two weeks ago and there is no reason to suspect current SARS-CoV-2 infection, it is not necessary to retest.
  • Testing program organizers: Notify participants in your testing program to discontinue diagnostic use of the Innova test and to use an FDA-authorized test to continue testing. For listings of FDA-authorized tests, see:
  • Report any problems you experience with the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Test to the FDA, including suspected false results.

Device Description

The Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test claimed to determine if a person had an active COVID-19 infection. The test uses a nasal swab sample and test strip to detect specific proteins, called antigens, from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. If the nasal sample had SARS-CoV-2 antigens, a colored test line should have appeared on the test strip indicating a person may have COVID-19. If the nasal sample did not have SARS-CoV-2 antigens, a colored line should not have appeared on the test strip. The test has not been authorized, cleared, or approved by the FDA for distribution or use in the United States, and it has been recalled by Innova Medical Group, Inc.  

Potential Risk of False Results

The Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test claimed to determine if a person had an active COVID-19 infection using a nasal swab sample and test strip. The Innova Medical Group SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test, however, does not have authorization, clearance, or approval from the FDA. In addition, the FDA has significant concerns that the performance of the Innova Medical Group SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test device has not been adequately established, presenting a risk of false results.

  • False-negative results may lead to delayed diagnosis or inappropriate treatment of SARS-CoV-2, which may cause patient harm including serious illness and death. False-negative results can also lead to further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including when presumed negative patients are grouped into cohorts in healthcare, long-term care, and other facilities based on false test results.
  • False-positive results could lead to a delay in both the correct diagnosis and the initiation of an appropriate treatment for the actual cause of patient illness, which could be another life-threatening disease that is not SARS-CoV-2. False-positive results could also lead to further spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus when presumed positive patients are grouped into cohorts based on false test results.

To date, the FDA has not received reports of injuries or death associated with use of the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test.

FDA Actions

The FDA has classified the recall of this test as a Class I recall, the most serious type of recall. The FDA also has issued a warning letter to Innova Medical Group, Inc.

 

The FDA regularly monitors the marketing of unauthorized, unapproved or uncleared tests, including reports of problems with test performance or results, and is providing this information to help educate patients, caregivers, and health care providers and reduce the risk of false results.

 

The FDA will keep the public informed if significant new information becomes available.

 

The lateral flow tests used in the UK are also from Innova...

 

Indeed, TCW have been featuring Sonia Elijah's three part investigative report on the Innova tests exposing how they are highly inaccurate with debate ranging over their reliability. Furthermore, Innova is a start up company (based in California which is the state with the most personal liability protection for its directors) which was only set up in March 2020 yet was given pre-orders for their tests in huge numbers as early as September 2020.

 

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-innova-lateral-flow-tests-another-scandal-in-the-making-part-1/

 

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-innova-tests-another-covid-scandal-in-the-making-part-2/

 

Only the first two parts of the investigation have been published so far but it appears to be thorough and well researched.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

In light of the information within the post above, TCW's three part investigation into the Innova rapid antigen tests by Sonia Elijah has turned into a four part investigation.

 

Part three has now been published and, as it contains such good info, I will quote the whole article.

 

I have previously posted the package instructions referred to by Sonia Elijah within this thread - linked below.

 

 

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-innova-scandal-part-3-the-us-says-throw-the-tests-in-the-trash/

 

Quote

IN AN unanticipated announcement at the end of last week, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned the public to stop using the Innova lateral flow test. In the most stringent of terms, it stated: ‘The FDA has significant concerns that the performance of the test has not been adequately established, presenting a risk to health.’ 

 

It told anyone who has the test in their possession to destroy it by putting in the bin, or as the Americans say, the trash.

 

The Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test is the very same test that was correctly described that night in the BBC’s Newsnight‘s BBC iPlayer – Newsnight – 11/06/2021 report of this news as the ‘cornerstone’ of the British Government’s anti-Covid strategy. The FDA’s press release, they said, was ‘scathing and damning’ about the Innova test while Allyson Pollock, a public health doctor appearing on the programme, declared it unfit for purpose, adding for good measure that there is no evidence that mass-testing and ‘Test and Trace’ reduces transmission.

As I reported in Part 2 of my investigation, this is the test that was favoured by the UK above 120-plus other contenders for its Covid mass screening programme (initially called Moonshot but renamed NHS Test and Trace) after the operation had to shift from sole reliance on the flawed PCR test.

 

It is the test to which both Sir John Bell, Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford, and Susan Hopkins from Public Health England (PHE) gave their imprimatur.

 

It is the test for which the Department of Health (DHSC) committed hundreds of millions of UK taxpayer pounds to a Californian start-up company some six/seven weeks before the clinical evaluation overseen by Sir John Bell was published or the piloting of the finally chosen Innova test completed.

 

It is also the test that made one brand new California-based company the largest single financial beneficiary of UK Covid contracts, for which the Government has committed £3.2billion to date.

 

The FDA’s press release reported that some weeks earlier, on April 23, 2021, Innova Medical Group (IMG) had sent a medical recall letter to all those using the Innova test manufactured between September 1, 2020 and March 3, 2021 as a result of which at least 77,339 of the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test in the US were recalled. The FDA identified this recall as a Class I recall, the most serious type of recall.

 

Curiously, the same type of test used in the UK, not in the thousands but in the hundreds of millions, has not been recalled. Millions have been purchased by our government since the April 23 recall. Is the UK test any way different? There is nothing to suggest that it is or that the same basis for recall does not exist in Britain.

 

The FDA criticised: ‘Labelling distributed with certain configurations of the test includes performance claims that did not accurately reflect the performance estimates observed during the clinical studies of the tests’. It also stated that ‘the performance characteristics of the test have not been adequately established, presenting a risk to health.’ 

 

This was the conclusion (and the concern) articulated by other experts in the UK about the test within days of the PHE Porton Down evaluation publication early last November – expert criticism that the DHSC ignored, as I reported in Part 2.

 

In fact key limitations of the test were acknowledged by the manufacturer and are to be found in the original instructions for use of the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test. Namely that it was only ever intended for use in patients with Covid-19 symptoms (i.e. symptomatic patients) meaning that the Innova SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen test was never designed to screen the asymptomatic  but only to detect active infections (when symptoms are present).

 

The instructions say: ‘The SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test is . . . intended for the qualitative detection of nucleocapsid antigens from SARS-CoV-2 in human nasal swabs or throat swabs from individuals who are suspected of COVID-19 by their healthcare provider. within the first five days of the onset of symptoms.’ [Punctuation as in the leaflet.]

 

This of course makes a complete mockery of the UK government’s Test and Trace mass screening intention, and of their fundamental justification for buying 20million of these tests in October 2020 (prior to the test’s evaluation) and sundquent purchase of millions more, all with the main intention to catch infections in asymptomatic people (those showing no symptoms)!

 

The Innova tests, however, were repackaged for the NHS with a different version of the instructions, which stated (in the November 24, 2020 NHS version):

‘You can use this self-test kit if you have symptoms or if you are asymptomatic (you do not have symptoms).’

Alarmingly, the NHS instructions have been updated since then, with the removal of the referenced sentence above in the January 16, 2021 version.

 

The original Innova instructions also state that the test ‘is intended for use by trained clinical laboratory personnel . . . and individuals similarly trained in point of care settings.’

In the NHS Test and Trace version, the test is intended for use by any member of the public aged 12-plus.

Included in the original Innova instructions are the limitations of the procedure. These are omitted in the NHS version.

 

The Innova instructions say:

1.Clinical performance was evaluated with frozen samples, and test performance may be different with fresh samples.

2.Users should test specimens as quickly as possible after specimen collection.

3.Positive test results do not rule out co-infections with other pathogens.

4.Results from SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test should be correlated with the clinical history, epidemiological data, and other data available to the clinician evaluating the patient.

5.A false-negative test result may occur if the level of viral antigen in a sample is below the detection limit of the test or if the sample was collected or transported improperly; therefore, a negative test result does not eliminate the possibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

 

This disparity was picked up by the Daily Mail in January, which headlined its article: ‘Department of Health puts NHS branding on rapid Covid tests so it can get around manufacturer’s instructions that people should NOT swab themselves.’

 

Scandalously the government appear to have ignored this, spending further millions with Innova for school and home testing.

 

The Telegraph also noted a ‘confusion’ with the conflicting instructions for usereporting that the ‘Chinese-made lateral flow tests handed to millions of schoolchildren’ included the original manufacturer’s instructions inside the box. The paper said the ‘out of date’ instructions ‘erroneously’ stated that the tests were for use by people ‘suspected of Covid-19 by their healthcare provider’.

 

Had the Telegraph pursued their investigations in the way they should, they would have found that the original manufacturer (Xiamen Biotime Biotechnology sold through Innova) did not make a mistake.

 

The instructions were not out of date – the only factor that had changed was the Government’s mendacious ‘repurposing’ of the test to catch virus infections in asymptomatic individuals, which they chose – without evidence – to believe comprised in one of every three Covid carriers. 

 

The Telegraph article went on to state that the official guidelines are that ‘people with symptoms are supposed to get a PCR laboratory test, the results of which are reported automatically, triggering the contact tracing process’.

This still contradicts the NHS instructions which are that Innova test is to be used in both the asymptomatic and symptomatic.

 

The Telegraph quoted a Downing Street spokesman as saying that lateral flow tests had been ‘rigorously evaluated and we believe they are both accurate and incredibly useful in terms of being able to spotasymptomatic cases of the virus’. 

 

The truth is as Professor Allyson Pollock of Newcastle University told the paper: ‘The whole mass testing programme is confusing, chaotic and the antithesis of good public health practice.

‘If you do mass testing you need to do proper evaluation beforehand, which would identify problems like this.’

‘Lateral flow testing should have gone through the UK National Screening Committee for proper evaluation.’ 

 

So, who is responsible for these scandalous errors and this £3billion plus fiasco?

· The joint PHE and Oxford University’s evaluation led by Sir John Bell, was inexplicably quick to approve the Innova Test, leading the UK government to spend billions on another inaccurate test.

· The Department of Health changed the manufacturer’s original instructions for intended use, rebranding it as an NHS Covid-19 self-test kit with its very different version of instructions. The manufacturer was blamed for including ‘out of date’ and ‘erroneous’ instructions.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...