Updated: Nov 17, 2021
Dear Bernard Jenkin,
Thank you very much for your response letter to me, delivered via your researcher Max Thilo. I initially sent a similar letter to this one to him, but heard no reply. I imagine you have been quite busy.
I understand more of the government's position now, and the reasons for their decisions. It is not my intention to wilfully or gratuitously adopt the role of a gadfly in relation to that, but on reading your letter I was left with a few more thoughts, and a couple of queries.
I understand that respiratory viruses, such as this suspicious 'flu' (which can be easily treated early at home with Ivermectin and Vitamin D/C & Zinc, or Hydroxychloroquine, at a stretch), manifest in the populace more quickly during the winter months. It is well known that the single WHO study published in The Lancet medical journal and used to disprove the efficacy and safety of HCQ was fraudulent as they were found to have deliberately administered overdose-level doses to their patients. With regard to that, I wondered if mistakes could certainly be made elsewhere.
The late Kary Mullis' PCR-tests have been shown to be inadequate for their purpose, and indeed now withdrawn from the market by the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html.
As Kary Mullis himself said: "PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.": https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/05/pcr-inventor-it-doesnt-tell-you-that-you-are-sick/.
It has been made public that at a high enough cycle threshold (35 or more), near anything would provide a positive test, as demonstrated repeatedly by the biochemist John Magufuli of Tanzania before his untimely death: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-tanzania-idUSKBN22F0KF.
A Chinese study found the same patient could get two different results from the same test on the same day: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32219885/. In 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 “The accuracy of the tests is only 30-50%”.
A Portuguese court ruled that PCR tests were “unreliable” and should not be used for diagnosis: https://www-dgsi-pt.translate.goog/jtrl.nsf/33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec/79d6ba338dcbe5e28025861f003e7b30?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=pt&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=nui,elem.
Still, the FDA approved up to 40 cycles, with some evidence suggesting 45: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html.
The MIQE PCR guidelines state: “[CT] values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,”: https://www.gene-quantification.de/miqe-bustin-et-al-clin-chem-2009.pdf and Dr Fauci himself even admitted anything over 35 cycles is almost never culturable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE.
Dr Juliet Morrison, virologist at the University of California, Riverside, told the New York Times: "Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive…I’m shocked that people would think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positive…A more reasonable cut-off would be 30 to 35″: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html. 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 “covid cases” in some states by as much as 90%.
Germany’s Robert Koch Institute says nothing over 30 cycles is likely to be infectious: https://web.archive.org/web/20200925013250/https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/InfAZ/N/Neuartiges_Coronavirus/Vorl_Testung_nCoV.html.
Even the World Health Organization has admitted that PCR tests produce false positives: https://web.archive.org/web/20210120083427/https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users and https://www.who.int/news/item/20-01-2021-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users-2020-05.
In March 2020, studies done in Italy were suggesting 50-75% of positive Covid tests had no symptoms. Another UK study from August 2020 found as much as 86% of “Covid patients” experienced no viral symptoms at all: https://www.repubblica.it/salute/medicina-e-ricerca/2020/03/16/news/coronavirus_studio_il_50-75_dei_casi_a_vo_sono_asintomatici_e_molto_contagiosi-251474302/ and https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201009/86-percent-of-the-UKs-COVID-19-patients-have-no-symptoms.aspx.