The CDC and FDA Acknowledge That Its Policies Are Based on a “Contrived” Model Rather Than a Virus

The CDC may withdraw its request to the FDA for an Emergency Use Authorization of PCR tests to be replaced by a PCR test with a better marker, which it had submitted to the FDA. From February 2020 to the present, the CDC/FDA stated there was a flaw with the PCR test, which has been used to detect COVID. The CDC also cited records confirming that it did not have a SARS-CoV-2 virus specimen when it devised the PCR test and that it “contrived” samples of the virus. As a result, it has no evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists! Since the beginning of the pandemic, the FDA has granted emergency approval to 59 distinct PCR tests, according to the FDA document, and it is impossible to compare them to a relia.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has released a document that is brimming with alarming revelations.

Join The True Defender Telegram Chanel Here: https://t.me/TheTrueDefender

“CDC will withdraw its request for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, which was first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 exclusively, from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) after December 31, 2021. The CDC is giving clinical laboratories this advance warning so they can choose and implement one of the several FDA-approved alternatives.”

Many feel this suggests the CDC is abandoning the PCR test as a method of “detecting the virus.” The CDC isn’t saying anything like that.

They claim that PCR technology will be employed in the future, but that the test will be replaced with a better “reference sample.” A more effective marker. A more appropriate aim. An RNA fragment purportedly generated from SARS-CoV-2.

The CDC/FDA are admitting that there has been a PROBLEM with the PCR test that has been used to detect the virus since February 2020—right up until now.

In other words, the PCR test-based “COVID cases” in the millions and millions are all suspicious. Actually, such remark is a bit exaggerated. Every exam is repeated.

The CDC document refers to an FDA publication titled “SARS-CoV-2 Reference Panel Comparative Data” to back up this claim. Here’s a great quote:

“Clinical specimens [of the virus] were not readily available to developers of IVDs [in vitro diagnostics] to detect SARS-CoV-2 during the early months of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As a result, the FDA approved IVDs for analytical and clinical performance evaluation based on existing data from artificial samples derived from a variety of SARS-CoV-2 material sources (for example, gene specific RNA, synthetic RNA, or whole genome viral RNA).

While validation using these contrived specimens provided a measure of confidence in test performance at the start of the pandemic, it is impossible to compare the performance of various contrived specimen tests because each test validated performance using samples derived from different gene specific, synthetic, or genomic nucleic acid sources.”

When we developed the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test at the CDC, we didn’t have a SARS-CoV-2 viral specimen on hand. Yes, it’s incredible, isn’t it? That’s the test we’ve been using the whole time. As a result, we CONTRIVED viral samples.

We made it up. We lied to you. We drew up [created] synthetic gene sequences and said they had to be close to the SARS-CoV-2 sequence, despite having no understanding what we were doing because, once again, we didn’t have an actual specimen of the virus. WE DID NOT HAVE PROOF THAT SARS-CoV-2 EXISTED.

Since the start of the (false) pandemic, the FDA has granted emergency permission to 59 distinct PCR tests, according to this remarkable FDA document. 59. “…it is not possible to evaluate the performance of multiple tests that used contrived specimens exactly because each test confirmed performance using samples taken from distinct gene specific, synthetic, or genomic sources,” says the study.


www.needtoknow.newswww.truth4freedom.wordpress.com www.needtoknow.news

Margaret Taylor

Experienced communications professional with 10 years of experience in international journalism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

For continue reading on the site please disable the Ad-block