by Dr. Tim Coles
No 1 (Feb 2020)
In his classic novel
Nineteen Eighty-four, author
Eric Blair (better known as George Orwell),
famously laid out how a totalitarian
technocracy would look...
The phrase Orwellian
has justifiably become an utter cliché, but despite the familiar
territory it is worth looking at the aspect of the book that deals
with the Ministry of Truth and its employees, who were tasked
by the regime with "memory holing" history and rewriting
dictionaries ("newspeak") to reduced language and thus thought to
simplistic, binary concepts, such as people and unpeople.
Consider how the definition of "vaccine" has been altered in recent
years to appease the designers of mRNA technology.
Birmingham and Lambert
define vaccination as,
"the practice of
artificially inducing immunity." 1
A book with a
foreword written by
Bill Gates defines
vaccine-induced immunity as follows.
"The quality of […]
antibody responses, eg, their avidity or specificity, has been
identified as a determining factor of efficacy."
The authors continue:
requires the persistence of vaccine antibodies and/or the
generation of immune memory cells capable of rapid and effective
reactivation with subsequent microbial exposure." 2
But the purported
Covid-19 vaccines stimulate
antibodies for months at a time, requiring multiple boosters.
By a definition endorsed
products are not vaccines despite Gates's use of the term...
definition of vaccine has been memory-holed.
Putting aside the changes
in definition confluent with technological developments, the former
definition of vaccine offered by Merriam-Webster was,
"a preparation… that
is administered to produce or artificially increase immunity to
a particular disease." 3
The Covid-era definition
"a preparation that
is administered… to stimulate the body's immune response."
Notice that the threshold
has been lowered from increasing immunity to merely
stimulating an immune response.
The same big tech that
suppresses web search results promotes articles that support the
In this case, we are
being told outright lies:
that mRNA is not
new, untested technology
that vaccines can
indeed be developed within months, not years
that humans are
not experimental subjects
injectable products are safe... 4
WHEN A TEST IS NOT A
Polymerase chain reactions (PCR)
work by amplifying nucleic acids to detect virus particles.
In the late-1980s, virologists were concerned that PCR tests were
contaminated by two sources:
When controlled and
uncontrolled PCR tests were compared, the authors of one study found
high rates of false-positives. 5
A decade later, another study searching for respiratory
adenoviruses (Ad) in humans had a 94% efficacy rate when using
primers for Ad7 proteins called hexons.
But when the primers were
not included, the results were much less effective.
for enzyme immunoassays and time-resolved fluroimmunoassys were
between 53 and 46%... 6
Ten years on,
Applied Biosystems produced the
TaqMan real-time PCR (RT-PCR) which detects viral and bacterial
particles via processes called Plus/Minus and Allelic
When testing the
Plus/Minus to detect Escherichia coli,
"an inordinately high
proportion of false-positive signals was observed."
require template controls. 7
In one 2015 study using
assays, PCR test estimation was over 40%. 8
The most common SARS-CoV-2 detector is the Nucleic Acid
Amplification Test RT-PCR.
"[N]one of the tests
have sufficient clinical sensitivity to detect virus during the
first several days after infection, nor are they 100% sensitive
at the time of peak infectiveness." 9
Recall the late-'80s PCR
test problems mentioned above.
In 2020, the same issues
plagued the Covid tests:
including contamination during sampling (eg, a swab accidentally
touches a contaminated glove or surface), contamination by PCR
amplicons, contamination of reagents, sample
cross-contamination, and cross-reactions with other viruses or
genetic material could also be responsible for false-positive
In addition, the duration
of viral infection affects PCR detection ability.
The longer the
infection, the lower the chances of detection...
One kit had an average
77% efficacy (depending on the assays) up to four days.
The kit's efficacy
declined to as low as 38% after 10 days of infection.
Birmingham and Claudia Stein, "Global Burden of Disease" in
Barry R. Bloom and Paul-Henri Lambert (2003) The Vaccine
Book, Elsevier, 3
Immunology" in Stanley A. Plotkin, Walter A.
Orenstein and Paul A. Offit (eds.) (2013, 6th) Vaccines,
P.A. Kitchin, Z.
Szotyori, C. Fromholc and N. Almond (1990) "Avoidance of PCR
false positives," Nature, 344: 201
R. Räty, M.
Kleemola, K. Melén, M. Stenvik and I. Julkunen (1999)
"Efficacy of PCR and other diagnostic methods for the
detection of respiratory adenoviral infections," Journal of
Medical Virology, 59(1):66-72
Nowrouzian, Ingegerd Adlerberth, and Agnes E. Wold (2009)
"High frequency of false-positive signals in a real-time PCR-based
'Plus/Minus' assay," APMIS, 117(1):68-72
David Svec, Ales
Tichopad, Vendula Novosadova, Michael W. Pfaffl, and Mikael
Kubistaa (2015) "How good is a PCR efficiency estimate:
Recommendations for precise and robust qPCR efficiency
assessments," Biomolecular Detection and Quantification, 3:
Braunstein, Lori Schwartz, Pamela Hymel, and Jonathan
Fielding (2021) "False Positive Results With SARS-CoV-2
RT-PCR Tests and How to Evaluate a RT-PCR-Positive Test for
the Possibility of a False Positive Result," Journal of
Occupational Environmental Medicine, 63(3): e159-62
Vladyslav Nikolayevskyy, and Francis Drobniewski (2020)
"False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and
costs," Lancet, 8(12): 1167-68