Connect with us

General

A Film About An Over-Unity (Free) Energy Machine Just Premiered At The Vienna International Film Festival

Avatar

Published

on

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

“Much to my surprise, these concepts have been proven in hundreds of laboratories around the world, but have not really seen the light of day.” – Dr. Brian O’Leary, former NASA Astronaut and Princeton Physics Professor (source)

advertisement - learn more

Collective Evolution has had the pleasure of communicating with Toby Grotz, an electrical engineer who has researched new energy technologies since 1973, over the past couple of years. He has worked in the aerospace industry, was involved with space shuttle and Hubble telescope testing in a solar simulator and space environment test facility, and has been on both sides of the argument when it comes to exploring energy generation. He has been involved in exploring oil and gas and geothermal resources, as well as coal, natural gas, and nuclear power-plants. He is very passionate about new energy generation, and recognizes that the time to make the transition is now.

--> Read: A rare mineral can remove harmful toxins & heavy metals with just 30 seconds a day. Click here to learn more.

He is also a close friend and colleague of Paramahamsa Tewari, electrical engineer and former Executive Director of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India. Tewari’s background includes engineering project management for construction of nuclear power stations.

In Austria, a docudrama about Tesla’s vision and the work of paramahamsa Tewari has just been released.The pair can be seen together in the film, and you can also view pictures of the machine, which has been built and independently tested as high as 250% efficiency. You can find out more about the machine by visiting Tewari’s website HERE. There is more on the film below.

Tewari is the real deal. His work has been described as “majestic” by John Archibald Wheeler, a famous American theoretical physicist, among others.

over unity

advertisement - learn more

The implications of this are far-reaching and have been written about extensively within the field of theoretical physics by researchers all over the world. Today, we are beginning to see that these concepts are not just theoretical, but instead very practical. In fact, back in 1984, a researcher at Hughes laboratory by the name of Robert L. Forward demonstrated something remarkable — the Casimir Effect, which is a small attractive force that acts between two close parallel uncharged conducting plates. He suggested that two metal plates held apart in a vacuum could trap the waves, creating vacuum energy that could attract or repel the plates. As the boundaries of a region move, the variation in vacuum energy (zero-point energy) leads to the Casimir effect. Recent research conducted at Harvard University, Vrije University in Amsterdam, and elsewhere, has proved the Casimir effect to be correct.

A paper published in the journal Foundations of Physics Letters in August 2001 shows that the principles of general relativity can be used to explain the principles of the motionless electromagnetic generator (MEG). This device takes electromagnetic energy from curved space-time and outputs about twenty times more energy than inputted. The paper demonstrates that electromagnetic energy can be extracted from the vacuum and used to power working devices such as the MEG used in the experiment.

Another astonishing paper titled “Extracting energy and heat from the vacuum,” by the same researchers, this time in conjunction with Daniel C. Cole, Ph.D. and Associate Professor at Boston University in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, was published in the same journal.

Relatively recent proposals have been made in the literature for extracting energy and heat from electromagnetic zero-point radiation via the use of the Casimir force. The basic thermodynamics involved in these proposals is analyzed and clarified here, with the conclusion that yes, in principle, these proposals are correct. Technological considerations for actual application and use are not examined here, however.

HERE is a video of physicist Harold E. Puthoff explaining the reality of ‘free energy.’ He is an American physicist who earned his Ph.D. from Stanford University and the director of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin. His research includes theoretical and experimental projects in electrodynamics, quantum physics, gravitation, cosmology, energy research, and more. He has published over thirty technical papers in the areas of electron-beam devices, lasers, and quantum physics.

Out of The Void & The Second Law of Thermodynamics

“While the world has been distracted by hula hoops, pet rocks, dot coms, fiber optics and the latest new App to to hypnotize the masses, engineers, and inventors have quietly been at work trying to understand what Tesla meant when he said, ‘Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe.’  ” Toby Grotz (source)

Over-unity generators are rarely successful. Experts have yet to find a machine that works all the time, in any place, without any flaws, but it seems Tewari’s machine has done the trick. Some physicists will lose their mind at the very suggestion of an ‘Aether,’ even though they now believe space is filled with the Higgs Field. How can they do this while contemplating dark matter, super strings, and other variables that cannot even be seen? He can we expect to find the ‘God’ particle if the very ‘thing’ that makes up our universe is unseen?

Many will cite the second law of thermodynamics to refute the concept of over-unity, but often fail to realize that the second law of thermodynamics must be modified to account for the fact that space is not empty.

By eliminating back-torque through innovative magnetic circuit design, a reactionless AC generator has been built and tested. The Tewari Reactionless Generator (RLG) is now profiled in a new movie that was released last year in Austria. The film debuted at the Vienna Film Festival.

You can view the film trailer HERE, and read the synopsis of the film here,

Movie Review From Toby Grotz 

On October 28th, 2015, the documentary film Out of the Void premiered at the Vienna International Film Festival. As far as I know, this is the first time a film of this nature has been presented to an international audience at a film festival. The film is in part a docudrama about the attempt to go beyond the known frontiers of science and to literally go into the void to extract energy.

It begins with film footage from the 1920’s of the Austrian Researcher Karl Schappeller during the time he attempted to design and build a device to harvest energy from the Aether. Schappeller did not succeed but his writings and work have been kept alive by a dedicated team of researchers from the UK and Austria who found and preserved drawings and documents found behind a stairway in the castle that served as his research lab.

The actors and production crew including, video, sound, editing, and set design succeed in recreating the work and vision of Schappeller. Interviews with local residents, now in their 80’s and 90’s are interlaced throughout the film adding a touch of authenticity to a man who was once the subject of wide press coverage and who became a local legend. The castle survives to this day and is available to the public for meetings and events.

The film jumps to the future and features a demonstration of a machine invented by Professor Claus Turtur from Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences in Wolfenbüttel, Germany. The demonstration takes place in a wooden shack adjacent to the devastation of a coal strip mine. It is a high-voltage static apparatus slowly turning in a static electric field. It has been shown that the mechanical output is substantially over unity. It is obvious at this point that the laws of physics must be modified. The film then covers the current research, experiments and theories of Paramahamsa Tewari and documents tests of his Reactionless Generator filmed at his lab in India.

In his Space Vortex Theory (SVT), Mr. Tewari postulates and then proves by deductive reasoning the fundamental nature of a space and matter. The void makes up the interior of the electron and is created from the Aether as Nikola Tesla described when he said, “All perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles all things and phenomena.”

Tewari has proven the existence of the Aether (ether) using Space Vortex Theory to build machines with efficiencies greater than one. Efficiencies as high as 2.38 have been measured.  A more detailed description of the system tests is available at the links below. This discovery is a verification of his theories and those of other physicists such as Descartes, Maxwell, Helmholtz, and Kelvin. These physicists have pointed out that space is not empty as has been taught for over one hundred years.

Tewari’s discovery requires that the laws of physics as now taught must be modified to recognize that space is not empty and that the substance of space is the origin of matter as described in the Upanishads and known by the ancient seers of India for more than 10,000 years.

As Tesla also explained: Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe. Paramahamsa Tewari, an electrical engineer and retired Executive Director of The Nuclear Power Corporation of India has built, demonstrated, and has had third party verification of a generator that produces more power than it consumes thus affirming Tesla’s vision.

Out of the Void is scheduled to be released to theaters in Austria in March.  The film is being submitted to other film festivals and distribution in other countries is under consideration.

The next showing of the film will be at the Diagonale Festival in Graz, which takes place from March 8th to March 13th. Please see the trailer. Sit down, turn up the sound and buckle your mental, emotional, and physical seat belts. The English version is here. The German version is here. Scroll down past the description to see the trailer and click on the play button in the middle of the picture.

Announcement of the film debut. Official Release: March 11 – 2016. Vienna, Stadtkino/Künstlerhaus on the evening of March 11th. Saturday, March 12th it will be in Linz, Moviemento-Cinema. March 14th to 16th it will be in Salzburg and Innsbruck.

Reactionless Generator Update

A new version of the RLG is under construction and is expected to be tested by the end of the year. Details to follow, as Mr. Tewari makes them available. More information is at the Out of the Void website. From the gallery, scroll through using the arrow on the right for scenes from the film. See also the Austrian Films website.

More Information on the Reactionless Generator can be found by following these links.

1. Test Report
2. Economic Times of India Report
3. www.Tewari.org

Why we need this now.  Please review the articles I have posted on www.MotherEarthNews.com and pass on these thoughts as you see fit.

1. We Only Have One Chance To Get It Right: Transition to Renewable Energy
2. Why Life Exists on Earth: A New Perspective on Carbon Emissions
3. Criminal Racketeering by the Fossil Fuel Industry Suppresses an Industry And Accelerates Climate Change

References: Tesla Universe PDF.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Are Lockdowns Affecting Children?

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 2 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    We spoke to activist and mother Stephanie Sibbio about her co-creation of an organization called 100 Million Moms which seeks to empower women to stand up against injustics.

  • Reflect On:

    Are we choosing virus mitigation methods that are short sighted and harmful over the long term? Are they more harmful than the virus itself?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The potential downsides of lockdowns during pandemics have been explored quite a bit – and the truth is the scientific community is quite divided on whether it’s the right move. On one hand a case can be made for effectiveness of lockdowns, but at quite a cost, while on the other hand many have shown lockdowns to be ineffective in slowing spread. How a study is organized and conducted can also dramatically change results.

Interestingly a study in Nature showed that “less disruptive and costly NPIs can be as effective as more intrusive, drastic, ones (for example, a national lockdown).” This essentially states that governments could choose effective ways to mitigate virus spread effectively without inducing unwanted and long term side effects on society as a whole via lockdowns – regardless, lockdowns are still widely being used.

One question we might have is, what about factors that are not so easy to measure right away? Things like long term psychological damage of being constantly stressed, out of touch with community and friends, and confined to our homes. What affects are children experiencing in their development and learning? We may not know exactly for quite some time.

I felt inspired to speak to a mother who has not only be asking this question with regards to her child, but who has decided to do something to push back against government measures, like lockdowns, that many citizens and scientist don’t agree with.

Along with another activist, Stephanie Sibbio created a movement called 100 Million Moms who, as their Instagram states, are a rights-based movement empowering moms all over the world to stand up against injustice. We advocate for natural health & medical freedom.

I spoke to Stephanie about how she has seen lockdowns affecting children, and her story in co-creating 100 Million Moms. In this discussion you will learn how you can get involved as well.

Further Discussion

A large meta analysis on mask wearing has shown that children are having physiological issues and learning challenges with prolonged mask wearing.

A group of doctors did a panel worth considering that discusses the potential harms of lockdowns and the science that supports the idea.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Yankee Stadium & Citi Field To Seat Fans In Vaccinated & Unvaccinated Sections

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 6 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Fully vaccinated spectators will also be able to attend Yankees and Mets games in sections designated for 100% capacity starting this month. Unvaccinated people will have to sit in a separate section and maintain social distancing.

  • Reflect On:

    How safe and effective is the vaccine? Is mass vaccination justified? Are mandatory measures like this scientifically sound and justified? If so, why censor so many doctors and scientists who say otherwise? What's really going on here?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

What Happened: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has announced that Mets and Yankees games will allow full capacity in some areas of their ballparks. Starting May 19th, both fields will have separate sections set aside for those who are vaccinated and those who are not. In the vaccinated sections, social distancing restrictions will be no more, however fans will be required to wear a mask. Full capacity seating will be available for vaccinated people while 33 percent of seats will be available to the unvaccinated but they will have to social distance. In the future, tickets will be marked vaccinated or unvaccinated.

Why This Is Important: We are creeping into a world that seems to be pushing hard for the loss of certain rights and freedoms for people who choose not to be vaccinated for COVID. It’s still uncertain how things will rollout, but many countries are already starting to implement, or have announced that they will implement vaccine passports, like Canada for example.

It’s still unclear whether or not the unvaccinated will have the option to travel to certain places, and if they are allowed, it seems they will most likely be subjected to test requirements and/or a mandatory quarantining period.

Scientists and doctors who oppose these measures, as well as oppose lockdowns and mandatory mask measures, have been ignored, ridiculed and in many cases censored during this pandemic, no matter how much research and evidence they present. Scientific critique seems to have been halted, and any discussion that discourages or points out scientific flaws in the mandatory measures that are being put in place is not allowed on big tech platforms like social meida. Furthermore, mainstream media has gone so far as to call anything that opposes the mainstream narrative a “conspiracy theory.”

 An article in The Spectator provides one of countless examples of how important discussion is being shut down:

This week representatives from Facebook and Twitter were brought before parliament to discuss their firms’ censorship of discussion around Covid. Two particularly pertinent cases were raised — though there are many more. The first was a statement by Martin Kulldorff, a professor at the Harvard Medical School and one of the key authors of the anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration. His tweet last month, suggesting that not everyone needed to be vaccinated, particularly those who had previously been infected, was labelled ‘misleading’ by Twitter. Tweeters were rendered unable to interact with it and were instructed that ‘health officials recommend a vaccine for most people’. Similarly, in November, Facebook labelled a Spectator article on the efficacy of masks, penned by Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson of Oxford University’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, as ‘false information’.

Here we have two social-media giants effectively intervening in scientific debate. Kulldorff, Heneghan and Jefferson are not snarling conspiracy theorists or bluffers wading into things they don’t understand. They are dissenting scientists and medics who hold positions at esteemed institutions. On what basis could Facebook or Twitter simply declare their arguments null and void?

The point is, many people do not agree with the mainstream narrative around COVID that is being force fed to the public. There is a lot of evidence out there supporting the idea that those who want to get vaccinated should, and those who don’t shouldn’t be required to, and that vaccinated individuals who are not susceptible and vulnerable to COVID may not make much of a difference when it comes to the transmission of the virus. This perspective is, according to many, completely false, ridiculous and has no backing when in fact, that’s not true at all.

I recently published an article going into detail as to why so many people are hesitant to get vaccinated. You can access that here.

Whether the COVID-19 vaccine will be effective is something we’ll know in time. A recent consensus statement from a group of renowned infectious disease clinicians observed that vaccine programs have proven ill-suited to the fast-changing viruses underlying these illnesses, with efficacy ranging from 19% to 54% in the past few years. (source) Given COVID appears to be a fast changing virus, this may be something to consider.

In a 2014 analysis in the Oregon Law Review by New York University (NYU) legal scholars Mary Holland and Chase E. Zachary (who also has a Princeton-conferred doctorate in chemistry), the authors claim that 60 years of compulsory vaccine policies “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.” This is one of multiple reasons why so many suggest voluntary choice as opposed to vaccine mandates.

Further, many experts in the field have argued that the clinical trials for COVID vaccines did not actually show a 95% efficacy rate.

Below is a screen shot from a presentation by Viral immunologist, Professor at the University of Guelph, and vaccine expert Dr. Bryan Bridle, who has explained several concerns regarding the rollout of COVID vaccines. You can read more about that in detail here.

 

Final thoughts: People are extremely polarized in their beliefs right now, so much so that even talking about this subject is hard to do with family and friends who have an opposite point of view. Sometimes I wonder if those who support mandating vaccines for schools, sporting events, travel and more would support mandatory vaccines for going outside.

Is it strange to imagine that one day large support could gather for isolating the unvaccinated in lockdown facilities for life? I doubt that would happen, but how far can mandates be pushed and supported by the people? This is why it’s important to look at and consider evidence that contradicts what you believe in.

At the end of the day, more important than being right and wrong is to see from the perspective of another and be able to understand why they have come to the conclusions they have. In many cases, it is in fact based on evidence. When things are so controversial and are not as black and white as mainstream media makes them out to be, should freedom of choice not always remain? Why is one perspective being heard and marketed to the masses, while the other is being completely ridiculed and censored? What is going on here?

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

CDC Specifies PCR Test Cycle Threshold For Vaccinated Individuals: What Does This Mean?

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 17 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The CDC is and will be collecting samples from COVID tests of vaccinated individuals to try and determine if the virus can breakthrough the protection of the vaccine. In doing so the CDC has specified a cycle threshold for PCR tests.

  • Reflect On:

    Why a cycle threshold suddenly? Why not one prior to the rollout of vaccines? How many false positives have we seen as a result of no prior cycle threshold? Will PCR tests of the unvaccinated have this new cycle threshold?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The CDC is monitoring COVID-19 “vaccine breakthrough” cases at the moment. This means that those who are fully vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine can still become infected. According to the CDC, “a small percentage of people who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 will get sick and some may be hospitalized or die from COVID-19.”

Throughout this pandemic, the tests used to identify “positive” COVID-19 cases has been the reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, which can detect the virus in nasal swabs (RT-PCR). The PCR test is not actually designed to identify active infectious disease, instead, it identifies genetic material, be it partial, alive, or even dead.  PCR amplifies this material in samples to find traces of COVID-19.

The CDC is requiring that clinical specimens for sequencing should have an RT-PCR Ct value ≤28 when conducting tests for vaccinated individuals. “Ct” refers to cycle threshold.

According to Public Health Ontario,

The cycle threshold (Ct) value is the actual number of cycles it takes for the PCR test to detect the virus. It indicates an estimate of how much virus was likely in the sample to start with – not the actual amount. If the virus is found in a low number of cycles (Ct value under 30), it means that the virus was easier to find in sample and that the sample started out with a large amount of the virus. Think about it like the zoom button on your computer, if you only have to zoom in a little (zoom at 110%), it means that item was big to start with. If you have to zoom a lot (zoom at 180%), it means that the item was small to start with.

Why This Is Important: It’s been difficult to find what PCR Ct value tests have been using during this pandemic, and it’s important because at a value at 35 or more for example, an individual is more likely to test “positive” when they are not infected and/or do not even have the ability to transmit. This is commonly known as a “false positive.”

There are multiple studies showing that the number of “cycles” performed by PCR to amplify the genetic sample is directly correlated with infectiousness. The more cycles needed to get positivity from a sample, the less viral replication, or “positivity” for lack of a better word, the sample shows.

For example, an article published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that among positive PCR samples with a cycle count over 35, only 3 percent of the samples showed viral replication. The cycle number is associated with the chances of infectiousness, yet this has never really been available to the patient nor the public. Most people don’t even know about it. The study examined 3790 positive samples with known CT values to see whether they harbored viable virus, indicating the patients were likely infectious. La Scola and his colleagues found that 70% of samples with CT values of 25 or below could be cultured, compared with less than 3% of the cases with CT values above 35. Cultured basically refers to the ability of the sample to find the virus and determine an infection.

This could be interpreted as,

“if someone is tested by PCR as positive when a threshold of 35 cycles or higher is used (as is the case in most laboratories in Europe & the US), the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, the probability that said result is a false positive is 97%.” (source)

According to Stanford Medical Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, PCR samples with a cycle count over 35 is a common lab occurrence. This means that if during this pandemic this was the case, the number of false positives could have been over 90 percent, meaning the vast majority of positive cases weren’t really positive. It means the number of positive “cases” were not an accurate picture of how many people were actually infectious and capable of transmitting the virus. This was and still remains a concern, because “cases” all over the world are being used to set health policy.

Bhattacharya explains in his article,

Dr. Anthony Fauci himself told This Week in Virology in July, “If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-competent are minuscule.” Why then has our national testing standard never reflected this? PCR providers should work with other labs to perform a random viral culture on those who received positive results, to validate their tests in terms of being an indicator of infectiousness. Other states should emulate Florida in requiring laboratories to report cycle times to providers and to public health officials so they can provide better advice to patients and make more nuanced decisions about mandatory quarantine orders.

The World Health Organization (WHO) didn’t properly address this issue, it seems, until nearly a year into the pandemic, when they put a notice on their website. They did however already make it clear that WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. That being said, I still couldn’t find what cycle threshold was being used in any part of the world, you would think this type of information wouldn’t be so hard to find?

An article published in September of 2020 in Sciencemag also brings up this issue and explains it quite well:

Ever since the coronavirus pandemic began, battles have raged over testing: Which tests should be given, to whom, and how often? Now, epidemiologists and public health experts are opening a new debate. They say testing centers should report not just whether a person is positive, but also a number known as the cycle threshold (CT) value, which indicates how much virus an infected person harbors.

Advocates point to new research indicating that CT values could help doctors flag patients at high risk for serious disease. Recent findings also suggest the numbers could help officials determine who is infectious and should therefore be isolated and have their contacts tracked down. CT value is an imperfect measure, advocates concede. But whether to add it to test results “is one of the most pressing questions out there,” says Michael Mina, a physician and epidemiologist at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Standard tests identify SARS-CoV-2 infections by isolating and amplifying viral RNA using a procedure known as the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which relies on multiple cycles of amplification to produce a detectable amount of RNA. The CT value is the number of cycles necessary to spot the virus; PCR machines stop running at that point. If a positive signal isn’t seen after 37 to 40 cycles, the test is negative. But samples that turn out positive can start out with vastly different amounts of virus, for which the CT value provides an inverse measure. A test that registers a positive result after 12 rounds, for a CT value of 12, starts out with more than 10 million times as much viral genetic material as a sample with a CT value of 35.

But the same sample can give different CT values on different testing machines, and different swabs from the same person can give different results. “The CT value isn’t an absolute scale,” says Marta Gaglia, a virologist at Tufts University. That makes many clinicians wary, Mina says. “Clinicians are cautious by nature,” Mina says. “They say, ‘If we can’t rely on it, it’s not reliable.’” In an August letter in Clinical Infectious Diseases, members of the College of American Pathologists urged caution in interpreting CT values.

Nevertheless, Mina, Gaglia, and others argue that knowing whether CT values are high or low can be highly informative. “Even with all the imperfections, knowing the viral load can be extremely powerful,” Mina says.

Early studies showed that patients in the first days of infection have CT values below 30, and often below 20, indicating a high level of virus; as the body clears the coronavirus, CT values rise gradually. More recent studies have shown that a higher viral load can profoundly impact a person’s contagiousness and reflect the severity of disease.

They are now specifying CT values for vaccinated individuals. It’s nice to see that the CDC is specifying cycle threshold, as mentioned above, for vaccinated individuals. It simply makes the detection of “positive” cases much more accurate and, as explained above, the chances of a false positive far are less when doing so. But the concern is, the testing of vaccinated individuals with this cycle threshold is less likely to reveal false positives, yet prior to the rollout of the vaccine there is reason to believe that the cycle threshold was 35 or higher, as mentioned earlier in the article. Why all of a sudden change it for vaccinated individuals? Does this mean that those who are unvaccinated will still be tested at a cycle threshold that is more likely return a false positive? Does this mean that unvaccinated individuals are likely to test positive more so than vaccinated ones, not as a result of the test but rather the cycle threshold used?

It’s interesting to think about how simple adjustments of the PCR test could either increase positive cases, or decrease them. This has been an issue for quite some time. For example, earlier on in the pandemic a Portuguese appeals court ruled against the Azores Regional Health Authority, declaring the quarantining of four individuals was unlawful. One of them tested positive for COVID using a PCR test, and the other three were deemed to be high risk due to exposure, and as a result, the regional health authority forced them to undergo isolation. The appeal court heard scientific arguments from several scientists and doctors who made the case for the lack of reliability of the PCR tests in detecting the COVID-19 virus and as a result the decision was overturned.

Here’s study showing that recovered patients who test negative and are non-infectious can still come up positive for COVID-19  repeatedly in the following months. These are neither new cases nor infectious ones needing quarantine but could be incorrectly counted as such.

This concern was also raised in an article published in The Lancet medical journal titled “Clarifying the evidence of SARS-CoC-2 antigen rapid tests in public health responses to COVID-19.” 

In the Lancet article, the authors explain that most people infected with COVID are contagious for approximately one week, and that “specimens are generally not found to contain culture-positive (potentially contagious) virus beyond day 9 after the onset of symptoms, with most transmission occurring before day 5.” They go on to explain:

This timing fits with the observed patterns of virus transmission (usually 2 days before to 5 days after symptom onset), which led public health agencies to recommend a 10-day isolation period. The sort window of transmissibility contrasts with a median 22-33 days of PCR positivity (longer with severe infections and someone shorter among asymptomatic individuals). This suggests that 50-75% of the time an individual is PCR positive, they are likely to be post-infectious.

This means that 50-75 percent of the time, just because an individual is PCR positive does not mean they have the virus or can transmit, and this is for what seems to be someone who most likely had positive. This is not referring to false positives.

Once SARS-CoV-2 replication has been controlled by the immune system, RNA levels detectable by PCR on respiratory secretions fall to very low levels when individuals are much less likely to infect others. The remaining RNA copies can take weeks, or occasionally months, to clear, during which time PCR remains positive.

They explain:

However, for public health measures, another approach is needed. Testing to help slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 asks not whether someone has RNA in their nose from earlier infection, but whether they are infectious today. It is a net loss to the health, social, and economic wellbeing of communities if post-infectious individuals test positive and isolate for 10 days. In our view, current PCR testing is therefore not the appropriate gold standard for evaluating a SARS-CoV-2 public health test.

An article published in the British Medical Journal explains:

It’s also unclear to what extent people with no symptoms transmit SARS-CoV-2. The only test for live virus is viral culture. PCR and lateral flow tests do not distinguish live virus. No test of infection or infectiousness is currently available for routine use. As things stand, a person who tests positive with any kind of test may or may not have an active infection with live virus, and may or may not be infectious.

The relations between viral load, viral shedding, infection, infectiousness, and duration of infectiousness are not well understood. In a recent systematic review, no study was able to culture live virus from symptomatic participants after the ninth day of illness, despite persistently high viral loads in quantitative PCR diagnostic tests. However, cycle threshold (Ct) values from PCR tests are not direct measures of viral load and are subject to error.

Searching for people who are asymptomatic yet infectious is like searching for needles that appear and reappear transiently in haystacks, particularly when rates are falling. Mass testing risks the harmful diversion of scarce resources. A further concern is the use of inadequately evaluated tests as screening tools in healthy populations.

The UK’s testing strategy needs to be reset in line with the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies’ recommendation that “Prioritizing rapid testing of symptomatic people is likely to have a greater impact on identifying positive cases and reducing transmission than frequent testing of asymptomatic people in an outbreak area.”

This doesn’t mean the test isn’t useful, but there are clearly concerns. I have emailed the CDC  asking them if there was a specific cycle threshold that was being used during this pandemic, prior to the rollout of the vaccine. I also asked if they will be changing the recommended threshold for unvaccinated individuals being tested.

The below comes from an anonymous source, but clams 40-45 cycles are typically used in the UK. Again, as Bhattacharya says above, in the US it seems to be 35 and above.

Corroborating Information: The Deputy Medical Officer of Ontario, Canada, Dr. Barbara Yaffe stated earlier in the pandemic that COVID-19 testing may yield at least 50 percent false positives. This means that people who test positive for COVID may not actually have it.

In July, professor Carl Heneghan, director for the centre of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University and outspoken critic of the current UK response to the pandemic, wrote a piece titled “How many Covid diagnoses are false positives?” He has argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false in the UK could also be as high as 50%.

Former scientific advisor at Pfizer, Dr. Mike Yeadon, also one of the authors of the paper discussed at the beginning of this article, argued that the proportion of positive tests that are false may actually be as high as 90%.

As far back as 2007, Gina Kolata published an article in the New York times about how declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in a disaster. The article was titled Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t. You can read that full story here if the previous link doesn’t work.

An article written by Robert Hagen, MD for MedPage Today explains the issues with COVID testing as well, especially when it comes to results, false positives and symptomatic people compared to asymptomatic people. This article also goes in depth as to why false positives will be, and probably are very high. It’s called, “What’s Wrong With Covid Case Counts?”

22 researchers put out a paper explaining why, according to them, it’s quite clear that the PCR test is not effective in identifying COVID-19 cases. As a result we may be seeing a significant amount of false positives. This also made a lot of noise.

Elon Musk revealed he had completed four rounds of COVID-19 testing, tweeting that something “bogus” is going on because two of the tests came back false, and the other two came back positive.

Doing tests from several different labs, same time of day, administered by RN & am requesting N1 gene PCR cycle threshold. There is no official standard for PCR testing. Not sure people realize this. – Musk (source)

On the other side of the coin,

According to Dr. Matthew Oughton, an infectious diseases specialist at the McGill University Health Centre and the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal:

”The rate of false positives with this particular test is quite low. In other words, if the test comes back saying positive, then believe it, it’s a real positive.”

According to Dr. Robert H. Shmerling, Senior Faculty Editor at Harvard Health Publishing.

False negatives – that is, a test that says you don’t have the virus when you actually do have the virus – may occur. The reported rate of false negatives is as low as 2% and as high as 37%. The false positive rate – that is, how often the test says you have the virus when you actually do not – should be close to zero. Most false-positive results are thought to be due to lab contamination or other problems with how the lab has performed the test, not limitations of the test itself

The list of these concerns and examples go on and on, yet it’s something the everyday person often has no idea about as it’s not brought up within the mainstream media or discussion. There are those who believe it’s accurate, and there are those who don’t and also evidence that goes both ways. This in of itself shows we need better testing tools to detect people who have the virus and those capable of spreading it.

The Takeaway: At the end of the day, these questions and concerns that have been brought up by many in the field have not really been appropriately addressed within mainstream discussion. Most people believe that PCR testing is sound and adequate in identifying people who are infected and also have the ability to transmit COVID, but this simply isn’t true and it’s very significant because “cases” are being used to set public health policy.

There’s a chance that COVID may not be as infectious as the numbers indicate, and this does not mean that it’s not serious and that people aren’t at risk, it simply calls into question the measures that we’ve taken which have caused harm.

Discussing the harms of these measures is being labelled as nonsense within the mainstream. For example, anything that calls into question lockdowns as a means for helping to stop the transmission of the virus for is labelled as “anti-lockdown.” World renowned scientists have been censored and ridiculed and pushed into silence. PCR tests are the basis of initiatives like vaccine passports as well.

An example I often use is of  Jonas F Ludvigsson, a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute is quitting his work on covid-19 because of harassment from people who dislike what he discovered. He published data showing that no school children in Sweden died of COVID during the first wave despite no mask and lockdown measures. You can read more about that story here.

It’s unfortunate that the mainstream can’t have these conversations regarding information, opinion and evidence that contradicts the official narrative. This type of information always seems to be labelled as “anti-something”, and as a result of mainstream media ridiculing something, a large portion of the citizenry does the same. There are discussions to be had that are simply not being had, and no time or attention is being paid to experts in the field providing a perspective that opposes what our government is telling us. Why?

As a result of mass censorship, the COVID pandemic has definitely served as a catalyst for more people to question what exactly is happening on our planet. Are things really as we are told? Does government and the wealthy “1 percent” really act in ways that best serve humanity, especially in a time of crisis? Are they interested in our well being as a number one priority, or something else? Can we have appropriate conversations with people who disagree with us? Can we get along regardless of what we believe is happening?

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!