The Fraudulent Corona Virus RT-PCR tests being used by Cuomo,Deblasio, and company, to persecute the Jewish Community

 Below is a repost of the New York Times Article from August 29 that we published on September 1 under the title Get on your knees and bow while we shove a Q Tip up your nose you filthy vector! 

The title was meant to convey the notion that the testing regime of having a long Q Tip shoved all the way up your nose was not about finding out if you are infectious but about having you submit and comply to invasive medical procedures and conditioned to think that healthy asymptomatic people should be looked upon as dangerous infectious pathogens.

These fraudulent tests are now being used as justification by the the De Blasio and Cuomo Juntas to persecute the Orthodox Jewish Community. The operation is now under way to single out, demonize, de-legitimize, and ostracize the Orthodox Jewish Community in 6 specific neighborhoods in New York City.

 Already numerous Yeshiva schools for boys and girls have been summarily shuttered by the New York City and State Departments of Health. One large Yeshiva - Torah Academy for Girls - TAG in Far Rockaway was called and told at 9:30 P.M. Wednesday night that they are ordered closed for the next day with no indication given as to why. This despite the said school having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to comply with all Covid health code regulations for in person learning.

De Blasio is now threatening to impose neighborhood and zipcode restrictions on gatherings of more than 10 people - in the Orthodox Neighborhoods of course. He is also planning on a police blitz in these areas to ticket pedestrians on the street for not wearing masks. De Blasio is also going to be sending a blitz of Department of Health inspectors  to every yeshiva and synagogue to enforce Chancellor Cuomo's dictates. 

It is important that Rabbis and community leaders  be informed of the science and the way fake science is being used to terrorize and persecute the Jewish Community. The New York Times is generally considered to be a "trusted" source of News and information. The information in this article indicates that we are all being subjected to a massive fraud with the RT PCR Nasal Swab Testing policy. When liars like Aaron Glatt and Stewart Ditchek get online and pontificate about how bad their fellow Orthodox Jews are for not complying with DER Fuehrer Cuomo and his Shock Troops in the Terrorist DOH, someone should ask them to explain why this New York Times article is "Misinformation" 

The irony is not lost that the same strategy of singling out the Orthodox Jewish Community by Zip Code was deployed during the Measles outbreak in 2018. It was discrimination then and it is discrimination now. Just as back then Howard Zucker of the NYS DOH and Jane Zucker of the NYC DOH lied about the outbreak so too the same cast of characters is lying about this outbreak. We documented those lies back in 2018 and 2019 on this blog.

Now we have Orthodox Jewish Rabbis calling on their communities to just show compliance with the  Department of Health demands that people wear masks in the street. Where have we heard things like this before? Oh that's right Nazi Germany. Just show compliance and obedience to the Nazis and they will leave us alone. "Lets just try to work with Mr Hitler, I'm sure he is a reasonable man". It wasn't only the Jews who deluded themselves back then. I'm sure the Czechoslovakians are forever grateful to Chamberlain for trying to reason with Mr. Hitler.

Cuomo and Deblasio and their supporters in the City Council and State Legislature are murderers and liars. They removed medical liability from hospitals treating Covid Patients and have restricted family members from overseeing the care of critically ill loved ones. At the same time they incentivized hospitals to aggressively treat Covid Hypoxia with ventilation which guaranteed death outcomes in 90 percent of those ventilated. The horror stories from the hospitals of patients being starved and dehydrated for 3 days before finally being dispatched with a ventilator are many. Cuomo has restricted the distribution of Hydroxychloriquine. He is a mass murderer!!!!!!!  No More Compliance!!!!! ONLY DEFIANCE!!!!!!!!

From the New York Times

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.

The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.

Tests authorized by the F.D.A. provide only a yes-no answer to infection, and will identify as positive patients with low amounts of virus in their bodies.Credit...Johnny Milano for The New York Times

By Apoorva Mandavilli

Aug. 29, 2020

Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.

Most of these people are not likely to be contagious, and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those who are contagious from being found in time. But researchers say the solution is not to test less, or to skip testing people without symptoms, as recently suggested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Instead, new data underscore the need for more widespread use of rapid tests, even if they are less sensitive.

“The decision not to test asymptomatic people is just really backward,” said Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, referring to the C.D.C. recommendation.

 “In fact, we should be ramping up testing of all different people,” he said, “but we have to do it through whole different mechanisms.”

In what may be a step in this direction, the Trump administration announced on Thursday that it would purchase 150 million rapid tests.

The most widely used diagnostic test for the new coronavirus, called a PCR test, provides a simple yes-no answer to the question of whether a patient is infected.

But similar PCR tests for other viruses do offer some sense of how contagious an infected patient may be: The results may include a rough estimate of the amount of virus in the patient’s body.

“We’ve been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus — that’s all,” Dr. Mina said. “We’re using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making.”

But yes-no isn’t good enough, he added. It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient’s next steps. “It’s really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,” Dr. Mina said.

The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.

This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.

In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.

On Thursday, the United States recorded 45,604 new coronavirus cases, according to a database maintained by The Times. If the rates of contagiousness in Massachusetts and New York were to apply nationwide, then perhaps only 4,500 of those people may actually need to isolate and submit to contact tracing.

One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.

Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.

Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.

A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on.

 “It’s just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the C.T. values from all these tests, that they’re just returning a positive or a negative,” one virologist said.Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times

The Food and Drug Administration said in an emailed statement that it does not specify the cycle threshold ranges used to determine who is positive, and that “commercial manufacturers and laboratories set their own.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it is examining the use of cycle threshold measures “for policy decisions.” The agency said it would need to collaborate with the F.D.A. and with device manufacturers to ensure the measures “can be used properly and with assurance that we know what they mean.”

The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing organizations.

For example, North Carolina’s state lab uses the Thermo Fisher coronavirus test, which automatically classifies results based on a cutoff of 37 cycles. A spokeswoman for the lab said testers did not have access to the precise numbers.

This amounts to an enormous missed opportunity to learn more about the disease, some experts said.

“It’s just kind of mind-blowing to me that people are not recording the C.T. values from all these tests — that they’re just returning a positive or a negative,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University in New York.

“It would be useful information to know if somebody’s positive, whether they have a high viral load or a low viral load,” she added.

Officials at the Wadsworth Center, New York’s state lab, have access to C.T. values from tests they have processed, and analyzed their numbers at The Times’s request. In July, the lab identified 794 positive tests, based on a threshold of 40 cycles.

With a cutoff of 35, about half of those tests would no longer qualify as positive. About 70 percent would no longer be judged positive if the cycles were limited to 30.

In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said.

Other experts informed of these numbers were stunned.

“I’m really shocked that it could be that high — the proportion of people with high C.T. value results,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. “Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing.”

Dr. Jha said he had thought of the PCR test as a problem because it cannot scale to the volume, frequency or speed of tests needed. “But what I am realizing is that a really substantial part of the problem is that we’re not even testing the people who we need to be testing,” he said.

The number of people with positive results who aren’t infectious is particularly concerning, said Scott Becker, executive director of the Association of Public Health Laboratories. “That worries me a lot, just because it’s so high,” he said, adding that the organization intended to meet with Dr. Mina to discuss the issue.

The F.D.A. noted that people may have a low viral load when they are newly infected. A test with less sensitivity would miss these infections.

But that problem is easily solved, Dr. Mina said: “Test them again, six hours later or 15 hours later or whatever,” he said. A rapid test would find these patients quickly, even if it were less sensitive, because their viral loads would quickly rise.

PCR tests still have a role, he and other experts said. For example, their sensitivity is an asset when identifying newly infected people to enroll in clinical trials of drugs.

But with 20 percent or more of people testing positive for the virus in some parts of the country, Dr. Mina and other researchers are questioning the use of PCR tests as a frontline diagnostic tool.

People infected with the virus are most infectious from a day or two before symptoms appear till about five days after. But at the current testing rates, “you’re not going to be doing it frequently enough to have any chance of really capturing somebody in that window,” Dr. Mina added.

Highly sensitive PCR tests seemed like the best option for tracking the coronavirus at the start of the pandemic. But for the outbreaks raging now, he said, what’s needed are coronavirus tests that are fast, cheap and abundant enough to frequently test everyone who needs it — even if the tests are less sensitive.

 “It might not catch every last one of the transmitting people, but it sure will catch the most transmissible people, including the superspreaders,” Dr. Mina said. “That alone would drive epidemics practically to zero.”