In the previous chapter, we have seen the lack of scientific evidence of virus transmission between people, and that all alleged transmissibility and infectiousness is based on in vitro experiments with monkey kidney cells. In this chapter we will look into the other side of the “infectiousness” coin and look for the evidence for the claim that asymptomatic people are just as dangerous as symptomatic ones.
The typical policy held by most health authorities was to quarantine all “positive” PCR tested people. The claim of “the experts” was that asymptomatic people, meaning healthy people, could also transmit the disease and therefore these healthy people should also quarantine in order to “stop the spread of the virus”. In other words - a positive PCR test, regardless of any other clinical parameter was sufficient for the establishment to take away your human rights.
Interestingly, the WHO, which is not suspected of being an opponent of the Corona policy adopted by most western countries, issued very clear instructions according to which the presence of symptoms must be taken into account when giving a diagnosis and not rely solely on the PCR test. Here is a photo from the WHO page on the matter:
It can be seen in section 4 that the organization recommends weighing along with a positive PCR result also clinical findings, patient history and epidemiological information as well as providing the Ct value of the test - section 5 (we will refer to this in the future).
In my first FOI request (1/16/21) I asked the MoH this -
Translation -
Q. “Do clinical symptoms form a factor for diagnosis when determining positive/negative for covid?”
A. “No. In this disease a person with high viral load and highly infectious may be asymptomatic. In addition, the data as for the presence of symptoms does not exist in the test lab. The treating physician is taking into account the data from the test and from the clinic.”
In my second (2/9/22) request for information, the Israeli Ministry of Health was asked to detail and explain the reasoning behind the decision to imprison healthy people in contrast to the WHO recommendations.
Translation -
The relevance of the test results to the subject's clinical condition. In your answer you stated that it was not taken into account -the clinical condition of the subject at the time of determining the diagnosis and that the doctor must integrate these. We ask you to present the instructions of the Ministry of Health to the doctors in this matter. You also stated that - "In this disease it can be Someone with a high viral load, highly contagious, and be asymptomatic" - we ask you to bring references to the scientific literature that verify this assertion. Specifically - controlled scientific research (not Epidemiological surveillance) which proves that a person with a high viral load according to the PCR test results can infect other people, even when he has no symptoms.
The MoH replied to this (on 2/9/23) -
This time I will not translate the entire text for the sake of the readers precious time but generally they claim that there is plenty of solid evidence, published in the scientific literature proving the claim that asymptomatic and “pre-symptomatic” people are infectious. They also put the references to such studies.
Well, that’s exactly what I asked for!
So, I went and checked all their references. The following table is a summary of what I found in these papers:
If you wish to view this table in Excel format, you can download it here.
The MoH summarizes the evidence in this section -
Here is a translation of that section -
“In conclusion, the findings of the many studies that investigated differences between symptomatic and non-symptomatic patients in aspects of viral load and risk for the infection of their contacts, they present a picture according to which there are no significant differences in the viral load levels between the two groups and that the risk for infection exists in both groups with a higher level of risk for infection in cases of symptomatic disease”
Please have another look at the table above. Is it congruent with the MoH conclusion?
The studies in the table suppose to reflect the best evidence in the hands of the experts of the Ministry of Health. After reading these,(and those who wish to check are invited to read the articles themselves), my conclusions are these:
Not a single study was presented that meets the requested information - a controlled study that is not based on epidemiology (that is, an RCT study designed to test the relevant research hypothesis), neither in humans nor in model animals . All that was presented were epidemiological studies based on PCR diagnosis which is of itself - an unproven diagnostic method, that there is a virus that is an infectious pathogen that passes from person to person through the air or by contact. Some of the studies presented were a retrospective test that compared Ct values between groups with and without symptoms. But a real controlled study capable of causally proving that asymptomatic (or even symptomatic) people transmit the disease has not been produced.
Is it possible that there has never been a controlled study on the transmission of the disease? The answer to the question, as you probably already understood, is yes! There has never been done such a study. As we learned in chapter 9, about a hundred years ago a proper research has been done. This far past research had taught us that the mechanism of transmission of respiratory diseases does not support the mainstream theory which was and still is the prevalent one.
Another interesting point that emerges from the epidemiological studies is that there are no differences between people with symptoms and people without symptoms in terms of the Ct values of the PCR test. That is, the "viral load" (which should be highly correlated with the Ct values of the test) is similar or the same on average between sick and healthy people, even the MoH point that out.
Think for a moment, what does this actually mean about the whole theory of the virus as a cause of disease? If there is no correlation between the amount of the virus in a person's body and the severity of his disease (so far as to a situation of the complete absence of disease symptoms) - is it possible that the virus is not the cause of the disease at all? According to Common sense and to mainstream perception, if germ theory is right - there should be a quantitative correlation between the amount of the virus and the severity of the disease!
But the evidence from the real world does not support this theory and it has been so for many years, pushing virologists to take all kinds of chicanery in order to keep their theory alive. This have come to such bizarre concepts as viruses are actually beneficial to organisms, in the sense that these pathogenic particles which are always thought of as agents of disease, could at the same time act to increase the fitness of the organism (see for example - here and here). How far is it from the original ideas of Koch and Pasteur…yet this ideological gymnastics is the only way possible for virologists who refuse to admit that their theory is plain wrong.
The evidence is out there - there is no data to support the claim that asymptomatic nor symptomatic are infectious. All there is are many epidemiological studies which are not sufficient to establish a causative link. Then they cite studies done on monkey kidney cell cultures. They claim that the snot of sick people make these cells die and therefore it is a proof of infectiousness.
No RCT’s. No in vivo trials. Not on humans nor on animal model.
The emperor has no clothes!!!