Cutting through the Noise
Getting clarity on the principles of disease transmission, PCR and Rapid Antigen Testing to make better evidence-based decisions this fall
As more and more institutions decide on which COVID-19 related policies to renew or drop this coming fall and as certain organizations appear to assume that we have “normalized” vaccine & mask mandates, COVID testing, continued restrictions in long term care homes, schools, recreation centres, etc. etc., it is becoming increasingly clear how much of the noise we have been hearing around these topics since early 2020 was not exactly supported by the evidence-based science.
(Image source: https://smirdex.gr/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/construction-engineer-using-a-circular-saw-PA9N829.jpg)
Key Principles of Disease Transmission:
In his recent posting on the website of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance: A Critique of the Approach Long Term Care Facilities have Taken to the Prevention of the Transmission of COVID-19, Dr. John Hardie (BDS, MSc, PhD, FRCDC) explains:
To initiate an infection, a sufficient dose of the viable (live) virus must leave its host. Respiratory viruses do this by escaping from the respiratory tract via coughs and sneezes, which project potentially infectious amount of the virus. An individual might harbour SARSCoV-2 and have non-existent to mild non-specific symptoms, but unless the live virus is expelled in sufficient amounts by coughing and sneezing to overcome the natural defences of a secondary host, transmission of the infection will not occur. Coughing and sneezing are the significant symptoms associated with COVID-19 transmission. (p. 2)
…individuals who are not coughing nor sneezing should not be viewed as repositories of SARS-CoV-2 (p. 7) https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/22JL14_Hardie_CCCA-Critique-of-LTC-Facilities.pdf
To listen to Dr. Hardie discuss the six principles of disease transmission in more detail, please view: https://www.bitchute.com/video/FtfeBjfPXqHB/
PCR Tests:
Dr. Hardie provides a clear explanation of some of the key concerns with PCR testing, which was used to ascertain whether or not a person was to be termed a “case” of COVID. Here too, a number of assumptions commonly made about this purported detection tool did not hold up to scientific scrutiny as “genetic fragments” do not meet the criteria of a viable, replicable virus.
Dr. Hardie writes: It is important to appreciate two facts: 1) complete viable viruses are necessary for the transmission of COVID-19; and 2) the PCR test does not identify the whole virus, but fragments of genetic material assumed to be representative of SARS-Co-2. If the fragments are identified in the sample, the test is deemed positive. However, it is a leap of faith to suggest that the result is indicative of a live virus present in a sufficient amount to induce infection. Indeed, studies have demonstrated that the fragments might represent dead or non-infectious SARS-CoV-2, general cell debris, bits of endemic coronaviruses, other pathogens or contaminants introduced during the collection, transportation and preparation of the sample.
Dr. Hardie concludes his remarks on PCR testing with this poignant statement: Subjecting asymptomatic residents and their loved ones to tests of doubtful accuracy which, if positive, are guaranteed to result in unwarranted quarantines with their myriad of unintended consequences, is an intolerable approach to the care of vulnerable patients. (p. 5)
Rapid Antigen Testing:
Here Dr. Hardie explains: Since the antigens are present in infected individuals, it makes sense that the manufacturers of the test kits indicate that the tests should be performed within six days of the onset of symptoms. In other words, to confirm if an individual who is coughing or sneezing does have COVID-19. (p. 5)
He explains how there is minimal clinical evidence to support the use of Rapid Antigen testing, i.e. that which UNvaccinated nurses, teachers, care home visitors, etc. (who were NOT coughing/sneezing) were required to undergo every 48 or 72 hours as a condition of entrance. He highlights that while manufacturers of the tests did not recommend these tests for use with asymptomatic persons, that is precisely what governments, health authorities, employers and others were putting into their policies.
There is no rational justification for performing Rapid Antigen Tests on persons who are not coughing or sneezing. It is unconscionable that asymptomatic residents, staff and visitors of longterm care facilities should be subjected to such tests when the almost inevitable false positive results will cause the unjustified loss of personal privileges, punitive restrictions on social interactions and the exacerbation of existing medical and psychological conditions. (p. 7)
In other words,
to restrict long term care residents who are neither coughing nor sneezing to their rooms,
to deprive them of visitors who are neither coughing nor sneezing,
to insinuate that due to a positive (very likely false positive) PCR test result, asymptomatic long term care staff need to remain at home for days on end - leaving behind a huge personnel gap at work thus overstretching and burning out their colleagues and dramatically reducing the quality of care -
is most certainly unscientific and should no longer be tolerated.
Over these past two years, how many sons and daughters of long-term care patients have reported that their mothers or fathers have rapidly declined mentally due to the deprivation of social contact? A neigbour recently bemoaned: In 2019 I took my then 93 year old dad out to play golf multiple times a week. Now he has developed dementia so badly that there is no way I could do that. Sometimes he barely recognizes me. The only way I can explain the rapid decline is the solitary confinement he was under - and the four COVID shots he has had to take.
Canadians everywhere are invited to submit accounts of their experiences that resulted due to the various COVID-19 mitigation procedures enacted in this country.
When otherwise compassionate officials were themselves somehow convinced to enact policies that were not aligned with science-based principles (like those around disease transmission) then clearly something went wrong somewhere and needs to be investigated.
Please see: https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/media-resources/international-criminal-court-testimonies-an-appeal-to-canadians/ and consider submitting a statement. Alternatively, you could submit your statements to the Canadian Covid Care Alliance to add to ongoing projects:
https://www.citizenshearing.ca/
https://www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org/ - scroll down to Citizen’s Hearing
Listen in as Canadians speak out on their losses - loss of autonomy; vaccine injuries & fatalities; lockdown related financial losses or delayed health care with possible fatal consequences, loss of social status, careers, education & training, friendships and more…
Likewise, take a listen to British vaccine injury victims in this documentary “A Letter to my MP” https://www.ukcvfamily.org/post/james-wells-a-letter-to-my-mp
If not restrictions and boosters to keep my loved one safe - then what?
The World Council for Health provides a wealth of practical considerations here: