Catch a special two-hour conversation with Dr. Annie Bukacek of Kalispell, Montana, Sunday, July 25th on Freedom Loves Company, 8-10 pm ET on Revolution.Radio, Studio B.
We discuss PCR tests, death certificates, the actual lethality of the “novel coronavirus”, the injections and the big picture.
The Power of One Vs. The Great Reset — Dr Annie Bukacek Speaks at the Red Lion – Kalispell, MT 3/25/2021
On March 25th, 2021 Dr Annie Bukacek, gave a talk on the Great Reset, the ineffectiveness of PCR testing, and the power that individuals have to stand up against government tyranny in the wake of COVID19.
Below is a letter, Dr. Bukacek wrote to Montana Governor Gianforte and Republican Legislators with references she mentioned in the interview.
Honorable Governor Gianforte and Republican Legislators
I so appreciate your service, the good work you are doing. My opinion, as a seasoned physician of over 30 years: rescinding former Governor Bullocks directives should go to the root, the crux of the problem, not be based on the provision of vaccines nor legislation allegedly protective of businesses. Rescinding directives should be based on the groundswell of evidence that calls into question the validity of cornerstone of the pandemic fraud: PCR testing for Covid 19.
The PCR test, as you know, is the basis of calling this current situation a “pandemic.” The vast majority of people don’t know anyone sick enough to be hospitalized or who died from a viral syndrome in 2020. It can be reasonably argued that Covid (+) PCR positive tests, rather than infected patients, have been the basis for lockdowns, mask mandates and other aspects of social distancing. Positive tests are called case numbers, from case numbers, the rate of infectivity and death are determined.
Facts don’t change, but our understanding of them do. A critical requirement for the advancement of science has always been questioning the current narrative, theories, hypotheses, etc. Evidence is mounting, and many think the final verdict is in, that PCR testing as utilized in 2020 has been worthless for determining Covid 19 infection and contagion. Dr. Anthony Fauci July 2020 publicly stated a cycle threshold for PCR testing over 35 is useless while the WHO and DROSTEN paper recommends a Ct of 45 cycles; The FDA says run the test to 40 cycles. University of Montana lab is documented in the Missoulian article 10/2020 that they use Ct 40; likely the other Montana labs do also. The World Health Organization admits that test positivity is arbitrary. One US study showed by cycle 35: 97% of the positives don’t reach clinical significance. It is postulated that the lower test positivity now is due to the labs using a lower Ct, and that would be worthy of investigation. I provide for you Dr. Stephen Bustin’s analysis from 2017; his book has been called “the bible of qPCR.” He is an expert regarding the potential problems with using PCR testing to produce accurate and repeatable results…
There are multiple lawsuits based on the flaws of PCR testing, including an international lawsuit out of Germany pointing to the harms from restrictions driven by PCR testing. The primary attorney on the case plans to criminally prosecuted and sue for civil damages the purveyors of this crime against humanity. There is currently a lawsuit against former governor Bullock, current Governor Gianforte and any Montana health department that increased restrictions above the governor directives—they are being sued based on their unconstitutional directives.
I provide you with the background for what I state about PCR testing in summary form, with references as attachments so you can easily make physical copies if you wish.
Annie Bukacek physician in Kalispell
CYCLE THRESHOLD of PCR TESTING DEFINED:
Definition of Ct: the level at which widely used PCR test can detect a sample of the COVID-19 virus. The higher the number of cycles, the lower the amount of viral load in the sample; the lower the cycles, the more prevalent the virus was in the original sample.
PROBLEMS with PCR TESTING for COVID 19:
Considered Inappropriate for this purpose because
i. it is debatable whether the genetic sequence of the virus has been clearly delineated
ii. There is no gold standard against which to compare PCR testing for COVID 19; PCR testing has become defacto gold standard without basis.
iii. the Corman-Drosten paper upon which the use of PCR testing for COVID 19 January 2020 has been based is considered “fatally flawed” by a renown group of experts
iv. The interpretation of PCR testing is easily misused,
v since the sequence is amplified exponentially, the slightest error in measurement can lead to erros of tremendous magnitude including false (+)s,
vi. PCR does not test for disease but for a specific RNA pattern
vii.inappropriately high cycle threshold used allows a miniscule amount of any material to become measurable,
viii. Cycle threshold over 35 is useless clinically since anything detected is miniscule and gives no indication of infection or contagion; The WHO and Drosten recommend a Ct of 45 cycles; The FDA recommends to 40 cycles
ii. There is no gold standard against which to compare PCR testing for COVID 19; PCR testing has become defacto gold standard without basis. When evaluating a new test or new indication for a test, you need to compare it to a gold standard. No test is perfect. You need to find the number of false negatives and false positives of PCR compared to the gold standard and there is no gold standard for COVID 19. With COVID 19, no gold standard is available because the virus has never been isolated and purified to identify the viral material. Therefore, it is not accurate or appropriate to discuss false positives or negatives.
iii. the Corman-Drosten paper (*1) upon which the use of PCR testing for COVID 19 January 2020 has been based is considered “fatally flawed” by a renown group of experts (*2)
11/27/2020 a highly -respected group of 23 international virologists, microbiologists and related scientists published a call for Eurosurveillance to retract the Jan 23 2020 Drosten article. Dr. Mike Yeadon, one of the paper’s debunkers, calls it a “false positive pseudo-epidemic.” The authors accuse Drosten and cohorts of “fatal” scientific incompetence and flaws in promoting their test. They point out that “The Corman-Drosten paper was submitted to Eurosurveillance on January 21st 2020 and accepted for publication on January 22nd 2020. On January 23rd 2020 the paper was online.” Ie it was never properly peer reviewed before its publication, yet its use resulted in worldwide lockdown, economic and social catastrophe. Pieter Borger and his fellow scientific collaborators in the Borger report that identifies “ten fatal problems” in the Drosten paper. External Peer Review of the RT-PCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 Reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the Molecular and Methodologic Level: Consequences for False Positive Results. 1. Drosten & co. gave confusing unspecified primer and probe sequences which is “highly confusing for laboratories. These six unspecified positions could easily result in the design of several different alternative primer sequences which do not relate to SARS-CoV-2…the confusing unspecific description in the Corman=Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol.” 2/ RT-PCRf is not recommended for primary diagnostics of infections. This is why the RT-PCRf Test used in clinical routine for detection of COVID-19 is not indicated for COVID-19 diagnosis on a regulatory bass.” 3. Nowhere is there mention of what defines a positive or negative result. It does not mention the maximum Ct value at which a sample can be unambiguously considered as a positive or a negative test-result.“These types of virological diagnostic tests must be based on a SOP (Standard Operational Protocol), including a validated and fixed number of PCR cycles (Ct value) after which a samples is deemed positive or negative. The maximum reasonably reliable Ct value is 30 cycles. Above a Ct of 35 cycles, rapidly increasing numbers of false positives must be expected…scientific studies show that only non infectious (dead) viruses are detected with Ct values of 35.” Were the health authorities to specify 35 cycles maximum, the number of corona positive would be only less than 3% of the present number! AThe WHO and Drosten recommendation of a Ct of 45 would give results “scientifically and diagnostically absolutely meaningless (a reasonable Ct-value should not exceed 30). “The fact that these PCR products have not been validated at molecular level is another striking error of the protocol, making any test based upon it useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
The Drosten test protocol, already sent to WHO in Geneva 1/17/220 was officially recommended by WHO as the worldwide test for Wuhan coronavirus, even before the paper had been published. One of the coauthors was head of the company who developed the test being marketed today, and that was not disclosed with the publishing of the paper as a conflict of interest.
iv. The interpretation of PCR testing can be and has been misused, such as with HIV according to the inventor of PCR testing. Quotes taken from alethonews.com/2020/11/03/dr. fauci admits the PCR test for corona virus is all but useless as it is administered in the US: Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize for inventing PCR testing in 1993 stated, referring to AIDs testing: “I don’t think you can misuse PCR. [It is] the results; the interpretation of it. If thy can find this virus in you at all—and with PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody…” “If you can amplify one single molecule up to something, you can really measure, which PCR can do, then there is just very few molecules that you don’t have at least one single one of in your body…” “To test for that one thing, and say it has a special meaning is, I think, the problem. The measurement for it is not exact; it is not as good as the measurement of apples. The tests are based on things that are invisible and the results are inferred in a sense. It allows you to take a miniscule amount of anything and make it measurable and then talk about it…” “PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that…” (*3)
vii.inappropriately high cycle threshold used allows a miniscule amount of any material to become measurable The inventor of PCR testing Kary Mullis said, “PCR is a needle in a haystack technology that can be extremely misleading in the diagnosis of infectious diseases.” The test cannot distinguish inactive and reproductive matter. A positive result does not mean an intact virus has been found…Instead, it may be detecting a piece of debris, a fragment of a molecule, fragments of human RNA and those of numerous microbes–which may signal nothing else than that the immune response to the common cold months ago. Dr. Stephen Bustin is a British scientist, former professor of molecular sciences at Queen Mary University of London from 2004 to 2012, as well as visiting professor at Middlesex University, beginning in 2006. In 2012 he was appointed Professor of Allied Health and Medicine at Anglia Ruskin University. He is known for his research into polymerase chain reaction, and has written a book on the topic, entitled A-Z of Quantitative PCR. This book has been called “the bible of qPCR.” He is an expert regarding the potential problems with using PCR testing to produce accurate and repeatable results. Although the coronavirus test is presented as a binary test (testing for positives and negatives), it is actually based on whether the production of DNA is detectable prior to an arbitrary number of PCR cycles. He Published an article in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation August 2017 that demonstrated protocol errors, inappropriate data analysis and inadequate reporting and concluded “the majority of published PR-qPCR data are likely to represent technical noise.” (*4)
viii. Cycle threshold over 35 is useless clinically since anything detected is miniscule and gives no indication of infection or contagion; The WHO and Drosten recommend a Ct of 45 cycles; The FDA recommends to 40 cycles The WHO and DROSTEN paper recommends a Ct of 45 cycles; The FDA says run the test to 40 cycles…”a specimen is considered positive for 2019-nCov if all 2019-nCoV marker (N1,N2) cycle threshold growth curves cross the threshold line within 40 cycle…” University of Montana uses Ct 40; likely the other Montana labs do also. (*5) 7/16/2020 Podcast “This week in virology” Dr. Anthony Fauci himself stated PCR COVID test is useless and misleading when the test is run at “35 cycles or higher…” He states “…If you get [perform the test] at cycle thresholds of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus from a 37 cycle threshold cycle…even 36…” A study from a New York State lab analyzed 794 July Covid (+) tests with a Ct of 40…At Ct of 35, approximately half were no longer considered positive and at Ct of 30, 70% were no longer considered positive. Another study, from the Infectious Diseases Society of America, found that at 25 cycles of amplification, 70% of PCR test “positives” are not “cases” since the virus cannot be cultured, it’s dead.” And by 35: 97% of the positives are non-clinical.
WHO Admits COVID 19 PCR Test Has a ‘Problem’ (*6)
WHO Information Notice for IVD Users In a statement released on December 14, 2020 the WHO finally admitted the PCR test is flawed. The WHO admission is that the crux of the “problem” is a wholly arbitrary cycling process which “means that many cycles are required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.” The UN body is now clearly looking to distance itself from the flawed test.
PCR LAWSUITS—International lawsuits exposing the incompetence and malfeasance of public health officials and policymakers for reliance on a diagnostic test not fit for the purpose.
- PCR Claims is a pro-bono organization of lawyers, scientists and business advisors set up to challenge the British Government’s handling of PC testing for COVID 19. It is led by Jo Rogers of Navistar Legal. Rogers calls it a “Pseudo-epidemic”
- The Lisbon Appeal Court found that the Azores Regional Health Authority had violated both Portuguese and international law by forcing the four German tourists to remain confined to a hotel when one of them tested positive by PCR. In its 34-page ruling, the Lisbon Appeal Court concluded that: “In view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-Cov-2 Virus.” The court ruling offered two specific reasons why a (+) PCR test is meaningless, the first being that the test’s reliability depends on cycle threshold used and the viral load present. The judges ruled that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of injection. (*7)
- Professor Dr. Drosten is being accused of degree fraud. According to Dr. Markus Kuhbacher, a specialist investigating scientific fraud, the Goethe University is guilty of cover-up by claiming, falsely that Drosten’s thesis was on file. The University spokesman later was forced to admit it was not filed, at least not locatable by them as two copies disappeared and the other was water-damaged. Kuhbacher says Drosten will now likely face court charges for holding a fraudulent doctoral title. In their ruling, the judges referred to several scientific studies most notably the study by Jaafar et al., which found that—when running PCR tests with 35 cycles or more—the accuracy dropped to 3%, meaning up to 97% of positive results could be false positives. The ruling goes on to conclude that, based on the science they read, any PCR test using over 25 cycles is totally unreliable. (*8)
- A legal process has been filed in Berlin against two people responsible for a German media site, Volksverpetzer for slander and defamation brought by a well known German medical doctor Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg. The attorney for Dr. Wodarg is German-American Attorney Dr. Reiner Fuellmich. In his charges against the defendants, Fuellmich cites in full the charges against the Drosten test for coronavirus of Dr. Pieter Border forcing the defendants to refute the Borger paper. It is a major step on the way to refute the entire WHO COVID-19 PCR testing fraud.
- The German Investigative Committee has taken testimony from a large number of international scientist and experts since 7/10/2010. Their conclusions are the following: The corona crisis must be renamed the “Corona Scandal…” It is The biggest tort case ever, the greatest crime against humanity ever committed. Those responsible must be criminally prosecuted for crimes against humanity, sued for cividl damages including deaths …Corona measures have no sufficient factual or legal basis, are unconstitutional and must be repeated immediately. A class action lawsuit, led by German American Attorney Dr. Reiner Fuellmuich, one of four members of the German Corona Investigative Committee. Companies and self-employed people must be compensated for damages…criminally prosecuted and sued for civil damages. Dr. Fuellmuich says, “What about fraud, intentional infliction of damage and crimes against humanity? Based on the rules of criminal law, asserting false facts concerning the PCR tests or intentional misrepresentation, as it was committed by Messrs. Drosten, Wieler and WHO as well as the WHO, can only be assessed as fraud. Based on the rules of civil tort law, this translates into intention infliction of damage…they all knew and accepted that, on the basis of their recommendations, the governments of the world would decide on lockdowns, the rules for social distancing, and mandatory wearing of masks, the latter representing a very serious health hazard, as more and more independent studies and expert statements show. Under the rules of civil tort law, all those who have bene harmed by these PCR-test-induced lockdowns are entitled to receive full compensation for their losses. In particular, there is a duty to compensate—that is, a duty to pay damages for the loss of profits suffered by companies and self-employed employed persons as a result of the lockdown and other measures…Here in Germany, a group of tort lawyers have banded together to help their clients with recovery of damages…through an international lawyers’ network, which is growing larger by the day, the German group of attorneys provides to all of their colleagues in other countries, free of charge, all relevant information, including expert opinions and testimonies of experts showing that the PCR tests cannot detect infections.” (*9)
(*1) CORMAN-DROSTEN PAPER Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR – PubMed (nih.gov)
(*2) BORGEN REPORT, CRITIQUE of CORMAN-DROSTEN Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020 – CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT
(*3) Dr. Fauci admits the PCR test useless Dr. Fauci admits the PCR test for coronavirus is all but useless as it is administered in the US « Aletho News
(*4) Dr. Stephen Bustin PCR Lack of Reproducibility Talking the talk, but not walking the walk: RT‐qPCR as a paradigm for the lack of reproducibility in molecular research – Bustin – 2017 – European Journal of Clinical Investigation – Wiley Online Library
(*6) WHO Admits PCR Testing Problematic WHO Information Notice for IVD Users
(*7) Portugal PCR Case Covid PCR test reliability doubtful – Portugal judges – The Portugal News
(*8) PCR vs Isolates Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic (oup.com)
(*9) Lawsuits Allege Covid Scam a Crime Against Humanity “Covid19 Crisis” is A Crime Against Humanity | German Corona Investigative Committee – Virutron
(as stated in the Agenda – Flathead City-County Health Department (flatheadhealth.org) given to us last Friday: