As we all know fraud World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Customs Organization (WCO) collaborated to create a specific list of HS codes. One of these codes is for “COVID-19 Test kits,” which were exported in 2017 under HS 2017, before the COVID-19 plandemic.
This discussion will examine the planning of COVID-19 by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in collaboration with Bill Gates.
HS 2017 is the specific version of the international product classification system in use during 2017. The “COVID-19 Test kits” exported in 2017 under HS Code 382200 were “Medical Test kits” and were later identified and designated as critical for COVID-19 efforts by international organizations. Dr. Kary Mullis, the inventor of PCR, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993 for developing the PCR technique. But, Kary Mullis himself criticized the use of PCR as a diagnostic tool.
For additional insights, this article will be beneficial.
HS Classification Reference For Covid-19 Medical Supplies 2 Edition
The document provides a classification reference for COVID-19 medical supplies in 8 sections, listing products and their HS 2017 classification codes. Section I covers test kits and diagnostic testing instruments. Section II lists protective garments. Section III includes disinfectants and sterilization products like alcohol solutions, hand sanitizers, and hydrogen peroxide. Section IV addresses oxygen therapy equipment and pulse oximeters.
Joint WCO/WHO HS classification list for COVID-19 medical supplies in 2018 before covid.
Medical Test kits (382200) exports by country in 2018
Additional Product Information: Diagnostic reagents based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nucleic acid test.
Category: Medical Test kits/ Instruments, apparatus used in Diagnostic Testing
The data here track previously existing medical devices that are now classified by the World Customs Organization as critical to tackling COVID-19
In 2018, Top exporters of Medical Test kits are United States ($7,222,382.19K ), European Union ($6,979,386.71K , 103,719,000 Kg), Germany ($4,385,659.01K , 100,832,000 Kg), Netherlands ($2,291,037.90K , 10,462,100 Kg), United Kingdom ($1,875,643.94K , 11,520,000 Kg), India ($47,112.17K,1,214,970, Kg)
HS Nomenclature used HS 2017
HS Code 382200: Medical Test kits
Ref: https://wits.worldbank.org/trade/comtrade/en/country/ALL/year/2018/tradeflow/Exports/partner/WLD/nomen/h5/product/382200
After finding out the truth, many doctors and lawyers have asked the government and health authorities about the problems with the faulty PCR test. They want answers about what went wrong with the tests. It’s vital to address these questions.
Transcript in English
Dr Tarun Kothari: The Government of India had already imported the testing kits for the disease that struck India in 2020 back in 2017 and 2018 from abroad. These artificial test kits diagnose COVID-19. The diagnostic kits for the disease that appeared in India in 2020 were imported by the Indian government two to three years prior. This is solid proof of that fact. Along with this, the patent for the diagnostic method was granted in 2015 for a disease predicted to emerge in 2020, as they had indicated. The patent was issued in 2015 in the name of a friend.
In 2010, Rockefeller released a document, known as the Rockefeller Document, which you can find. It explained that a pandemic would occur in the future, and the entire world would have to implement certain steps. Instead of the term “lockdown,” they used the term “lockstep,” and those steps were carried out exactly as described. People worldwide went into lockdown. When something is predicted in advance like this, that a certain event will happen and actions will be taken, then it’s certain that there is no spontaneous pandemic that humans or even doctors were unaware of beforehand. This was a pre-planned program, and you have plenty of evidence to prove this.
During the lockdowns worldwide, people were put under curfew, restrictions were placed on air and rail travel, and fundamental rights of citizens were violated. The question is, are these tests really helping humanity, or is there some other hidden agenda behind them?
Dr. Biswaroop Roy Chowdhary: Over the last two years, a term became very common: the RTC test. Everyone knows about it; however, before that, researchers had some idea. Now, everyone is getting tested with RT-PCR tests, which can show positive or negative results. The truth about these tests is that if you test the same sample ten times, as we have experimentally verified—I’ve conducted the experiments myself—using artificial test machines on any sample, be it human, monkey, donkey, horse, fruit, or raw vegetables, and you run the sample through the test machine ten times, the test will come back positive only once out of ten times. On average, nine out of ten times, the result will be negative.
This means that statistically, one out of every ten people will test positive. If I want to show that there are 100,000 positive cases in India on any given day, all I have to do is conduct 1 million tests, whether the person is healthy or sick, it doesn’t matter. If you test the same person again, they will test negative. This is why you may have noticed that the government issued guidelines stating that the first test is mandatory, but if someone tests positive, the second test should not be done within 15 days. After 15 days, you can consider yourself negative. This guideline has not been questioned much, but think about it yourself: everyone is being tested initially, but not retested, because they know the results would vary.
It’s like flipping a coin—you can get heads or tails. Those who have taken the second test on their own know this. Many of you have taken multiple tests and repeatedly tested positive, even without any symptoms. The point is, that artificial tests were never designed to detect any virus or to diagnose sickness. This is documented in artificial literature. The inventor of the carrier more test, whose death was suspicious, had mentioned this three months before the so-called pandemic.
The SHOCKING Reality of RT-PCR Test | Dr. Biswaroop Roy Chowdhury:
This video says that the tests of dogs, cats, fruits, vegetables , and all are coming positive.
Dr. Biswaroop Roy Chowdhary: The virus that doesn’t exist, lies and consequences by Jon Rappoport
Interview with Jon Rappoport: www. biswaroop.com/jon
Ref: https://biswaroop.com/dicecovidtest/
Advocate Nilesh Ojha on our Qvive network: Rt Pcr Test is Unauthentic
Dr Arvind Kushwaha: The RT-PCR test is a research tool, not a diagnostic test
Transcript in English:
They have been constantly changing their statements over the past three years.
First, they said there was no claim, meaning no dependency on the vaccine was created, and that there was no remedy or medicine, but the vaccine was the remedy.
Then they said that the immunity from the vaccine lasts only five to six months, so you need to take the second dose after that interval.
After that, they said you would need to take a third booster, then a fourth booster.
They kept changing their stories continuously.
Then they said that even after the third booster or second booster, infections are still happening, with people experiencing colds and fevers.
Then they said it could lead to long COVID.
In between, they warned that a fourth wave could come.
There were talks about a monkeypox outbreak and many other narratives that were attempted but ultimately failed.
The third wave came in a scattered form, then the Omicron variant took over.
Even today, if someone tests positive, you can consider it as “sticky glue”—meaning it clings on.
Testing is still being done today.
Could you please explain a bit about RTPCR? Let’s focus on this because the whole thing was created around one major kingpin: the RTPCR test.
Most people still don’t know that it’s basically an artificial test.
An artificial test means that inside your body…
For example, the CT value, as we call it…
If you look at the cycle…
What does it actually mean to create the cycle? You try to find out what it really is.
Imagine if you have a small piece, like a fingernail.
To prove that the fingernail belongs to a person, what would you do?
You would reconstruct the body and say, “Look, this is a human being.”
Do you understand? Your blood cannot be human.
It is a research tool, not a diagnostic test.
But number one, it was made into a diagnostic test and used that way.
The World Bank gave people money to buy these RTPCR machines.
Before 2019…
It was fully developed by then, so the patent must have been taken out much earlier.
Probably around 2017-18.
It’s hard to understand how something artificial could be made before the virus even existed, which was only identified in 2019.
Writ Petition filed in Bombay High Court to stop the Covid-19 testing of healthy, asymptomatic persons. The Petitioner has requested for CBI investigation for misuse of tax payers money by mandating reckless Covid-19 testing and that too with a very high Cycle Threshold (CT) resulting in several false positive “cases”.
Ref: https://awakenindiamovement.com/writ-petition-in-bombay-high-court-on-rt-pcr-testing/
I would like to extend my special thanks to the Brightwork team for the information they provided:
Understanding The PCR Test and How There Was Never a Reliable Test for Covid
The Reality of the PCR Tests
The PCR test is explained by Dr Lidiya Angelova in the following quotation.
“ COVID-19 statistics is part of our everyday life. We wake up with COVID-19 and go to bed with COVID-19. We constantly hear that despite so-called COVID-19 measures there is an increase in cases and infections.“
How the PCR Test Works
“ It is actually RT-PCR – a molecular biology technique which lets us detect parts of the viral RNA (the genetic information in some viruses is not stored as DNA but RNA). It is RT because it first converts (transcribes) RNA to DNA. It is necessary since only DNA can be multiplied (amplified) at the levels which can be detected by fluorescence. Every multiplication is called threshold cycle or Ct. Since the genetic information of SARS- CoV-2 is carried by RNA this is the only way to detect it.“
This is very interesting, and this quote also explains how it works.
“ PCR also made its mark in forensic science. “Prior to the development of the PCR, forensic scientists utilized very awkward and insensitive techniques” to identify people from DNA samples, says Bruce McCord, a professor of forensic chemistry at Florida International University. “The development of the PCR revolutionized forensic DNA testing. Suddenly there was no need for radioactivity or chemiluminescence-based detection, as the PCR could produce millions of copies of DNA from only a few cells.” – State of the Nation
This is a bit complex and easy to gloss over. The critical part of this quote (to me) is that the test requires amplification. So it is unlike many other tests where you take blood or other fluids, and the item is either present or not present. This test requires an amplification algorithm before determining either true or false. Then there is a question of how many times you run the algorithm.
Now observe this quotation on the amplification cycles.
“ 20 cycle threshold, 60% chance genetic material is viral and can be cultured. 30 cycles, 40% chance. 35, 3% chance. Past 35 is not even worthy. This viral genetic material, of course, is subject to the specificity. – Comment on John’s Hopkins Retractions
The FDA approved the PCR test being run between 35 and 40 cycles. It appears as if the FDA desired also positives.
The article How the Fake Covid Fact Checker Reuters Does Not Disclose Pfizer Financial Connections describes how major media entities have financial ties to companies that they defend in faux fact- checking articles. Furthermore, Twitter and Google will de-platform people that publish or discuss the topic of Reuter’s financial ties to Pfizer.
Ref: https://www.brightworkresearch.com/how-the-fake-covid-fact-checker-reuters-does-not-disclose-pfizer-financial-connections/
What Does the PCR Test Tell Us?
“ What can the PCR test tell about the virus?
The PCR test can tell if there are some parts of the viral RNA in the cell.
What PCR test can’t tell us about the virus? It can’t tell if there is an active virus.
“ What can the PCR test tell about the virus?
The PCR test can tell if there are some parts of the viral RNA in the cell.
What PCR test can’t tell us about the virus? It can’t tell if there is an active virus.
So…then what is the point of the test?
I will address this later, but the point appears to have been to exaggerate the number of cases to create a pandemic.
How Sensitive is the PCR Test?
“ Yes. The tests are very sensitive and can detect traces of the viral RNA. Healthy people but with positive test means that the person’s immunity destroyed the virus. This person can’t infect other people and doesn’t need to be quarantined. The main problem with mass use of a sensitive test is that it can be contaminated rather easy. Since the technique is specific and only few people are familiar with it, test companies hire people who have little or even no training to do the sampling and testing. Keep in mind that RT-PCR can detect even one RNA molecule. It means that every step from taking the sample to performing the test must be in a sterile environment to avoid contamination. That obviously isn’t possible. Tests could be contaminated by viral RNA from the handler’s breath even when using a mask.
And this quotation from Doctors 4 Covid Ethics.
Ref: https://doctors4covidethics.org/expert-statement-regarding-the-use-of-moderna-covid-19-mrna-vaccine-in-children/
“ In summary, a positive RT-qPCR test result cannot be accepted as proof that the person in question is currently infected and infectious—even if there is reasonable clinical plausibility of actual COVID-19 infection, as well as a significant community prevalence of the disease. Firstly, the RNA material containing the target sequences could very well be from nonviable/inactive virus; this is particularly likely if the patient in question has already recovered from the infection.
So this means a positive test will be yielded when the virus is dead. The test cannot distinguish between a live and dead virus.
Furthermore, the PCR test is not designed for general usage at hospitals.
How Was the PCR Test for Covid Developed
The actual quotes on developing the PCR test for COVID are quite shocking.
“ “We aimed to develop and deploy robust diagnostic methodology for use in public health laboratory settings without having virus material available.” [1]
Developing a Test Without a Sample of the Virus
The PCR test was developed without a covid sample. This is simply amazing that it is not more widely covered.
How can any of these PCR tests have any accuracy claim whatsoever if they never had the actual virus?
How did the test developers know that the tests were effective?
How were the tests tested?
Where Oh Where is the Isolated Covid Virus?
The lack of an isolated COVID-19 virus seems impossible, given the magnitude of the pandemic. The following is a response from the CDC.
Technical Problems With the PCR Test
“ Even Christian Drosten admitted himself in a German Article in 2014 the very problem of RT-qPCR tests in a pandemic or epidemic scenario:
“The method is so sensitive that it can detect a single genetic molecule of the virus. If, for example, such a pathogen flies over the nasal mucous membrane of a nurse for a day without them becoming ill or noticing anything, then it is suddenly a MERS case. Where previously terminally ill were reported, now suddenly mild cases and people who are actually very healthy are included in the reporting statistics. This could also explain the explosion in the number of cases in Saudi Arabia.” [45]
Reliable and accurate PCR-test protocols are normally designed using between 100 nM and 200 nM per primer [7]. In the Corman-Drosten paper, we observe unusually high and varying primer concentrations for several primers (table 1). For the RdRp_SARSr-F and RdRp_SARSr-R primer pairs, 600 nM and 800 nM are described, respectively. Similarly, for the N_Sarbeco_F and N_Sarbeco_R primer set, they advise 600 nM and 800 nM, respectively [1].
No reason if Drosten wanted an accurate test, but there is a good reason if he wanted a test that produced false positives.
A Test That Cannot Be Reproduced and is Not Repeatable
“ To obtain reproducible and comparable results, it is essential to distinctively define the primer pairs. In the Corman-Drosten paper we observed six unspecified positions, indicated by the letters R, W, M and S (Table 2). The letter W means that at this position there can be either an A or a T; R signifies there can be either a G or an A; M indicates that the position may either be an A or a C; the letter S indicates there can be either a G or a C on this position.
This high number of variants not only is unusual, but it also is highly confusing for laboratories.
The design variations will inevitably lead to results that are not even SARS CoV-2 related. Therefore, the confusing unspecific description in the Corman-Drosten paper is not suitable as a Standard Operational Protocol. These unspecified positions should have been designed unequivocally.
These wobbly sequences have already created a source of concern in the field and resulted in a Letter to the Editor authored by Pillonel et al. [8] regarding blatant errors in the described sequences. These errors are self-evident in the Corman et al. supplement as well.
And this quote is from Dr. Lidiya Angelova.
“ PCR test study was performed without a sample of a potential infected person. It means that the laboratories which perform the test must use the exact same reagents and perform the test in the exact the same way.
The PCR test study wasn’t made with a real sample so when implemented on real samples the result may be differ. The technique which is used is not only complicated, and requires well trained personnel but also is very sensitive.
However, the way around the fact that the test is not repeatable is only to run the PCR test once. With only one test run, there is no risk of conflicting results.
Dr. Angelova continues.
“ It was sitting in the back in my mind bugging me off until I got it – results from the tests aren’t repeatable. Labs don’t run the same samples at least 3 times to avoid random error. If 2 of the samples show same result it is valid. Running the sample only one time means that the result could be an error which due to the reasons mentioned above is quite likely. It is one of the most simple rules to clinical and experimental sciences.
A Test That Can’t Distinguish Between Coronaviruses
“ The E gene primers also detect a broad spectrum of other SARS viruses.
The genome of the coronavirus is the largest of all RNA viruses that infect humans and they all have a very similar molecular structure. Still, SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV-2 have two highly specific genetic fingerprints, which set them apart from the other coronaviruses. First, a unique fingerprint-sequence (KTFPPTEPKKDKKKK) is present in the N-protein of SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 [13,14,15].
Second, both SARS-CoV1 and SARS-CoV2 do not contain the HE protein, whereas all other coronaviruses possess this gene [13, 14]. So, in order to specifically detect a SARS-CoV1 and SARS- CoV-2 PCR product the above region in the N gene should have been chosen as the amplification target.
Here is what the CDC says about the ability of the PCR test.
“ “Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”
So, how many test results that said “covid” were covid?
Another issue with the covid PCR tests is found in the article The PCR Test Problems: How There is Often No Live Virus Found Below 24 Cycles.
Ref: https://www.brightworkresearchtreatment.com/pcr-test-problems-how-there-is-often-no-live-virus-found-below-24-cycles/
A Test Without Standard Operating Procedures or Parameters
A Test Without Standard Operating Procedures or Parameters
“ There should be a Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) available, which unequivocally specifies the above parameters, so that all laboratories are able to set up the identical same test conditions. To have a validated universal SOP is essential, because it facilitates data comparison within and between countries. It is very important to specify all primer parameters unequivocally. We note that this has not been done. Further,
the Ct value to indicate when a sample should be considered positive or negative is not specified. It is also not specified when a sample is considered infected with SARS-CoV viruses. As shown above, the test cannot discern between virus and virus fragments, so the Ct value indicating positivity is crucially important. This Ct value should have been specified in the Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) and put on-line so that all laboratories carrying out this test have exactly the same boundary conditions. It points to flawed science that such an SOP does not exist. The laboratories are thus free to conduct the test as they consider appropriate, resulting in an enormous amount of variation. Laboratories all over Europe are left with a multitude of questions; which primers to order? which nucleotides to fill in the undefined places? which Tm value to choose? How many PCR cycles to run? At what Ct value is the sample positive? And when is it negative? And how many genes to test? Should all genes be tested, or just the E and RpRd gene as shown in Table 2 of the Corman-Drosten paper? Should the N gene be tested as well? And what is their negative control? What is their positive control?
This is amazing. How did this test ever get put into general use?
Mistakes Any Molecular Biologist Could Have Caught
A Rigged Publication and Conflicts of Interest
We find severe conflicts of interest for at least four authors, in addition to the fact that two of the authors of the Corman- Drosten paper (Christian Drosten and Chantal Reusken) are members of the editorial board of Eurosurveillance. A conflict of interest was added on July 29 2020 (Olfert Landt is CEO of TIB- Molbiol; Marco Kaiser is senior researcher at GenExpress and serves as scientific advisor for TIB-Molbiol), that was not declared in the original version (and still is missing in the PubMed version); TIB-Molbiol is the company which was “the first” to produce PCR kits (Light Mix) based on the protocol published in the Corman-Drosten manuscript, and according to their own words, they distributed these PCR-test kits before the publication was even submitted [20]; further, Victor Corman & Christian Drosten failed to mention their second affiliation: the commercial test laboratory “Labor Berlin”. Both are responsible for the virus diagnostics there [21] and the company operates in the realm of real time PCR-testing.
Ref: https://resetheus.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/corman-drosten-review-report.pdf
A Test Which Can’t be Used
More on this topic is found in the following quotation.
“ Mike Adams Had This to Say About PCRT Testing
Ref: https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/11/01/exclusive-100-of-covid-19-vaccine-deaths-were-caused-by-just-5-of-the-batches-produced-according-to-official-government-data/
Can Any Test Correctly Perceive Covid?
Dr. Lidiya Angelova continues..
Hmmm…so we do not have and have never had a test to determine if someone has covid — while there has been enormous focus on the aggregated numbers of cases accumulated through tests that do not work.
Antibody Test: Also Does Not Work
Dr. Lidiya Angelova continues..
I do not think this test is used, but it also shows that it cannot be used.
17/02/2022, ICMR: 523 RT-PCR kits have been evaluated by ICMR validation centers, and the following were found to be satisfactory.
Ref: https://prsindia.org/files/covid19/notifications/RT_PCR_Tests_Kits_Evaluation_Summ_17022022.pdf
In India, the laws about faulty tests are mostly linked to medical negligence. They include the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the Indian Medical Council (IMC) Act, 1956, with key provisions and penalties aimed at holding medical professionals and hospitals accountable for negligence or deficiency in service.
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
The IPC has several sections that deal with medical negligence. Section 304A of the IPC states that whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. This section is often used to prosecute medical professionals for negligence.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is another important law that deals with medical negligence. This Act provides a remedy for consumers who have been affected by defective services, including medical services. Medical professionals and hospitals can be held liable under this Act for negligence or deficiency in service.
Indian Medical Council (IMC) Act, 1956
The IMC Act, 1956, regulates the medical profession in India. The Act establishes the Medical Council of India (MCI), which is responsible for maintaining a register of medical practitioners and regulating their professional conduct. The IMC (Professional Conduct, Etiquette, and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, made under the IMC Act, 1956, provide guidelines for medical professionals on professional conduct and ethics.
Other Laws and Regulations
Other laws and regulations that may be relevant to medical negligence in India include the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the admissibility of evidence in court proceedings, and the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, which regulates clinical establishments in India.
Key Provisions and Penalties
Some key provisions and penalties related to medical negligence in India include:
- Section 304A of the IPC: Punishment for causing death by negligence, with imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both.
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Liability for negligence or deficiency in service, with penalties including compensation and punitive damages.
- IMC Act, 1956: Regulation of medical professionals, with penalties for professional misconduct, including removal from the medical register.
Ref:
- Medical Negligence: Tort Law and the Consumer Protection Act. [ https://ijme.in/]
- Indian Penal Code. [https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1544644/]
- Consumer Protection Act, 1986. [https://consumeraffairs.nic.in/acts-and-rules/consumer-protection-act-1986 ]
- Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette, and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. [https://mciindia.org/rules-and-regulations/professional-conduct-etiquette-and-ethics-regulations-2002]
- Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010. [ https://mciindia.org/rules-and-regulations/professional-conduct-etiquette-and-ethics-regulations-2002 ]
- Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda. [ https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1544644/ ]
- Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab. [https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1282460/ ]
- Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee. [https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1741114/]
Source: Philadelphia-image, Youtube,
Also Read: