TrialSiteNews has published the testimony of Paul Elias Alexander, PhD — a former COVID-19 advisor to WHO-PAHO and to Health and Human Services (HHS) — in which he presents his extensive evidence exposing the false claim that asymptomatic people who allegedly test positive for COVID-19 have been the “drivers” of the so-called “pandemic.”
Dr. Alexander’s provides the single-best and concise explanation of the fraudulent “science” behind the spread of the “virus” — and it completely agrees with all of our articles we have published on the subject since early 2020.
While we are publishing just an excerpt of Dr. Alexander’s testimony here, we would encourage our readers to read it in its entirety.
The claim that ‘asymptomatic’ spread or transmission of COVID-19 is a key driver of the pandemic or even a driver of minimal infection is not credible. Not only is this our hypothesis, we feel strongly that the asymptomatic spread claim was bogus from the start and was used to justify the lockdowns. It had, and still has today, no basis. This was part of pandemic corruption. We have looked at the evidence gathered across the last 16 months and can safely say this was a false narrative that, along with masking, lockdowns, social distancing, and school closure policies, visited crushing harms on society, hurting the USA and the world immensely. That the US Pandemic Task Force and these illogical, irrational, unscientific medical experts could use this falsehood to shutter society, causing so much destruction of life, wealth and property is a shameful and unforgivable scandal. This pandemic response was all about corruption, and there certainly were ingredients other than science at play throughout….
The issue of ‘asymptomatic spread’ was such a significant aspect of the pandemic policy decisions that it could not be based on ‘possibility’ or assumptions. We are afraid, however, that it was, and this had catastrophic consequences. They, these absurd and unscientific medical experts, made ‘asymptomatic spread’ the cornerstone of the societal lockdowns, and they did this with no credible basis. There was no strong data or any evidence to support this, and even if this was assumed for several weeks, and even if we took a more cautious approach initially and this was reasonable, we used and kept this false narrative in place far too long to keep draconian and punitive lockdown restrictions in place that had no basis. As a result, lives were lost.
For us to buy “asymptomatic spread,” we need to see the evidence and data, and there is and was none. We operate in a world of evidence-based medicine and research whereby policies must be supported by credible evidence, and even if it is ‘anecdotal’ ‘real-world evidence’, it must have some basis. This had none. The reality is that there is no verifiable, credible evidence, even today, that people have developed COVID-19 from asymptomatic spread. You must torture the data or infections to find a case, and even then it is plagued with the very questionable RT-PCR results.
You just cannot discuss this asymptomatic issue without factoring in the very flawed RT-PCR test with its 97% to 100% false positives at cycle counts (Ct) of 34 to 35 and above (optimal Ct of 24 to 25 denotes real infectiousness and predictive of serious outcomes). This disastrous RT-PCR test cannot be omitted from mention, for it was part of the ‘asymptomatic’ deception.
This duplicitous ‘asymptomatic’ assertion doomed the pandemic response from the start, for all the societal shutdowns and school closures revolved around the premise of asymptomatic spread. Dr. Anthony Fauci can be credited with perhaps the greatest falsehood told to the American population and President Trump. He continues to advance this misleading and duplicitous narrative to the current administration….
A high-quality review study by Madewell published in JAMA sought to estimate the secondary attack rate of SARS-CoV-2 in households and determine factors that modify this parameter. In addition, researchers sought to estimate the proportion of households with index cases that had any secondary transmission, and compared the SARS-CoV-2 household secondary attack rate with that of other severe viruses and with that to close contacts for studies that reported the secondary attack rate for both close and household contacts. The study was a meta-analysis of 54 studies with 77,758 participants. Secondary attack rates represented the spread to additional persons, and researchers found a 25-fold increased risk within households between symptomatic positive infected index persons versus asymptomatic infected index persons. “Household secondary attack rates were increased from symptomatic index cases (18.0%; 95% CI, 14.2%-22.1%) than from asymptomatic index cases (0.7%; 95% CI, 0%-4.9%)”. This study showed just how rare asymptomatic spread was within a confined household environment. “The real impact of asymptomatic transmission is likely to be even smaller than this figure because the study combines asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic individuals”.
A study published in Nature found no instances of asymptomatic spread from positive asymptomatic cases among all 1,174 close contacts of the cases, based on a base sample of 10 million people. AIER’s Zucker responded: “The conclusion is not that asymptomatic spread is rare or that the science is uncertain. The study revealed something that hardly ever happens in these kinds of studies. There was not one documented case. Forget rare. Forget even Fauci’s previous suggestion that asymptomatic transmission exists but does not drive the spread. Replace all that with: never. At least not in this study for 10,000,000.”
One study in May 2020 examined the 455 contacts of one asymptomatic person. Researchers found that “all CT images showed no sign of COVID-19 infection. No severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was detected in 455 contacts by nucleic acid test”.
The World Health Organization (WHO) also stated that asymptomatic spread/transmission is rare. This issue of asymptomatic spread is the key issue being used to force vaccination in children. The science, however, remains contrary to this proposed policy mandate.
Additionally, a high-quality robust study in the French Alps examined the spread of Covid-19 virus via a cluster of Covid-19 positive individuals. They followed one infected child who visited three different schools and interacted with other children, teachers, and various adults. They reported no instance of secondary transmission despite close interactions. These data have been available to the CDC and other health experts for over a year, and while one must tease out the concept of no asymptomatic spread, though we argue it is an easy argument to make, it clearly shows that children do not spread the virus.
Ludvigsson published in the New England Journal of Medicine a seminal paper on Covid-19 among children 1 to 16 years of age and their teachers in Sweden. From the nearly 2 million Swedish children who were followed in school, it was reported that, with no mask mandates, there were zero deaths from Covid, few instances of transmission and minimal hospitalization. We include this study for it is seminal in showing that masks were never needed and children do not spread the virus or get sick or die from it. But importantly, if asymptomatic spread was so vast, and there were 2 million children, would there not be much more elevated numbers of infection reported?
A June 10, 2021 opinion piece sheds more confirmatory light that asymptomatic spread was more a myth than a reality. Abir Ballan and Helen Tindall wrote: “People presenting with symptoms of Covid-19 are almost exclusively responsible for transmitting SARS-CoV-2… [S]erious infection usually results from frequent exposure to high doses of SARS-CoV-2, such as health care workers caring for sick Covid-19 patients in hospitals or nursing homes and people living in the same household.” They explain further that the myth was driven by a single case report of an asymptomatic woman from China who had spread the virus to approximately 16 contacts in Germany. “Later reports showed that, at the time of contact, this woman was taking medication for flu-like symptoms, invalidating the evidence provided for the theory of asymptomatic transmission,” they wrote.
Ballan and Tindall further explain that “a person showing no symptoms of Covid-19 may test positive for SARS-CoV-2 on a PCR test, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they are infectious. There are four ways in which this can happen: i) the test may give a false positive result due to several faults in the testing process or in the test itself (the person is not infected), ii) the person may have recovered from Covid-19 in the last three months (the person is not currently infected but dead debris of the virus are being picked up by the test), the person may be pre-symptomatic, i.e, the person is infected but still in the early stages of the disease and has not yet developed symptoms, and iv) the person may be asymptomatic, i.e. the person is infected but has pre-existing immunity and will never develop symptoms”.
Dr Clare Craig, a pathologist, and her colleague Dr Jonathan Engler have examined the research evidence behind the claim that Covid-19 can be transmitted by asymptomatic individuals. They wrote that “harmful lockdown policies and mass testing have been justified on the assumption that asymptomatic transmission is a genuine risk.” Given the harmful collateral effects of such policies, the precautionary principle should result in a very high evidential bar for asymptomatic transmission being set. However, the only word which can be used to describe the quality of evidence for this is woeful. A handful of questionable instances of spread have been massively amplified in the medical literature by repeatedly including them in meta-analyses that continue to be published, recycling the same evidence base.
It is important to carefully distinguish the purely asymptomatic (individuals who never develop any symptoms) from pre-symptomatic transmission (where individuals do eventually develop symptoms). To the extent that the latter phenomenon, which has in fact happened only very rarely, is deemed worthy of public health action, appropriate strategies to manage it (in the absence of significant asymptomatic transmission) would be entirely different and much less disruptive than those currently adopted.
We restate emphatically that the concept of ‘asymptomatic spread’ of the COVID-19 virus was devised to frighten the population into compliance and, contrary to what we were told, it was not central to this pandemic. Evidence to support its existence remains absent…