Since so much weight is put on testing, testing, testing, when it comes to COVID-19, we thought it wise to do a bit of research on where our Kansas test kits are coming from and their track record for accuracy.

In 2020 we were able to obtain, through FOIA requests, copies of a Purchase Invoice and Purchase Order (attached) for 500,000 test kits used in Kansas. These documents show these kits were purchased from OKEC, LLC (a Delaware LLC), with shipment coming from Shanghai China to Topeka, Kansas.

Download the pdf of our FOIA request here.

There are serious concerns regarding the accuracy of test kits coming out of China:

• “Coronavirus testing in the UK has been delayed after kits were found to be contaminated with Covid-19, it's reported.” (1)

• “Some 80% of coronavirus rapid tests China donated to the Czech Republic as part of the communist country’s global goodwill effort are faulty, according to news reports.” (2)

• Tanzania president questions testing - “Test kits were faulty as they had returned positive results on a goat and a pawpaw [an indiginous fruit] — among several non-human samples submitted for testing, with technicians left deliberately unaware of their origins.” (3)

• Georgia man tests positive, then negative, four hours apart. (4)

In addition to the concerns over inaccuracy of these tests, we also investigated how PCR tests work and their limitations. Read these quotes from this article, “Flaws in Coronavirus Pandemic Theory” by David Crowe. (5)

• “The COVID-19 test is based on PCR, a DNA manufacturing technique. When used as a test it does not produce a positive/negative result, but simply the number of cycles required to detect sufficient material to beat the arbitrary cutoff between positive and negative.” (pgs. 1-2)

• “Given that several people bounced back from negative to positive again, one could argue that the cutoff should be more (or maybe less) than 37 cycles. But likely if this was done many more people might test positive, and even with a cutoff of, say, 40, going to negative and back again might still occur.” (pg. 15)

• “Some test results simply do not make sense if the test accurately reflects an infection that comes, making someone positive, and then goes, returning the person to negative. Often, when ‘impossible’ test results occur, authorities tie themselves in knots trying to explain the test without questioning the accuracy of the RT-PCR RNA test for COVID-19 or the viral paradigm.” (pg. 40)

The FDA’s instructions on PCR testing (6) include using 40 cycles (see page 34). It appears that the results from these PCR tests can return a different result, depending on how many “cycles” are used.

Here is another document put out by Monterey County, California: “PCR Testing: Advantages, Limitations and Interpreting Results” which states that “PCR testing alone may be limited as a diagnostic tool.” (7)

As you can see, while PCR tests may be a good start for testing, they can be very inaccurate and therefore should not be used to diagnose.

View the fully sourced list of concerns here.

CONCERN 1: Previous attempts at developing a coronavirus vaccine triggered lethal immune-enhancement reactions when the vaccinated later encountered the wild virus. Are post-COVID vaccination deaths this same phenomenon?

CONCERN 2: COVID-19 vaccines were fast-tracked, skipped important animal studies, and were not tested on people with variable pre-existing health conditions.

CONCERN 3: Coronavirus vaccine makers were given full immunity from liability and cannot be sued for injuries or death through a declaration under the PREP Act.

CONCERN 4: Evidence is emerging that mRNA vaccines may affect DNA through reverse transcription and could also trigger severe immune responses / cytokine storms.

CONCERN 5: Some vaccines have been proven to only mask symptoms, not the actual transmission of the disease. Are the COVID-19 vaccines among them?

CONCERN 6: There are already reports that the COVID-19 virus is mutating. Since the family of coronaviruses are very cold and flu-like, will a COVID-19 vaccine be just as difficult (or impossible) to nail down as the flu?

CONCERN 7: The number and seriousness of the injuries and deaths already reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) should have halted the COVID-19 vaccine program by now.

CONCERN 8: By Pfizer’s own admission, evidence is emerging that those who received COVID-19 vaccines may be transmitting to the unvaccinated.

CONCERN 9: Despite the fact that COVID-19 vaccines have ONLY been given “emergency use authorization” (EUA), and are NOT fully approved by the FDA, many universities, schools, and employers are still choosing to mandate them. To what harm?

CONCERN 10: Tragic cases are accumulating of heart issues and death for teens and young adults who have received COVID-19 vaccines. Why would we administer potentially harmful COVID-19 vaccines to children, teens, or young adults who are not at serious risk of harm from COVID-19? To do so would be all risk and no benefit.

CONCERN 11: Despite no data or science to support a sudden change in recommendation, the CDC is now allowing the COVID-19 vaccine to be co-administered with other vaccines. Will this gain in convenience be costly in terms of injury and risk?

CONCERN 12: Vaccine makers’ claims of the effectiveness of their COVID-19 vaccines have been grossly overstated and misleading.

CONCERN 13: With bribes, incentives, and rewards being offered to coerce people into getting a COVID-19 vaccine, where is the informed consent? People deserve to be fully informed of the risks and benefits without being rushed or blinded by incentives.

CONCERN 14: Many doctors and scientists are looking to spike proteins as the cause for the heart and blood clotting issues we’re seeing with these COVID-19 vaccines.

Download our COVID-19 Vaccine Concerns Flyer here.

Scientists claim that the monovalent COVID-19 vaccines only target the ancestral strain of the virus, while the bivalent vaccines have components targeting both the ancestral and new strains such as Omicron BA.4/BA.5 strains. But how effective are they against these new strains?

Regarding bivalent boosters, the CDC website notes that "Vaccine effectiveness against XBB and XBB.1.5 is unknown." Yet, at the time of that statement, according to the CDC, XBB and SBB.1.5 were the two variants currently circulating. Effectiveness is unknown. It’s an astounding admission. Yet doctors advised patients to get these shots and are still prescribing boosters. Why would a doctor prescribe something that's not known to be effective? And how can we know if they're safe?  

The CDC is effectively admitting there's zero clinical data supporting claims for the actual contents of the bivalent booster shots. That’s because those contents weren’t directly studied against the two most widely-circulating variants XBB/XBB.1.5. Instead, the CDC reports that a "proxy" was used. This is NOT the same as testing against the pathogens themselves.  

So, how did this "proxy" do in tests? According to the CDC, it provided "additional protection" against symptomatic infection for at least the first three months after injection. Did they do clinical studies to determine this? No. There were no randomized clinical trials. That's why legally, the CDC can only say ""Vaccine effectiveness against XBB and XBB.1.5 is unknown."  

If you want, you can read through all of the analysis of the "testing" done for the bivalent shots. It's found on the CDC website. You might notice there’s quite a bit of jargon that only a statistician would understand. (Can you say “obfuscate?”) However, it doesn't require a degree in statistical analysis to see that there are certain unavoidable facts being presented that that can’t be completely hidden.

The truth is that by the CDC's own wording, these "tests" are merely estimates. Not only that, they're gleaned from PCR test results reported by Walgreens pharmacies. Somehow the authors failed to mention that PCR tests have been discredited as diagnostic tests for COVID. Even the inventor of PCR technology, Dr. Kary Mullis, stated publicly that PCR testing was NEVER capable of diagnosing illness. It's also been firmly established that PCR tests can be calibrated to sensitivity levels that will detect virus fragments months after an infection, causing a high incidence of false positives in healthy, asymptomatic people.

It doesn’t take a PhD statistician to understand that this analysis lacks scientific credibility. It’s not what good doctors consider “robust clinical data.” It's a far cry from the gold standard of clinical data done in Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs). Good doctors don't make clinical decisions based on observational, retrospective analysis of lab tests from a commercial entity like Walgreens.  

This is the opposite of scientific rigor. It's not peer reviewed data. There's no placebo group, no blinding of participants or researchers. Most importantly, there's no primary endpoint looking at whether there's a reduction in transmission, so there's no way they can claim effectiveness! This is very weak data. Most good doctors know these types of “studies” are dubious and lack statistical power. They know studies like this are inadequate for making important treatment decisions.  

Furthermore, this data isn’t published in a scientific journal. It's just posted on the CDC website. The authors aren't listed as credentialed clinical researchers. These data were compiled and posted by Ruth Link-Gelles, a media producer who works for the CDC, along with Stephanie Schrag, who also works for the CDC, along with teams at Aegis Sciences Lab and Walgreens Co. This is a big red flag, as there are tremendous conflicts of interest here. People who benefit financially from these injections should NOT be the ones presenting their own findings that favor the injections. This is absolutely incredible.

Importantly, people who are immunocompromised were excluded from these tests, so if that describes you, there's no data whatsoever to indicate you’d be helped in any way from these shots.

Do your own research. Ask questions. Make your own decisions. Be informed.

HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE (HCQ):

Hydroxychloroquine is on the WHO model list of essential medicines. (1)

• 1955 - HCQ is approved by the FDA. (2)

• August 22, 2005 - NIH Study finds Chloroquine to be effective against coronaviruses. (Dr. Fauci knew.) (3)

• March 17, 2020 - Dr. Didier Raoult, French infectious disease professor, provided a preliminary report on 36 patients treated successfully with HCQ and sometimes azithromycin at his institution in Marseille. (4)

• March 2020 - In a news conference, Dr. Fauci launched his concerted attack on HCQ. When asked whether HCQ might be used as a prophylaxis for COVID, he answered back: “The answer is no, and the evidence that you’re talking about is anecdotal evidence.” Dr. Fauci also declared that HCQ should only be(5) used as part of a clinical trial. (5)

• March 2020 - Dr. Fauci’s allies at the New York Times launched a campaign to defame Dr. Raoult. (6)

• April 2020 - Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, M.D., an upstate New York physician, reproduced Dr. Didier Raoult’s startling success by dramatically reducing expected mortalities among 800 patients Zelenko treated with the HCQ cocktail. Since that time Dr. Zelenko has successfully treated thousands of COVID patients. (7)

• Late April 2020 - US doctors were widely prescribing HCQ to patients and family members, reporting outstanding results, and taking it themselves prophylactically. (8)

• May 2020 - Dr. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., published a comprehensive study on HCQ’s efficacy against COVID, concluding that evidence is unequivocal for early and safe use of the HCQ cocktail. (9)

• May 22, 2020 - The Lancet published an HCQ study which later had to be retracted (June 4, 2020) because it was found that the data was fabricated. Clinical trials were suspended. The damage was done. (10) (11)

• May 2020 - WHO and UK trials of HCQ used potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine doses, concluding that those given HCQ had a higher death rate than those in the control arm. (12)

• May 27, 2020 - Switzerland banned the use of HCQ; however, about 2 weeks into the ban, Switzerland’s death rates tripled, for about 15 days, until Switzerland reintroduced HCQ. COVID death rates then fell back to their baseline. (13)

• June 2, 2020 - Association for American Physicians and Surgeons filed a court filing comparing the national death rates among countries with varying policies governing access to HCQ. Many countries with underdeveloped health care systems were using HCQ early and achieving far lower mortalities than in the United States. For example, in Venezuela, HCQ was available over the counter without a prescription, while in the United States, pharmacists were prevented from filling prescriptions for HCQ. (14) (15)

• June 15, 2020 - FDA revokes the EUA for HCQ and sends out an alert that HCQ was dangerous, and that it required a level of monitoring only available at hospitals. Federal officials continued to encourage doctors to use the suddenly-dangerous drug without restriction for lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Lyme and malaria. Just not for COVID. With the encouragement of Dr. Fauci and other HHS officials, many states simultaneously imposed restrictions on HCQ’s use. (16)

• June 15, 2020 - State pharmacy boards began refusing orders from physicians and retailers. Hospitals commanded doctors to cease treating their patients with HCQ. (17) (18)

• June 17, 2020 - WHO called for the halt of HCQ trials in hundreds of hospitals across the world and the WHO Chief ordered nations to stop using HCQ and CQ. (19) (20)

• July 2, 2020 - Detroit's Henry Ford Health System published a peer-reviewed study showing that HCQ significantly cut death rates even in mid-to-late COVID cases, and without any heart-related side effects. (21)

• July 30, 2020 - Dr. Fauci testifies before Congress that the Detroit Henry Ford Health System’s results were “flawed.” (22)

• August 2020 - HCQ Study: Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille, France: A retrospective analysis - Conclusion: “early treatment of COVID-19 patients, with at least 3 days of HCQ-AZ lead to a significantly better clinical outcome and a faster viral load reduction than other treatments.” (23)

• August 12, 2020 - Open letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci from Dr. George Fareed regarding the use of HCQ for treating COVID. (Dr. George Fareed treated thousands of COVID patients successfully, with no deaths or hospitalizations.) (24)

• October 9, 2023 - There are 413 studies involving 525,069 patients and 8,604 doctors regarding hydroxychloroquine that show statistically significant improvement for mortality, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 65% improvement for early treatment. 20% improvement for late treatment. 77% less death in 16 early treatment trials. Click here for current results. (25)

Ivermectin is on the WHO model list of essential medicines. (1)

• 1996 - Ivermectin is approved by the FDA. (2) (3)

• February 10, 2011 - Japan’s Kitasato Institute published a paper describing IVM as a “Wonder Drug.” (4)

• 2015 - Two Merck scientists won the Nobel Prize for developing Ivermectin. This was the Nobel Committee’s only award to an infectious disease medication in 60 years. (5)

• March 2020 - Dr. Paul Marik, chief of intensive care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, began posting treatment guidelines for the care of COVID patients.

• March 2020 - Some front-line ICU and ER doctors began using IVM in combination with HCQ in early treatment protocols. Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter, a Belgian physician working in Miami, began using IVM March 15 and immediately saw an uptick in recoveries. (6)

• April 3, 2020 - Australian researchers at Monash and Melbourne Universities and the Royal Melbourne Hospital published an article titled, “Lab experiments show anti-parasitic drug, Ivermectin, eliminates SARS-CoV-2 in cells in 48 hours.” (7)

• Mid-April 2020 - Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), created a website and posted their first treatment protocols.

• May 8, 2020- Peru, then under siege by a crushing COVID endemic, adopted Ivermectin in its national guidelines. COVID deaths dropped by 14-fold in the regions where Ivermectin was distributed. (8)

• June 12, 2020 - Nature Magazine published a study reviewing 50 years of research finding IVM “highly effective against microorganisms including some viruses.” (9)

• August 6, 2020 - The state Health Department of Uttar Pradesh introduced Ivermectin as prophylaxis for close contacts of Covid patients, health workers as well as for the treatment of the patients themselves through a government order on August 6, 2020, after a committee headed by the Director General, Medical and Health Services, gave it the go ahead. By September the government announced the state’s districts were virtually devoid of active cases. (10)

• Summer 2020 - Front-line physicians had discovered another COVID remedy that equalled HCQ in its staggering, life-saving efficacy – Ivermectin.

• Summer 2020 - Dr. Hector Carvallo, from Argentina, conducted a randomized placebo-controlled trial of IVM as a preventative, finding 100% efficacy against COVID. (11)

• November 2020 - The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) doctors felt there was enough evidence to add IVM to their protocols. (12)

• December 2020 - Peru’s new president, under pressure from WHO, severely restricted IVM availability and COVID cases rebounded with deaths increasing 13-fold. (13)

• December 2020 - The Annals of Dermatology and Venereology reported that in a French nursing home, all 69 residents (average age 90) and 52 staff survived a COVID outbreak. It turns out they had all taken IVM for a scabies infection. (14) (15)

• December 2020 - FLCCC President and Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care specialist, testified to the benefits of IVM before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. In this testimony, Dr. Kory shared details of studies that show near perfect prevention of transmission, stunning recovery among hospitalized patients, and reductions in mortality when treated with IVM. (16)

• December 15, 2020 - Two Western physicians using IVM in Bangladesh reported a very high rate of recoveries, even among patients in later states of illness. (17)

• December 24, 2020 - The South African government quietly banned the importation of IVM. Youtube scrubbed Dr. Kory’s video and Facebook blocked him. (18)

• January 2021 - Dr. David Chesler, a geriatric specialist who had treated 191 infected patients since the previous spring at seven Virginia nursing homes, wrote to Dr. Fauci claiming that he had achieved a mortality rate of 8% using IVM. In the letter to Dr. Fauci, Chesler attached a peer-reviewed case study documenting reports of similar efficacy from other countries. Neither Dr. Fauci nor anyone else from NIAID replied to Dr. Chesler’s letter. (19)

• January 7, 2021 - In a meta-analysis presentation to the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel, the FLCCC physicians and Dr. Hill presented data from 18 randomized controlled trials that included over 2,100 patients. The trial results demonstrated that ivermectin produces faster viral clearance, faster time to hospital discharge, faster time to clinical recovery, and a 75% reduction in mortality rates. (20)

• January 14, 2021 - The NIH’s COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel changed its previously negative recommendation to doctors regarding IVM to “neither for nor against.” This was the first signal of the agency’s determination to suppress IVM. NIH claimed that there was “Insufficient evidence…to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.” (21)

• January 19, 2021 - A study in The Lancet found that IVM dramatically reduced the intensity and duration of symptoms and viral loading. (22)

• February 2021 - The head of the Tokyo Metropolitan Medical Association held a press conference to call for adding IVM to its outpatient treatment protocol. (23)

• March 2021 - A study by Choudhury et al., found that Ivermectin has anti-viral efficiency, reduces inflammation thereby protecting against organ damage, impairs the spike protein’s ability to attach to the ACE2 receptor preventing viral entry, prevents blood clots, and more. (24)

• March 2021 - The US FDA, the European Medicines Association, and the WHO issued statements advising against the use of IVM for COVID-19. The EMA said it should not be used at all. The WHO said it should be limited to use in clinical trials. The FDA stated IVM should not be used to treat or prevent COVID-19. (25) (26) (27)

• April 20, 2021 - India’s medical societies added IVM to the national protocol. They began an aggressive campaign in the state of New Delhi, where COVID was raging, and were able to obliterate 97% of Delhi cases by distributing IVM. India showed that early combination therapy – budesonide, ivermectin, doxycycline, and zinc, costing between two and five dollars – made COVID symptoms disappear within three to five days. (28)

• June 2021 - Indonesia’s government not only authorized the use of the drug but also created a website showing its real-time availability. (29)

• July 22, 2021 - Hospitals in Indonesia started using IVM and by the first week of August, cases and deaths were plummeting. (30)

• July 28, 2021 - A front-page Wall Street Journal article asked, “Why is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?” (31)

• August 3, 2021 - A study was done that concluded that IVM would probably be effective against all future variants of COVID. (32)

• August 21, 2021 - The FDA posted on Twitter, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” (33)

• August 16, 2021 - CDC ordered doctors to stop prescribing IVM.

• August 17, 2021 - The NIAID recommended against Ivermectin’s use to combat the novel coronavirus.

• August 26, 2021 - The CDC sent out an emergency warning using its Health Alert Network, warning doctors and pharmacists not to prescribe Ivermectin. (34)

• Late August 2021 - NIH, FDA, and CDC launched an innovative campaign to slander Ivermectin as a “horse dewormer.” The Independent asked, “Ivermectin: Why Are US Anti-Vaxxers Touting a Horse Dewormer as a Cure for COVID?” (35)

• September 1, 2021 - Following CDC/FDA/NIAID’s lead, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Pharmacists Association (APhA), and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) called on doctors to immediately stop prescribing IVM for COVID outside of clinical trials. (36)

• September 2021 - Doctors who continue to prescribe IVM to treat their patients face growing scrutiny and heavy-handed tactics including censorship, threats to their license and board certifications, and other repressive policies from governments and medical boards. Pharmacists, including the large chains like CVS and Walmart, refused to fill prescriptions. (37) (38)

• September 2021 - After giving out 3rd booster doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, but still seeing high rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths, Israel started using IVM, with the health insurance companies distributing IVM to high-risk citizens.

• September 2021 - El Salvador distributes IVM for free to all of its citizens. (39)

• October 1, 2021 - Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield puts restrictions on covering Ivermectin prescriptions. (40)

• September 23, 2023 - There are 99 studies from 137,255 patients and 1,089 doctors that show statistically significant improvement for mortality, ventilation, ICU, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. 85% improvement for prophylaxis. 62% improvement for early treatment. 41% improvement for late treatment. 55% improvement in 46 random controlled trials. 49% lower mortality from 51 studies. Click here for current results. (41)

Disclaimer: The following is provided for informational purposes only. This is not to be taken as advice or for the diagnosis, treatment, prevention of any disease. Please consult with your healthcare practitioner before starting, stopping, or altering any medical treatment.

GUIDES:

A Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment - PDF Booklet

COVID-19 Quick Reference Guide from Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom

Treat COVID at Home Protocols by Nurse Michelle (Click on “Resources” at the top of her site for more COVID related helps!)

PROTOCOLS:

Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance - Prevention & Treatment Protocols for COVID-19

America’s Frontline Doctors

Dr. Richard Bartlett - Budesonide Strategy

The Zelenko Protocol (Early COVID-19 Treatment)

Dr. Richard Fleming

HOW TO FIND A DOCTOR:

The James Clinic

PushHealth

Synergy Health DPC

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Speak with an MD

FLCCC Doctor Directory

Doctors Don’t Fear COVID

FLCCC Alliance

My Free Doctor

Remote Health USA

iCareVip.com

Accucare

Frontline MDs with Dr. Stella Immanuel

Dr. Jim Meehan

Dr. Syed Haider

Seven Cells

Text2MD

Truth for Health Foundation

PHARMACIES - WHERE TO GET SUPPLEMENTS:

Ivermectin (USA)

AllDayChemist (India)

FLCCC Alliance

India Mart

COVID-19 SUPPLEMENTS:

CoviVites from Dr. Stella Immanuel

Z-Stack from Dr. Zelenko

Doc’s Viral Defense from Dr. Ardis

If you or someone you know was denied treatment options for COVID-19 or did not receive proper care, please contact us using the subject line “C-19 Treatment Injury Story.”

Read the COVID-19 Treatment Injury Stories of other Kansans here.