The first water born disease said to be scientifically documented is known as the Broad Street cholera outbreak of London in 1854. The so called "father of epidemiology" Dr. John Snow reportedly convinced local officials of the source of the disease outbreak by comparing water sources of disease struck households vs. healthy households, narrowing it down to a single pump on Broad Street.
Since then, those in the field of epidemiology have looked to water supplies for insight into communicable diseases and how they might spread. However, the most prevalent use of wastewater based epidemiology has been focused on drug use in the population. Both as a means to monitor relative illicit drug use and the increasing use of prescription based pharmaceuticals as well as their potential impact on the environment.
While cell culturing is still used today, newer methods used to detect biological and "viral" molecules have been developed. One such method is known as hybridization with radioactive cDNA probes and more recently in the 1990's, Polymerase chain reaction or PCR. In 1996, Russia began implementing systematic wastewater surveillance programs for monitoring enteroviruses, namely poliovirus. More recently, in 2020, wastewater surveillance garnered attention due to the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus.
This brings us to the current iteration of wastewater surveillance. The same version of wastewater surveillance being proposed by the de facto Mono County Board of Supervisors and currently being utilized by over 30 waste water treatment plants in California. Whereby a wastewater sampling device is used to collect samples of wastewater which are sent off to a lab for PCR testing.
Proponents of wastewater surveillance claim that it would help monitor levels of SARS-CoV-2 virus and other communicable diseases in the community, such as Polio. Providing information they say will help predict outbreaks. However, their claims are unsubstantiated.
The most glaring and overlooked factor of wastewater surveillance in municipal water supplies involves the water supply itself. Modern municipal water supplies are generally treated with chlorine or a variation thereof, which act as powerful disenfecting agents. Water districts are required by law to maintain a minimum level of chlorine in the water supply, which is referred to as residual chlorine. The purpose of residual chlorine is to ensure any pathogens introduced into the water supply, or currently in the water supply, are "killed". Ideally making for water that is "safe" enough for consumption.
Residual chlorine also interacts with excreted fecal material as soon as it enters the water supply. The purpose of the residual chlorine in this instance, is to start the disenfection process in wastewater of harmful pathogens found in human waste. For example, chlorine used in public water supplies is heralded as a major contributing factor for reducing water borne disease outbreaks, such as Cholera, Typhoid, and Polio. Polio's primary transmission method is through human fecal material and contaminated food and water. Residual chlorine in the water supply creates an oxidizing chemical reaction with pathogens. The amount of time residual chlorine interacts with material in the water supply is called the "contact time". With enough contact time, the residual chlorine will inactivate nearly all pathogens by breaking the bonds in their molecules. Viral inactivation is defined as the complete removal of virus or rendering a pathogen non-infectious.
The scientific literature surrounding viral inactivation is not well established and leaves many questions unanswered. One such question being; what are the threshold differentials between viral inactivation and viral destruction? In other words, if SARS-CoV-2 and Polio virus are inactivated by 1 mg/l residual chlorine in the water supply within 15 minutes, what impact will a longer contact time have?
If 15 minutes of contact time with 1 mg/l residual chlorine is ample enough to scramble the RNA in these two viruses, rendering them non-infectious, is 30 minutes of contact time ample enough to destroy their RNA altogether?
According to a Mammoth Community Water District Board member, the estimated time the town wastewater takes to reach the testing site is around 2 hours, possibly longer. Assuming the test sample's are not mixing with older wastewater, they will be taken with at least two hours of residual chlorine contact time. Once the samples are taken, they are sealed and sent off to a lab, further extending the contact time. According to the MCWD water quality report of 2021, the range of residual chlorine in the water supply is .34 ppm - 1.22ppm. With an average of .87ppm. (.87 mg/l)
Both the SARS-CoV-2 and Polio virus are claimed to be RNA based viruses and both are enveloped. The envelope is described as a lipid or capsid shell which acts as a protective layer for the RNA and also plays a role in the infection process. Oxidation via chlorine disrupts the cell wall of the membrane, or shell, when an electron is taken away from the molecule. During this process, the shell protecting the viral RNA begins to weaken, compromising the cellular structure, eventually breaking the barrier allowing for the constituents inside to leak out. Once the envelop is compromised, the viral RNA is exposed to the residual chlorine and also begins the oxidizing process, breaking the bonds of the RNA. The end result of residual chlorine oxidation not only causes viral inactivation but also removal through RNA destruction. As these bonds break, the RNA strands that make up the viral genomes become indistinguishable and therefore unquantifiable. Which brings us to another glaring and overlooked aspect to wastewater surveillance, the method of testing.
Polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, is unfit for the purpose of wastewater surveillance. Why? PCR testing is unable to quantify levels of viral RNA in test samples. If one RNA sequence matches what the PCR test is looking for, the outcome will be a positive result. PCR test results also vary widely depending on what the cycle threshold is set to. The higher the cycle threshold, the higher instance a positive result occurs. Including false positives, which essentially means that the test detected something that is not actually there or not what the test is looking for.
False positive test results can also occur from detection of naked nucleic acids. The majority of naked nucleic acids are laboratory produced and are not naturally occurring. Naked nucleic acids, also known as free nucleic acids, are foreign to nature, which is defined as a xenobiotic. Industrial production and medical products such as gene therapy vectors and vaccines are responsible for most sources of naked nucleic acids. Another source of naked nucleic acids result from the unnatural amount of chlorine in municipal water supplies interacting with biologicals. Chlorine breaks the bonds of microorganisms causing cells to burst which produces naked DNA and RNA. Naked RNA and DNA can be absorbed and incorporated into the cells of other microorganisms in a process known as horizontal gene transfer.
In theory, an organism that is resistant to chlorine, such as Giardia or Cryptosporidium parasites, could uptake random naked nucleic acids, or RNA from SARS-CoV-2 and Polio. Horizontal RNA transfer could generate a positive PCR test result in wastewater samples.
Naked Nucleic acids have increasingly become subject to scrutiny as environmental contaminants. Once thought to be harmless dna and rna by-products, evidence against this hypothesis is mounting. Horizontal gene transfer and recombination are taking the blame for the surge of drug and antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Additionally, the PCR test can not distinguish between viable or non-viable molecules. The viral theory also supports the notion that people exposed to infectious pathogens will shed non-viable virus for months or years after infection. This is something worth taking into consideration if you disagree that virus molecules are unable to withstand the oxidizing effects of chlorine in the water supply. Simply because non-viable virus shedding will give a false impression of active pathogen levels in the community. Couple that with "vaccines" or MRNA gene therapy injection shedding and you add even more junk information into the equation.
Furthermore, due to the unquantifiable nature of PCR testing, monitoring virus levels present in the community or prediction of outbreaks is not possible. Whether the PCR test detects one RNA sequence or billions of RNA sequences, it is unable to make that distinction. Therefore, accurate wastewater surveillance of pathogen levels in the community is not feasible.
If accurate wastewater surveillance of pathogen levels in the community is impossible in municipal water supplies, why is there such a push to implement it? One can only speculate, but there are some interesting possibilities worth considering. Who or what has the most to gain from implementing wastewater surveillance?
The government certainly comes to mind as one entity that would benefit from such a program. Using PCR testing of wastewater as a means to turn up the fear dial in a community and impose draconian policies is definitely something government tyrants desire. Among other things of course, but who or what else could benefit?
The corporations involved in testing the wastewater samples are also beneficiaries of this program. More testing generates more revenue for them. Test manufacturers and laboratory financial interests are certainly in the realm of possibility.
Hmmm, let's see, what other possible entities would have an interest in testing wastewater? Oohhh yeaahh... what about the manufacturers of those experimental MRNA Covid injections? Perhaps there is something in the injections these companies would be interested in finding in the wastewater samples? Could it be that the test subjects are excreting patented super shelled oxidation resistant spike proteins in their waste? Perhaps there is something else in the injections that would be able to withstand the oxidation process of the residual chlorine in the water supply? Maybe they are looking for those mechanical and crystalline objects conspiracy theorists claim are nano bot artificial intelligence? Are they looking for bioengineered fluke parasites? Woah now... that is way out there! That could not possibly be the reason there is such a push for wastewater surveillance. Could it?
Regardless of the reasons there is such a push for wastewater surveillance, accurate wastewater surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 and other communicable disease in the community is not feasible for two main reasons.
1. The chlorinated water supply's role in the alteration and destruction of pathogen levels.
2. The PCR test is unfit for purpose.