Your demonstration of evidence for cycle threshold abuse will be useful for me, as I had planned to re-cover the PCR Ct issue to help further demonstrate why the care home deaths were indeed murders - not simply sped up C19 deaths - by giving readers a crash course on the follies of PCR.

It is, as you say, a 'done' and stale subject within the lockdown critical crowd, so I had been putting off putting out such an article until I could devise some means to also make it particularly useful to readers, so an early coverage by WATN would be good.

Expand full comment


via FOIs I came across this document from the UK Government:


Understanding Cycle Threshold Ct In Sars Cov 2 Rt Pcr

Looking at the pretty graph on page 5 it looks like the optimum number of threshold cycles to run is about 26-28 to give an accurate reading.

But the UK Government and many others worldwide were using considerably more cycles than this and the UN’s WHO was recommending 50 cycles.

So I started thinking about and then asked the UK’s Public Health England (PHE) where the 45 cycles they were recommending came from.

They said “from the test kit manufacturers”.

So I looked on the MHRA’s website and found the list of officially approved PCR test kit manufacturers and picked one at random and asked them the same question - where did the 45 cycles requirement come from?

They replied and stated “it is a PHE requirement”.

From their reply :

This is a PHE requirement rather than what is laid out by the manufacturer.

Quit clear and understandable.

So I asked them “you sure on that as they say it’s not?”

I then re-checked PHE’s requirements again and they had changed so I sent another e-mail to the PCR test manufacturer with the new information.

With reference to our previous e-mail correspondence in November 2020 about the number of cycles to use in RT-PCR test analysis, you said the PHE requirement was for 45 to be used.

On the Government’s website, published mid-October 2020 there is this document:


In it it says:

Recommended actions

All laboratories should determine the threshold for a positive result at the limit of detection based on the in-use assay.

It is necessary to strike a balance between the risk of false positive test results and an acceptable level of delay in test turnaround time (time taken to report results).

This basically mean that the laboratory is responsible for deciding the number of amplification cycles to run, not the PHE, and research shows that any more than 28-32 is not recommended.

Recently Portugal’s courts has ruled that positive RT-PCR results cannot be used to justify isolation or other restrictions on individuals, there are court cases on-going in Germany that are similar and cases are being prepared in the UK for court cases on the same matter.

I’m guessing this recently published document is Government’s defence and they can blame the testing kit manufacturers such as yourself and testing labs for the “results” and a pandemic based on testing, not a real virus, when the court rules that the RT-PCR tests are being used in such a way they are outwith their recommendations and used in such a way they deliberately increased the number of “positives”.

Feel free to pass this information on to the relevant departments in your company, other test kit manufacturers and laboratories.

“Oh” they said - well a bit more than that in fact but you get my gist:

Thank you for this information.

This has been a very interesting read, to my knowledge guidelines on running the test were passed to the laboratories which will have stated the number of cycles required so I will be interested in knowing how that would affect any court rulings.

I was unaware of these cases being brought to court but will now look into this at is particularly interesting.

Anyone else gets the feeling that the UK Government has prepared to throw the PCR test kit manufacturers to the wolves if things get too sticky in a test court case or public inquiry or a Nuremburg 2?

Expand full comment

Very useful info. Statements of interest here:

"A typical RT-PCR assay will have a maximum of 40 thermal cycles"

Initially in the "pandemic", FOI's were circulating that hospitals were using ct values in the mid twenties and early thirties. In early 2022, the ct values were wholesale 40 and above as far as I know. Can I ask, in your opinion, does the above statement confirm that detection equipment is being turned up to the very maximum as in the number of thermal cycles which can be run is the same as the ct value?

Another statement:

"Ct values cannot be directly compared between assays of different types"

This seems to be a covering statement. If they try to claim that the very high ct value used to determine whether a patient has covid or not is a result of different assay equipment, again, hospitals are using quipment with a ct value of 40 and above from a variety of different manufacturers with none below. How could so many different manufacturers be using very similar and wildly high values? The keyword which misdirects I think is "directly".

And I'll end with there own damning statement which reveals their emphasis on diagnosing as many patients as possible with covid-19 so none are missed - false positives being just collateral.

"Live and potentially infectious virus

has been isolated in laboratory cell culture from samples exhibiting high Ct (>36) - to

what extent this indicates a potential transmission risk from person-to-person is not fully understood"

Expand full comment

The graph of page 5 suggests to me a ct value between 26 and 30 will be good enough to decide if the DNA has been found or not.

As it says on pg 6 in bold so you can't miss it:

"RT-PCR detects presence of viral genetic material in a sample but is not able to

distinguish whether infectious virus is present."

Why bother going any higher than 30-32 as it is not a diagnostioc tool except to drive a narrative of "being infected" and boost "case numbers".

Expand full comment

Totally agree. Only in 1 case I found was a positive PCR test ever overrided by the clinical context of the patient. Total misunderstanding and misuse of the equipment.

Expand full comment

I took many PCR samples to various labs during the "pandemic" - it is amazing that any of them gave any sort of meaningful reading the way the samples were treated.

I recall one lab looked like a run down shed in an industrial estate back lane. When they opened the door inside was filthy, no assay machines, just a big pile of bags with samples in.

It was all just total nonsense.

Expand full comment

I possess a number of FOI responses from hospital trusts covering questions such as their CT values (usually 40!), testing equipment, testing frequency, guidelines, and has ever a positive PCR test been overriden (1 actually did) and more. If you would benefit from these, I'm happy to share. These are not on whatdotheyknow.

Good luck with your work

Expand full comment

Yes please! Such evidence of PCT would be vital!

Expand full comment

Most are PDF files. How's best to send?

Expand full comment

Are you able to DM me on Twitter?


If not, you can upload to gitlab.com or some file sharing website?

Expand full comment

Sounds okay. I will arrange one of these options sometime tomorrow morning and get the stuff sent across.

Expand full comment

Thank you!

Expand full comment

Time to also look into Kary Mullis's death, Aug 2019.

Expand full comment

My thoughts exactly, as a matter of fact ever since I smelled a rat…

Expand full comment

His death was perfectly timed. They couldn't have faked the PCR test with him around.

Expand full comment
Mar 15, 2023·edited Mar 16, 2023Liked by Martin Neil

The first isolation and full characterization of the Wuhan Covid 19 outside of China was done in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia in January 2020. It was isolated, examined by Transmission Electron Microscopy and confirmed to a Coronavirus by PCR, then full Sequencing, then successful Culture and Export.


Expand full comment


I think the question is not whether sars-cov2 exists but whether it was in wide circulation, mutated quickly or slowly, and whether it was that novel or deadly. JJCoey's ideas are worth a look here.

Expand full comment

Isolation in this context refers to observing cytopathic effects in cell cultures of patient samples. Controls are not done which would show that the stress of cell culture itself causes cytopathic effects.

Characterisation by transmission EM of virus-like particles seen in cell culture (never seen in patient samples) (probably made by stressing the cell culture itself and which are seen in 'uninfected' cultures) is guess work as studies on transmission and pathogenicity cannot be done as the particles are already embedded in resin. No one knows what a virus looks like, cos they've never knowingly seen one under EM.

The Melbourne group were the ones who noted ‘Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin (an enzyme that digests protein) to the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology.' This is comical.

How can the PCR confirm a coronavirus when the primers were designed from an insilco sequence which was never correlated with illness in multiple patients nor an entity able to transmit illness?

How was the first full sequence of genome found. Fan Wu et al found 56 million short RNA fragments in an unpurified sample and arranged them and added to them in a computer to make what they thought it should look like. Programming this template into a sequencer and then finding the short sequences in other patients doesn't mean the 'genome' has been found again. Whole genome sequencing is not, as claimed, end to end, but in short sections using PCR primers.

Putting the samples back into culture and observing cytopathic effects again or 'export'(?) have the same problems as above.

Illness or 'covid' followed wherever the fear, treatments and non-specific PCR 'tests' went.

Virology is the abuse of the scientific method



Expand full comment

I have watched Couey video productions where he falsely stated, with comic graphics, that the majority of exhaled virions from an infected individual are incapable of replication. It was obviously widely circulating as complete planeloads were exposed due to China travellers all around the globe. Deaths in Victoria followed rapidly after the first detected case, leading to succesful lockdown and border closures in Australia. https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/australias-plan-to-deliberately-spread

Expand full comment
Mar 16, 2023Liked by Martin Neil

There is no such thing as a successful lockdown unless you are part of a totalitarian government.

Expand full comment

Are you aware, that German RKI has confirmed that the sars virus cannot be purified from patient sample, only from culture?

"We purified SARS particles by density gradient. However, just from cell culture derived virus, as you wrote. The challenge with purifying SARS from patient samples is that you won't get a visible band."


Expand full comment

The Coronavirus Culture is made by allowing the Patient sample to replicate in a suitable environment.

Expand full comment

Right, but since no patient sample is found, published control experiments would be required. I'm not aware that they exist in this case.

Expand full comment

And maybe another question would be, if it exists was there more than one version of it and were they released at different times in different places? If this was a military project, which it appears to be, that would not be beyond the bounds of possibility.

Expand full comment

Millions of full genomic sequences are lodged and publicly available for study, enabling the mutations to be tracked precisely.

Expand full comment
Mar 16, 2023·edited Mar 16, 2023

The article was very interesting, and addresses some of the questions and skepticism I have regarding the interpretation of “results” of RT-PCR method.

The remark regarding sequencing errors was also very interesting if true.

“The number of genetic differences in the genomes is close to the error rate of the sequencing process. Some of the observed differences may be artefacts of this process.”


"Since I believe ~ 50% of the diversity in the tree comes from sequencing errors, …”

I’m unfamiliar with this type of testing but I am very familiar with some “high tech” process instrumentation and online analyzers (automated sampler, laboratory and reporting system in one box) and why you can get spurious readings for all sorts of weird and wonderful reasons. My favorite one being a large water bird flying under an infrared oil slick detector causing the instrument to raise an oil leak alarm on the cooling water discharge of a large power station. We spent many weeks theorizing and testing effects of reflection, shading, glare and other know “scientific” issues that could be the cause of the false alarms. The spurious readings would happen just after sunrise making us sure it “had to be” a shadowing effect caused by the rising sun.

Turns out it was the sun, the sun was the birds alarm clock and we were probably picking up the oil sheen on its feathers as it flew underneath the sensor each morning creating the illusion of a moving oil slick.

We never knew for sure, we arranged for the “removal” of the bird and the problem went away.

This instrument was very precise at picking up small changes in a noisy infrared background where the result was usually 0% oil. Almost all “positives” were “false positives”. Precision and specificity are not always your friend.

Expand full comment

Yes, most false positives are due to contamination.

Expand full comment

Well, that's the whole point. If there are significant numbers of contaminants, it renders the test unreliable. What are the contaminants? If they are sequences from other coronaviruses or, worse, from the human genome to which the test is sensitive, then, indeed, the test is unreliable.

Expand full comment
Mar 16, 2023·edited Mar 16, 2023

You’re right, but the ones that really get you scratching your head are the unexpected “contaminants” like the bird when you think you’ve controlled for all the “variables”.

Expand full comment
Mar 23, 2023Liked by Martin Neil

A few points concerning the paper GeoffPainPhD is referring to (quotes are from that paper, https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2020/212/10/isolation-and-rapid-sharing-2019-novel-coronavirus-sars-cov-2-first-patient):

1. "Case report and clinical course

A 58‐year‐old man from Wuhan, China, felt unwell on the day of his arrival in Melbourne (19 January 2020). In China, he had had no contact with live food markets, people known to have COVID‐19, or hospitals. His medical history included type 2 diabetes mellitus, and he had ceased smoking four years previously."

2. No mention of negative controls (neither in the main text nor in the supplementary),

except for this one sentence where it's unclear if the "uninfected cell line" was treated in the same way as the infected one (except for adding the patient's sample(s)):

"Two days after inoculation of the VERO/hSLAM cell line, a subtle viral cytopathic effect was observed, and was distinct at day 6 compared with an uninfected control cell line."

3. The point Jo/georgie&donny mentions:

"Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin to the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology."

4. Apparently no purification was performed:


Expand full comment

The Transmission Electron Microscopy was very nice, as was the full sequencing.

Expand full comment

That lab in Melbourne is associated with the WHO's influenza monitoring network scheme as far as I can recall.

It's also the one which supplied the "virus stock" to the UK Gov for calibrating the tests as we had no samples of the virus available.

Expand full comment

Are you sure? As to my knowledge, the Genome was first found by Wu et al. 2020 in December 2019. https://usmortality.substack.com/p/sars-cov-2-genome-assembly

Expand full comment

The virus was first sequenced in 2019, that is why it is called Covid19. Should have made that clear sorry, so have edited my comment about the Melbourne isolation and culture.

Expand full comment

Hi Geoff, maybe you can help me here:

You say: https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/first-detected-covid19-case-arrived

And I read this in one of the threads here (apologies for not crediting whoever posted it):


So, if Australians can culture virus from a patient sample in Jan 2020 why can't one of Europe's leading research labs not do so in April 2022?

Expand full comment

Australian scientists punch above their weight, so they leave the country for postdoc experience and many become permanent expatriate diaspora. Virus culture depends on availability of the correct host cells, which are abundant in Australian virus labs.

Expand full comment

As far as I am aware, all labs worldwide, including the Australians, refer to isolation/culturing, of the SARS-2 virus in vero E6 cells (green monkey kidney cells). This has been done by RKI (Germany) as well as in Italy, turkey, or US (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220303428 | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0238614 | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7239045/)

So this is nothing new, they cannot find the virus in the patient cells, only in the vero cell cultures...

Expand full comment

Yes, Australia cultured it first after China. Yes they cultured it from Patient cells and yes Covid19 is found in Dead patient autopsies.

Expand full comment

Ergh...no it wasn't. There is no SARS-CoV-2. Virologists NEVER isolate the virus. They even admit this amazingly. They claim it is everywhere and apparently trillions of particles are expelled with every sneeze but they CANNOT isolate it from any human sample or specimen of blood. They first of all culture the supposedly infected sample with monkey kidney cells, antibiotics and all kinds of poisons , observe cytopathic effects and then claim this is caused by a virus! It would be comical if the consequence were not so serious. All of the genetic sequences are created by a computer programme. Furthermore in light of the fact Geneticists now admit their simplified ideas of what a gene are are simply wrong, how on earth can there actually be a viral genome? You need to start brushing up on your skills they are shockingly out of date.


Expand full comment
Mar 15, 2023Liked by Martin Neil

I read this before your through article and they have cross posted above. Brilliant work both articles. https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/covid-19-theories

Expand full comment
Mar 15, 2023·edited Mar 15, 2023

When I read that “philanthropists” Soros and Gates in a “humanitarian” effort purchase Mologic a testing kit manufacturer it tells me all I need to know about “test kits.”

Expand full comment

The cross and non-specificity of the PCR primers is not the problem. The problem is the genomes. How did they know which of the 56 million short RNA fragments in the original patient sample formed part of a virus and how did they know what order they should be arranged in?

Coupled with how did they know that the very similar syndromes (collections of symptoms) were not pneumonia nor the 'flu' and were in fact a new disease. The symptoms were fever, dizziness, chest tightness, pain, weakness and a cough- presenting in patients in one of the most heavily polluted cities in the world.

Of course there was never a deadly nor novel virus. I may not have a 'credible' voice and you may pejoratively call me a conspiracy theorist but I have been saying this since late 2020 on Twitter from whence I was banned in April 2022 for saying bolding that viruses 'don't exist'. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing



Expand full comment

I don't mean this to be exclusionary of any other viewpoints, especially ones I haven't heard of or don't understand! And I certainly didn't call anyone a conspiracy theorist - where did you get that from?

Also, I'm not claiming viruses don't exist. The article is saying you don't need a real novel and deadly virus to do what was done. This isn't the same thing.

Expand full comment

It was the 'Cleric' who said that somethings 'were welcomed by conspiracy theorists'. I only really scanned this post cos it's so long.

Yes you don t' need a novel virus for the pandemic to have happened all by itself. But not because of the anything about the PCR, which, yes I am bored with.

I know you didn't say viruses don't exist. My point is that simply uploading sequences to a database and saying they represent the genomes of viruses is ridiculous. I only pointed at that twitter got very upset about my claiming viruses didn't exist as it might cause 'harmful' behaviour.

Perhaps you could read my post which I have tried my best to make understandable. It's about SARS2 not viruses in general -


Expand full comment

Excellent post.

Expand full comment

For me, having worked in pathology for 25 years, the scales fell from my eyes reading Virus Mania by Engelbrecht, and the work of the Perth Group, my humble summary here https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-intellectual-freedom about the big one- HIV


Expand full comment

Thank you 🙏🏽

Expand full comment

Seconded. I read it all. Very good. Of many problems we face, very few people, even well intentioned people, can even follow, let alone understand what could well have been done.

Personally, I have concluded that acute respiratory illnesses are neither contagious nor caused by submicroscopic infectious particles called viruses. People have got cross with me about that. No matter. I’m not interested in popularity.

Denis Rancourt’s epidemiological findings indicate there was no hint of a pandemic or public health emergency of any kind.

Nothing objectively happened until WHO fraudulently declared a pandemic, upon which mad medical protocols were imposed almost everywhere from a clearly supranational source, as was the order to lockdown.

We know that a Great Iatrogenesis then occurred, coupled with corrupted testing, and that was “the pandemic”.

Meanwhile, we were told that Biopharma was beavering away, inventing, testing and trialling novel “vaccines”. It’s literally impossible that they did what we were told in the time available. QED, something else happened.

Their design was unquestionably intentionally to harm recipients (to put it mildly) including to reduce fertility in those it didn’t kill.

The open letter authored by Dr Wolfgang Wodarg & me (mostly Wolfgang) listed a number of safety concerns. We missed several but all those we mentioned came to pass.

That letter was very effectively censored all round the world and the authors relentlessly smeared. Our lives changed immediately.

If the black ops people hoped their aggressive response would put us off speaking out, then they were badly advised.

For me, it was instant confirmation that we were right over the target & it was from that time that I was as sure as you can be from the outside that we were under lethal attack.

I got a lot of things wrong early on & I was embarrassingly slow to pick up on numerous things that were obviously wrong, if only I’d been paying attention to them. By way of explanation, and not an excuse, I didn’t have a copy of the script. Neither did anything in my past prepare me to expect this.

Best wishes and thanks to you and to Martin (& others) for your relentless pursuit of what’s really going on.


Expand full comment

My symptoms were more circulatory and had nothing to do with pollution. I was dog sitting in a remote village in Suffolk at the time (January 2020)! There was something going around that seemed man made in its oddness. Just a gut feel and my gut didn't feel right!

Expand full comment

Excellent article. If you want an outlet for discussion, happy invite you to RTE.

The part about water being the test for false positives is new to me and makes me rethink my whole understanding of the process. The false positive rate in water should absolutely not be the same as for a medium with genetic material. And media with genetic material might all be different from one another. So the sensitivity and specificity numbers are almost certainly more bogus than we thought, amd that was before finding out that a 1 in 3 gene match was considered a positive.

This is all just crazy.

Expand full comment

Yup it is all just crazy. But its critical those with the right knowledge pick up this information and use it, thus avoiding the risk of building on false assumptions.

Thanks for the invite, but I'm not the right person to dig deep on PCR. I'm just the messenger here.

Expand full comment

You don't need to undertsand much, just page 6 in this UK Gov document:


They even put it in bold so you can see it:

"RT-PCR detects presence of viral genetic material in a sample but is not able to

distinguish whether infectious virus is present"

Simple - it's not a diagnostic test.

Here is some easy to understand science as wellf rom offical sources:



Expand full comment

Sure. I could read that out but it doesn't make great TV!

Expand full comment

Nor does CMO Whitty admitting lockdowns were unnecessary:


The absolutely most important and momentous quote from CMO Chris Whitty on the 21st July 2020 in the Parliamentary Health and Social Care Committee hearing:

“If you look at the R, and the behaviours, quite a lot of the change that led to the R going below one occurred well before, or to some extent before, the 23rd, when the full lockdown started.”

You can download it yourself on their website - set the start time at 10:58:00 and end time as 11:01 - their instructions are easy to follow.


This, in effect, means that “the virus” infection rate was dropping drastically BEFORE the incarceration of the population started and that the existing precautions - wash hands properly, coughing etiquette, stay at home if you feel ill - were effectively controlling the spread of “the virus”.

It also means that the peak of the infections occurred PRIOR to the population incarceration commenced and as the average time from catching “the virus” to death has been widely stated as 23 days with the peak numbers of deaths occurring approximately 10-14 days from commencement of the incarceration it means that the imprisonment of the population and destruction of the economy has had NO effect whatsoever.

Why was he not challenged on this at the time by anyone on the Committee?

Why is this statement not being reported by ANY media outlet ever?

Expand full comment
Mar 15, 2023·edited Mar 15, 2023

«At that point in September 2020 no credible voice was shouting to the world that “there is no novel & deadly coronavirus”»

I was shouting that in March 2020, precisely after taking a look at the math of the tests:

A capture:


The original source:


A translation:

«SARS-CoV2 is a virus

a) with asymptomatic positive patients (False positives up to 80%) 1

b) with symptomatic negative patients (False negatives up to 50%) 8 [Press source. I have been unable to find the primary reference, but the fact is quite widespread and the problem is emphasised even in official publications. 10]

c) that it does not cause the disease attributed to it (CoViD19) in the animals in which it is inoculated (again violating Koch's Postulates, as do points a and b) 2 9

d) with a much lower impact than others, which are common and known to all. 3 14

e) which is treated and prevented with medicines, disinfectants and measures whose side effects include symptoms, or worsening of symptoms, which are blamed on the virus itself. 4 5 6 12 13

f) which has allowed states to violate Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights without consequence. 7

g) which has led to an unprecedented increase in the power of states, while simultaneously, and unsurprisingly, reducing the freedom of citizens to extremes that make any dictatorship look timid and ridiculous. 11

From these statements I deduce the following:

In order of most to least likely:

Ó a) SARS-CoV2 exists, but does not cause CoViD19.

OR b) SARS-CoV2 exists, but SARS-CoV2 tests are not an effective tool to determine SARS-CoV2 infection and there is therefore no means to determine who to treat with drugs that cause leukopenia and potentially contribute to the development of CoViD19 itself.

Or c) SARS-CoV2 does not exist. The sequence attributed to it is endogenous to humans. CoViD19 is generated entirely by other factors.


d) social control measures are not justified by the actual severity of the situation. 15 16

e) certain states, such as Spain, are violating human rights, their leaders are acting criminally and should be arrested and condemned.

f) the forces of law and order currently serve a criminal cause and act as enemies of the citizen.

g) the applauders and whistleblowers support a criminal cause and act as enemies of freedom.

h) those who support quarantine are: ignorant, and can therefore be instructed; wicked, and must therefore be fought; idiots, and must therefore be removed.»

I have no expertise in biology or mathematics, I just tried to think by myself about the situation. I must say that I have lost faith in everyone's else intelligence thanks to all of this.

Expand full comment

I do not doubt for an instant that many, people called out what happened early (however you might define "what happened"). And different people followed different avenues to reach an answer. Luckily you might know more biology than me.

I certainly did know what they were doing were violations of human sovereignty and dignity. I didn't need the Koch postulates for that.

Expand full comment

The response to the "pandemic" did most harm. The "variants" are major features of the fear porn broadcast by the BBC et al in this never ending saga.

Expand full comment


Expand full comment

9% False? I think you left off a "0". Try 90% false:


"In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles"

Expand full comment

Also btw I was able to post on 15 September 2020 in BMJ RRs one of the world’s shortest letters (fat chance now):-


Operation Moonshot or How to Shut Down Society and the Economy Forever

Dear Editor

How many false positives will 10 million tests a day generate?

Expand full comment


I've been alerted there were a few other, more verbose letters in a similar vein.



And even in the Gurdian...


Expand full comment

Unfortunately, BMJ are only interested now in plugging the WHO.

Expand full comment

So the plan is to throw Germany under the bus, on our way to war with China in order to provide cover for the global financial oligarchy, until they can get the new money system up and running?

Expand full comment

well understood since Dr Yeadon, Claire Craig, Reiner and others examined this issue, not to mention the Cormon Drosden revue, and the Portuguese court case establishing pcr as useless. it lates emerged that the UK gov were recording single gene positives as "weak positives"

Expand full comment

I believe I got ill with Covid 19 before I'd even heard of it. I am not saying it wasn't a scam. It was, but something made some people ill then everything else was a cover up and exaggeration plus hurting people with the official remedies! The plan to change our world continues. Covid was just a stage of that process.

Expand full comment

Drosten just doing as he was ordered to:

On the 04th February 2020 there was a teleconference held that was initiated by Jeremy Farrar (Wellcome trust) that discussed “desired outcomes”.

I requested information from the UK’s Government Office of Science, the department that Chief Science Officer Vallance is head of, on what these “desired outcomes” were.

The questions asked:

1 - About or on the 01st February 2020 the Chief Scientific Advisor Patrick Vallance was involved in an e-mail discussion with Jeremy Farrar and Marion Koopmans amongst others (full list of names available) with the subject “Teleconference”.

Please supply the e-mails in the e-mail chain and conversation with the subject line “Teleconference” or “Re:Teleconference".

2 - About or on the 01st February 2020 the Chief Scientific Advisor Patrick Vallance was involved in a teleconference call with Jeremy Farrar and Anthony Fauci amongst others (full list of names available).

Please supply the written minutes of this telephone call, any written notes that were taken during this telephone call and any audio recordings that were taken during this telephone call.

3 - About or on the 01st February 2020 the Chief Scientific Advisor Patrick Vallance was involved in an e-mail discussion and a teleconference call with Jeremy Farrar and Marion Koopmans amongst others (full list of names available). In one of these e-mails Jeremy Farrar stated:


• Introduction, focus and desired outcomes - JF

What were the “desired outcomes” he was referring to as discussed in the teleconference call?”


There answer was:

1 - the call did take place on the date stated

2 - there were no records taken of what was discussed

3 - They could not supply all the e-mails due to Section 41 of the Official Secrets Act due to personal information being included.

The quote:

“I confirm we do not hold the information you request in Question 2. No additional notes or minutes were recorded outside of the email correspondence provided in answer to Question 1. Nor do we hold any audio recordings of the conference call. “

This call was also admitted to in a FOI release of Fauci’s e-mails with no further information included. The file is 386 MB but can be downloaded here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561-leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails - page 3200 area.

This is the call that initiated the use of PCR tests using a paper written by Drosten and that was accepted without challenge by Government’s worldwide and that then led on to restrictions on individuals and businesses based on that paper plus over £400 BILLION of Government spending in this country alone.

I have made the Public Accounts Committee aware of this call and they replied they were interested in it but whether they did anything further I don’t know.

Why was this call not thought important enough for notes to be taken?

Something to hide by Vallance?

Expand full comment