I recall the first time we returned from abroad, some in a tabard showed up at my house and wanted to know if we were quarantining. I refused to discuss my personal situation with this random stranger. They then demanded to see my passport, to which I replied “No”.
It would also enable more ‘covid’ deaths to be attributed to un or under-vaccinated should such people be unlucky enough to die from other causes within the 30 day time period.
The “genomic sequencing” for SARS-CoV-2 is complete fraud. The Corman-Drosten team developed the test for Covid-19 based on an In-silico Genetic Sequence (from a computer simulation).
They did not have any Viral Isolates of Covid-19 available, nor any clinical samples of anyone sick with the alleged new disease. Simply based on that, the test is invalid.
A new medical test must be validated against a 'Gold Standard", that is, a test which is 100% accurate.
The Corman-Drosten team, used the SARS sequence from 2003 (which was never properly purified or isolated, the same procedure was done with this virus as well), they then used the PCR primer related to that sequence, amplified it using PCR, sequenced what they amplified (they did this multiple times) and used the sequences that were different from the SARS sequence to develop primers for the diagnostic test. However, since there were no purified samples or Isolates of any kind, this entire experiment is made up.
A PCR test is not a diagnostic test, as it does not test for the presence of a virus, it simply tests for genetic material/genetic debris and must be coupled with Clinical Representation of a specific set of symptoms.
It turns out, when you input the sequences that are being tested for, to show a positive case, the sequences show up 93 times in the human genome, and approx. 91 times from Bacteria/Fungi (Microbes). These supposed "new" sequences show up in nature and are not new at all.
Never mind, you cannot possibly say these sequences are coming from a "new virus" if you don't have the virus in the first place.
The team then sent this test to China, to test for this "novel" virus that they created a test for, with none of the "novel" virus at their disposal.
The scientists "discover" these sequences in their '"atypical pneumonia" patients with non-specific respiratory symptoms, (obviously being that these sequences show up in humans), and they create an entire "Genome" based off of 1 clinical sample.
In order to create a genome correctly (if that's even possible), you would need hundreds upon thousands of samples to develop an actual accurate "viral genome", they took 1 person that tested positive with a PCR test created without any virus.
They take a clinical sample from a PCR positive person's lung fluid, with symptoms consistent to "atypical pneumonia". They take only the short RNA strands from the clinical sample, and put them into a computer program, these programs being: Megahit and Trinity.
These two programs assemble a bunch of Contigs (possible genome structures) made up of all the short RNA strands from the person, which number 56 Million.
The Trinity computer came up with 1,329,960 contigs ranging from 201-11,760 base pairs, the Megahit computer came up with 384,096 contigs ranging from 200-30,474 base pairs. In lay mans terms, the computer generated almost 2 million possible Genome Structures.
The longest contig (30,474 base pairs) was chosen, simply because it was the longest one. Upon further investigation, this genome was only 80% similar to SARS-COV 1 "bat-like" sequence. They then add some Sars 1 sequences to make it look more like a SARS virus.
80%, is less similar than what humans are to house cats. The claim was the Genome totaled to 29,903 bases long, which negates 571 bases from the contig, if those weren't valid how do we know this entire contig is valid?
The Contig chosen, was created out of 123,613 different pieces of short RNA from the clinical genetic sample.
They don't know where these sequences are coming from, they don't know if the genome is real, they don't know the amount of error in the process, they don't know how many "reads" were correct, this entire thing is theoretical and computer generated.
In short, as is the case with "all things COVID", they simply invented the COVID-19 PCR test out of thin air to create the desired effect.
But the virus you catch in the filter is not necessarily infecting the lungs. You can't escape this limitation no matter what your wish list of public health enhancements might be.
So not only did they run the cycles to 35-40 well beyond the 25 cycles that the CDC recommended prior to Covid-19 they only tested for one gene vs multiple’s which is a violation of WHO protocol’s. So why would they do that?
(1) All labs authorised to perform covid testing, whether on behalf of the government or as a private company (Randox did both), were audited and accredited by UKAS. This means that those tests that didn’t fully conform to WHO recommendations were still centrally approved.
(2) A question that’s always puzzled me is why did the WHO have higher standards than individual countries if they are this big bad organisation centrally involved in the planning and implementation of the plandemic?
(3) Running the swab under a tap wouldn’t have worked - all tests that I’m aware of (I worked in a lighthouse lab for a large part of 2020/21) had an internal house-keeping test designed to detect a sequence from a highly conserved section of human DNA. No house-keeping gene positivity meant an invalid test and was reported as such, regardless of anything else. Shoving it in your ear would probably work, shoving it up your bum would probably work, running it under the tab definitely would not
Part of the comment I had for another "Where are the numbers" post.
1. The CDC’s EPIC project, published in 2015, and the Chinese COVID Manual distributed by the Jack Ma Foundation in March 2020 cautioned against using nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs as diagnostic samples because the air filter is tested and not the site of the infection.
2. Depending on the criteria used, researchers recognize from 200 to 1,500 different viruses that cause the same respiratory infection symptoms.
3. Moreover, in careful studies, the etiology (cause) of more than 60% of cases of severe respiratory infection could not be established.
Implementing testing and deciding on the fate of the patients based on the results of this test was a crime of the millennium.
In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.
One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.
Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.
Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.
A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on.
The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing organizations.
For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.
Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.
Not a single case of whooping cough was confirmed with the definitive test, growing the bacterium, Bordetella pertussis, in the laboratory. Instead, it appears the health care workers probably were afflicted with ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold.
Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test that led them astray.
Many of the new molecular tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called “home brews,” are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates. But their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic.
Waiting to see if the bacteria grow can take weeks, but the quick molecular test can be wrong. “It’s almost like you’re trying to pick the least of two evils,” Dr. Perl said.
At Dartmouth the decision was to use a test, P.C.R., for polymerase chain reaction. It is a molecular test that, until recently, was confined to molecular biology laboratories.
That was the first problem in deciding whether there was an epidemic at Dartmouth.
The second was with P.C.R., the quick test to diagnose the disease, Dr. Kretsinger said.
With pertussis, she said, “there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,” and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. “We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,” Dr. Kretsinger added.
At Dartmouth, when the first suspect pertussis cases emerged and the P.C.R. test showed pertussis, doctors believed it. The results seem completely consistent with the patients’ symptoms.
“That’s how the whole thing got started,” Dr. Kirkland said. Then the doctors decided to test people who did not have severe coughing.
“Because we had cases we thought were pertussis and because we had vulnerable patients at the hospital, we lowered our threshold,” she said. Anyone who had a cough got a P.C.R. test, and so did anyone with a runny nose who worked with high-risk patients like infants.
“That’s how we ended up with 134 suspect cases,” Dr. Kirkland said. And that, she added, was why 1,445 health care workers ended up taking antibiotics and 4,524 health care workers at the hospital, or 72 percent of all the health care workers there, were immunized against whooping cough in a matter of days.
“If we had stopped there, I think we all would have agreed that we had had an outbreak of pertussis and that we had controlled it,” Dr. Kirkland said.
But epidemiologists at the hospital and working for the States of New Hampshire and Vermont decided to take extra steps to confirm that what they were seeing really was pertussis.
The Dartmouth doctors sent samples from 27 patients they thought had pertussis to the state health departments and the Centers for Disease Control. There, scientists tried to grow the bacteria, a process that can take weeks. Finally, they had their answer: There was no pertussis in any of the samples.
I say folks, according to the biology I learned from JJ Couey (much of which I think he learned especially from the published papers Prof. Stanley Perlman of Iowa University) ORF1 genes are highly conserved genes - functionally conserved. They emphatically do NOT belong to the SARS-CoV-2 virus exclusively but to many coronaviruses. These are the genes by which our Natural Killer T-cells recognise corona viruses and, for some people, clear the infection without ever needing to make any antibodies. (A phenomenon remarked upon by a paper from Fudan University in March 2020. The paper investigated mild covid-19 in a Shanghai hospital and one patient recovered without ever producing antibodies at all. The same paper was sent to a SAGE meeting by a backroom worker, though it was not considered by that meeting. Relevant papers sent to SAGE meetings were never looked at. It was full on panic mode then.)
Never did take any PCR tests. It did seem like a parlor trick from the get-go.
The whole covid event was so startling and comprehensive from it's beginning. If indeed there were truly a mystery virus on the loose that was invading the bodies of mankind worldwide, all scientists would be open to every reasonable hypothesis.
Instead we had lockdowns (loss of civil liberty, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble), fake social distancing, closure of churches, the government interfering with social media to discredit differing alternative thought processes, and respected doctors being fired and muted--and this is ongoing! Now the trend is to criminalize free speech as in France.
I was in Mexico when March 1, 2020 rolled out. We were getting texts with friends posing in pictures of people buying up toilet paper and paper goods from Costco. WTH? Little did we know what lay ahead.
Randox was founded in 1982 by Dr Peter Fitzgerald. By 2018 it’s turnover was £118m and profit £3.5m and was probably one of Northern Ireland’s most successful companies.
Covid was good for Randox. In the year to 30 June 2021, turnover was £619m and profit £277m. In the year to 30 June 2022, turnover was £625m and profit £191m.
Therefore it’s probably fair to suggest that in the two Covid years Randox saw a £1 billion boost to revenues and £450m boost to profits.
Based on the experience of Martin’s friend, I would venture to say this was made on the back of a bunch of phoney PCR tests.
The 'pandemic' could never have been sustained beyond the '3 weeks to flatten the curve' without the fraudulent use of the PCR. The 24/7 propaganda, the face mask mandates, the ludicrous 6' rule, the outrageous graphs, the drones behind lecterns, and so on were all supported by the PCR test for 'Covid-19 ' created by Drosten in mid January, quickly approved by WHO as the Gold Standard test for use across the globe.
Ivor Cummins referred to a 'casedemic' back in 2020 as Johnson's so-called Moonshot programme for testing gathered pace. The never ending 'pandemic'...how could it be stopped!
Every local council had a 'pandemic' plan to run from March 2020 to March 2022. Now, what could the powers that be accomplish in this 2 year window, or, if not accomplish, set in motion?
The role of 'vaccines' has been given an enormous boost in tandem with the phrase, "no one is safe until everyone is safe". The MHRA is an 'enabler', not a 'regulator'.
'Telemedicine', promoted by Hancock during his 2019 Tory leadership bid has gained a lot of traction
Digital ID platforms have been kick-started,
Cash is under the cosh
The alleged 'climate emergency' is being tied in with health as the WHO promotes its One Health agenda.
Censorship is growing 'exponentially' ( to borrow a word never used accurately about 'cases').
Could all this have been done without a 'pandemic' of 'cases' and (models based on these) ?
The PCR test, which its inventor Kary Mullis said could not be used as a diagnostic tool is the foundation of all of these 'developments'.
I recall the first time we returned from abroad, some in a tabard showed up at my house and wanted to know if we were quarantining. I refused to discuss my personal situation with this random stranger. They then demanded to see my passport, to which I replied “No”.
They fidgeted for a few moments, then left.
We were not visited again.
The tests were all fraud. They diagnosed nothing.
It would also enable more ‘covid’ deaths to be attributed to un or under-vaccinated should such people be unlucky enough to die from other causes within the 30 day time period.
The “genomic sequencing” for SARS-CoV-2 is complete fraud. The Corman-Drosten team developed the test for Covid-19 based on an In-silico Genetic Sequence (from a computer simulation).
They did not have any Viral Isolates of Covid-19 available, nor any clinical samples of anyone sick with the alleged new disease. Simply based on that, the test is invalid.
A new medical test must be validated against a 'Gold Standard", that is, a test which is 100% accurate.
The Corman-Drosten team, used the SARS sequence from 2003 (which was never properly purified or isolated, the same procedure was done with this virus as well), they then used the PCR primer related to that sequence, amplified it using PCR, sequenced what they amplified (they did this multiple times) and used the sequences that were different from the SARS sequence to develop primers for the diagnostic test. However, since there were no purified samples or Isolates of any kind, this entire experiment is made up.
A PCR test is not a diagnostic test, as it does not test for the presence of a virus, it simply tests for genetic material/genetic debris and must be coupled with Clinical Representation of a specific set of symptoms.
It turns out, when you input the sequences that are being tested for, to show a positive case, the sequences show up 93 times in the human genome, and approx. 91 times from Bacteria/Fungi (Microbes). These supposed "new" sequences show up in nature and are not new at all.
Never mind, you cannot possibly say these sequences are coming from a "new virus" if you don't have the virus in the first place.
The team then sent this test to China, to test for this "novel" virus that they created a test for, with none of the "novel" virus at their disposal.
The scientists "discover" these sequences in their '"atypical pneumonia" patients with non-specific respiratory symptoms, (obviously being that these sequences show up in humans), and they create an entire "Genome" based off of 1 clinical sample.
In order to create a genome correctly (if that's even possible), you would need hundreds upon thousands of samples to develop an actual accurate "viral genome", they took 1 person that tested positive with a PCR test created without any virus.
They take a clinical sample from a PCR positive person's lung fluid, with symptoms consistent to "atypical pneumonia". They take only the short RNA strands from the clinical sample, and put them into a computer program, these programs being: Megahit and Trinity.
These two programs assemble a bunch of Contigs (possible genome structures) made up of all the short RNA strands from the person, which number 56 Million.
The Trinity computer came up with 1,329,960 contigs ranging from 201-11,760 base pairs, the Megahit computer came up with 384,096 contigs ranging from 200-30,474 base pairs. In lay mans terms, the computer generated almost 2 million possible Genome Structures.
The longest contig (30,474 base pairs) was chosen, simply because it was the longest one. Upon further investigation, this genome was only 80% similar to SARS-COV 1 "bat-like" sequence. They then add some Sars 1 sequences to make it look more like a SARS virus.
80%, is less similar than what humans are to house cats. The claim was the Genome totaled to 29,903 bases long, which negates 571 bases from the contig, if those weren't valid how do we know this entire contig is valid?
The Contig chosen, was created out of 123,613 different pieces of short RNA from the clinical genetic sample.
They don't know where these sequences are coming from, they don't know if the genome is real, they don't know the amount of error in the process, they don't know how many "reads" were correct, this entire thing is theoretical and computer generated.
In short, as is the case with "all things COVID", they simply invented the COVID-19 PCR test out of thin air to create the desired effect.
Fraud all the way down.
How can you have a CT value that isn't an integer?
But the virus you catch in the filter is not necessarily infecting the lungs. You can't escape this limitation no matter what your wish list of public health enhancements might be.
Read the conclusion of the EPIC studies.
So not only did they run the cycles to 35-40 well beyond the 25 cycles that the CDC recommended prior to Covid-19 they only tested for one gene vs multiple’s which is a violation of WHO protocol’s. So why would they do that?
One big Covid scam. PCR tests are only used to tell whether a molecule is present, not if someone is infected or sick. But people just believed.
Couple of points to make about this:
(1) All labs authorised to perform covid testing, whether on behalf of the government or as a private company (Randox did both), were audited and accredited by UKAS. This means that those tests that didn’t fully conform to WHO recommendations were still centrally approved.
(2) A question that’s always puzzled me is why did the WHO have higher standards than individual countries if they are this big bad organisation centrally involved in the planning and implementation of the plandemic?
(3) Running the swab under a tap wouldn’t have worked - all tests that I’m aware of (I worked in a lighthouse lab for a large part of 2020/21) had an internal house-keeping test designed to detect a sequence from a highly conserved section of human DNA. No house-keeping gene positivity meant an invalid test and was reported as such, regardless of anything else. Shoving it in your ear would probably work, shoving it up your bum would probably work, running it under the tab definitely would not
Was there ANYTHING sincere or genuine about COVID?
Part of the comment I had for another "Where are the numbers" post.
1. The CDC’s EPIC project, published in 2015, and the Chinese COVID Manual distributed by the Jack Ma Foundation in March 2020 cautioned against using nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs as diagnostic samples because the air filter is tested and not the site of the infection.
2. Depending on the criteria used, researchers recognize from 200 to 1,500 different viruses that cause the same respiratory infection symptoms.
3. Moreover, in careful studies, the etiology (cause) of more than 60% of cases of severe respiratory infection could not be established.
Implementing testing and deciding on the fate of the patients based on the results of this test was a crime of the millennium.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.
One solution would be to adjust the cycle threshold used now to decide that a patient is infected. Most tests set the limit at 40, a few at 37. This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus.
Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left, Dr. Mina said.
Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive, agreed Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, Riverside. “I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” she said.
A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35, she added. Dr. Mina said he would set the figure at 30, or even less. Those changes would mean the amount of genetic material in a patient’s sample would have to be 100-fold to 1,000-fold that of the current standard for the test to return a positive result — at least, one worth acting on.
The C.D.C.’s own calculations suggest that it is extremely difficult to detect any live virus in a sample above a threshold of 33 cycles. Officials at some state labs said the C.D.C. had not asked them to note threshold values or to share them with contact-tracing organizations.
Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html
For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.
Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.
Not a single case of whooping cough was confirmed with the definitive test, growing the bacterium, Bordetella pertussis, in the laboratory. Instead, it appears the health care workers probably were afflicted with ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold.
Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test that led them astray.
Many of the new molecular tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called “home brews,” are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates. But their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic.
Waiting to see if the bacteria grow can take weeks, but the quick molecular test can be wrong. “It’s almost like you’re trying to pick the least of two evils,” Dr. Perl said.
At Dartmouth the decision was to use a test, P.C.R., for polymerase chain reaction. It is a molecular test that, until recently, was confined to molecular biology laboratories.
That was the first problem in deciding whether there was an epidemic at Dartmouth.
The second was with P.C.R., the quick test to diagnose the disease, Dr. Kretsinger said.
With pertussis, she said, “there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,” and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. “We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,” Dr. Kretsinger added.
At Dartmouth, when the first suspect pertussis cases emerged and the P.C.R. test showed pertussis, doctors believed it. The results seem completely consistent with the patients’ symptoms.
“That’s how the whole thing got started,” Dr. Kirkland said. Then the doctors decided to test people who did not have severe coughing.
“Because we had cases we thought were pertussis and because we had vulnerable patients at the hospital, we lowered our threshold,” she said. Anyone who had a cough got a P.C.R. test, and so did anyone with a runny nose who worked with high-risk patients like infants.
“That’s how we ended up with 134 suspect cases,” Dr. Kirkland said. And that, she added, was why 1,445 health care workers ended up taking antibiotics and 4,524 health care workers at the hospital, or 72 percent of all the health care workers there, were immunized against whooping cough in a matter of days.
“If we had stopped there, I think we all would have agreed that we had had an outbreak of pertussis and that we had controlled it,” Dr. Kirkland said.
But epidemiologists at the hospital and working for the States of New Hampshire and Vermont decided to take extra steps to confirm that what they were seeing really was pertussis.
The Dartmouth doctors sent samples from 27 patients they thought had pertussis to the state health departments and the Centers for Disease Control. There, scientists tried to grow the bacteria, a process that can take weeks. Finally, they had their answer: There was no pertussis in any of the samples.
Your most incisive comment, "or simply ignore the nonsense altogether."
The Final Pandemic: An Antidote To Medical Tyranny Paperback – February 20, 2024
by Dr Samantha Bailey (Author), Dr Mark Bailey (Author), Prof Tim Noakes (Foreword)
https://www.amazon.com/Final-Pandemic-Antidote-Medical-Tyranny/dp/0473701995
I say folks, according to the biology I learned from JJ Couey (much of which I think he learned especially from the published papers Prof. Stanley Perlman of Iowa University) ORF1 genes are highly conserved genes - functionally conserved. They emphatically do NOT belong to the SARS-CoV-2 virus exclusively but to many coronaviruses. These are the genes by which our Natural Killer T-cells recognise corona viruses and, for some people, clear the infection without ever needing to make any antibodies. (A phenomenon remarked upon by a paper from Fudan University in March 2020. The paper investigated mild covid-19 in a Shanghai hospital and one patient recovered without ever producing antibodies at all. The same paper was sent to a SAGE meeting by a backroom worker, though it was not considered by that meeting. Relevant papers sent to SAGE meetings were never looked at. It was full on panic mode then.)
Never did take any PCR tests. It did seem like a parlor trick from the get-go.
The whole covid event was so startling and comprehensive from it's beginning. If indeed there were truly a mystery virus on the loose that was invading the bodies of mankind worldwide, all scientists would be open to every reasonable hypothesis.
Instead we had lockdowns (loss of civil liberty, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble), fake social distancing, closure of churches, the government interfering with social media to discredit differing alternative thought processes, and respected doctors being fired and muted--and this is ongoing! Now the trend is to criminalize free speech as in France.
I was in Mexico when March 1, 2020 rolled out. We were getting texts with friends posing in pictures of people buying up toilet paper and paper goods from Costco. WTH? Little did we know what lay ahead.
Please, people; wake up.
Randox was founded in 1982 by Dr Peter Fitzgerald. By 2018 it’s turnover was £118m and profit £3.5m and was probably one of Northern Ireland’s most successful companies.
Covid was good for Randox. In the year to 30 June 2021, turnover was £619m and profit £277m. In the year to 30 June 2022, turnover was £625m and profit £191m.
Therefore it’s probably fair to suggest that in the two Covid years Randox saw a £1 billion boost to revenues and £450m boost to profits.
Based on the experience of Martin’s friend, I would venture to say this was made on the back of a bunch of phoney PCR tests.
The 'pandemic' could never have been sustained beyond the '3 weeks to flatten the curve' without the fraudulent use of the PCR. The 24/7 propaganda, the face mask mandates, the ludicrous 6' rule, the outrageous graphs, the drones behind lecterns, and so on were all supported by the PCR test for 'Covid-19 ' created by Drosten in mid January, quickly approved by WHO as the Gold Standard test for use across the globe.
Ivor Cummins referred to a 'casedemic' back in 2020 as Johnson's so-called Moonshot programme for testing gathered pace. The never ending 'pandemic'...how could it be stopped!
Every local council had a 'pandemic' plan to run from March 2020 to March 2022. Now, what could the powers that be accomplish in this 2 year window, or, if not accomplish, set in motion?
The role of 'vaccines' has been given an enormous boost in tandem with the phrase, "no one is safe until everyone is safe". The MHRA is an 'enabler', not a 'regulator'.
'Telemedicine', promoted by Hancock during his 2019 Tory leadership bid has gained a lot of traction
Digital ID platforms have been kick-started,
Cash is under the cosh
The alleged 'climate emergency' is being tied in with health as the WHO promotes its One Health agenda.
Censorship is growing 'exponentially' ( to borrow a word never used accurately about 'cases').
Could all this have been done without a 'pandemic' of 'cases' and (models based on these) ?
The PCR test, which its inventor Kary Mullis said could not be used as a diagnostic tool is the foundation of all of these 'developments'.