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”.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a viral respiratory disease of zoonotic origin caused by the virus SARS-CoV-1, the first identified strain of the SARS-related coronavirus. (Wikipedia).
So-called SARS-2 is not really closely related to SARS-1 (20% sequence difference). Wikipedia lied, people died.
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.
"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, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said.
Other experts informed of these numbers were stunned.
“I’m really shocked that it could be that high — the proportion of people with high C.T. value results,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. “Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing.”"
Pathological liars will often tell you they are lying, as they are lying. Daring you to call them on it. And then deny the lie when you call them on it to see if you'll actually do anything about it. Making them sociopathic, too.
They knew. They even told us they knew. And most people even went along with it anyways.
An unexpected bonus round of info with connections to the tangled web of the pandemic. Jeffrey Epstein's black book reveals one of his very besties at the forefront of PCR tests.
"Joe Pagano, an Aspen-based venture capitalist, who has known Epstein since before his Bear Stearns days, can’t say enough nice things: “I have a boy who’s dyslexic, and Jeffrey’s gotten close to him over the years…. Jeffrey got him into music. He bought him his first piano. And then as he got to school he had difficulty … in studying … so Jeffrey got him interested in taking flying lessons.”
Sentigen Holding Corp. conducts business through two wholly-owned operating subsidiaries: Sentigen Biosciences, Inc. ("Sentigen Biosciences") and Cell & Molecular Technologies, Inc. ("CMT").
Invitrogen is one of several brands under the Thermo Fisher Scientific corporation. The product line includes various subbrands of biotechnology products, such as machines and consumables for polymerase chain reaction, reverse transcription, cloning, culturing, stem cell production, cell therapy, regenerative medicine, immunotherapy, transfection, DNA/RNA purification, diagnostic tests, antibodies, and immunoassays.
In 2008, Invitrogen virtually doubled its size with the purchase of biotech instrumentation company Applied Biosystems, maker of DNA sequencing and PCR machines and reagents. The company then renamed the overall organization as Life Technologies. The Invitrogen brand and most of the brands acquired still exist on product packaging, although the overall company is called Life Technologies. In summer 2010, the company acquired the computer chip DNA sequencing company Ion Torrent Systems. Through this history of acquisitions and continued product research and development, Invitrogen / Life Technologies had over 50,000 products.
Innovation and impact
Under a contract from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), the company developed a prototype hand-held pathogen detection system for the detection of multiple toxins such as ricin, staphylococcal enterotoxin, and botulinum toxin, as well as bacteria that cause anthrax, plague, and other diseases, in a single sample.[4] Invitrogen was also awarded a contract to provide kits for detecting possible E. coli O157 contamination in food at the 2008 Summer Olympcics in Beijing, China.[citation needed] The monitoring program, based on World Health Organization food standards, is conducted by the Beijing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Olympic Food Safety program. Similarly, the company's PathAlert technology was selected to monitor Yersinia pestis, the causative agent of the plague, at the Torino Winter Games in 2006. Their Qubit platform for RNA, DNA, and protein quantitation was awarded an R&D 100 Award as being a "Top 100 Technologically Significant New Product" by R&D Magazine.[5]
Sentigen Biosciences, Columbia University, Dartmouth College, Tosoh Corporation, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Bowling Green State University
Sentigen Biosciences and Columbia University have been awarded US Patent No. 7,049,076,
Invitrogen, Sentigen, Prometic Biosciences, Novartis, Power3, University of Thessaly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CST, Aushon Biosystems, Sigma-Aldrich"
I bet most readers, including Martin Neil the author, wouldn't have had Jeffrey Epstein connected to PCR tests, and other pandemic-y things on their BINGO cards. Does this make anyone question if 'Epstein Didn't Kill Himself' over more than just those pesky pedophilia charges?
Yes. In Australia we also had diagnosis of covid as underlying cause of death for people who were ascribed ICD-10 codes of U07.1 and U07.2. For both these codes, it is possible that covid was only mild and could not have been the real underlying cause of death, or even that a patient did have had covid at all.
"All deaths due to COVID-19 in this report have been coded to ICD-10 code U07.1 COVID-19, virus identified or U07.2 COVID-19, virus not identified ...”
And
“Deaths 'with COVID' have been coded to U07.1 COVID-19, virus identified or U07.2 COVID-19, virus not identified or U09.9, post COVID-19 condition, as a contributing cause of death."
For code U07.1, the virus has been identified (by laboratory PCR test), irrespective of whether there are symptoms. For code U07.2, covid has been diagnosed clinically even if the virus has not been identified and in some cases the patient may have had an illness with similar symptoms, such as flu.
How can this wide casting of the net have arisen?
As noted in the WHO website, codes U07.1, U07.2, and U09.9 are among those designated by the WHO for use in emergency situations for the "provisional assignment of new diseases of uncertain etiology".
We interpret this as an indication that these codes are intended for use as a trigger for alerting the WHO to an emerging threat. Use of these codes for provisional assignment may have been reasonable for the purpose of triggering an early warning of a new disease for surveillance purposes, at a time when there were relatively few cases. However, such a broad categorisation of deaths is not appropriate and cannot be justified for ongoing recording of official deaths statistics.
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.
The test has several stages, including a DNA digest as its a test RNA virus. Once converted to DNA which is double stranded and directional with the strands running in opposite directions.
The DNA amplification stage needs 2 primers one for each strand either side of the target section. Only then does the DNA exponentially increase up to a level that creates a positive result... but also... the probe sequence needs to be in the sequence inbetween those 2 primers. The DNA polymerase cleaves the fluorescent marker off the probe that allows it to fluoresce. It's that specific wavelength light Fluorescence that is detected as a positive for that DNA sequence.
Ok - so the number of cycles is an integer, but the threshold is set at some arbitrary level, and the cycling is run up to 40, 45 or whatever? The fluorescent marker response is non-linear and is interpolated via some model to produce a fractional/decimal cycle-count that is equivalent to the threshold level?
Correct. In other words, you measure the amount of copies after each cycle, draw an amplification plot, and where that curve crosses your arbitrarily defined threshold on the y-axis, there's your non-integer "ct" result.
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?
Only misattribution of ordinary illnesses, some of which were associated with the demise of an elderly, already sick, person but usually not, into the fictitious covid19.
The SOP to labs was to run up to 45 cycles. I found them on line ages ago. To answer your question - casedemic, instill fear, persuade punters to opt for their solution, for many, the final solution.
And I remember reading after the vax, the cycle threshold was lowered to make it seem like fewer cases. And then I think they also ran different cycle thresholds for vaxed (lower) vs unvaxxed (higher) and played more games. Disgusting behavior that will never regain trust in ‘science’.
(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
I used the word 'unclear'. Different labs used different terminology but there was no way for outsiders to decipher whether the differences in wording were material or not.
I personally received an "unclear" after rinsing a swab under the tap. Maybe someone had been rubbing their bum on the tap? If so would another PCR test confirm this or not (I need to find out).
I might be wrong, but after returning from abroad during the time period you refer to, you would need a clear, negative result and not an unclear result to ‘legally’ be released from quarantine. Not that it ever stopped most people if we’re being honest. I think your final statement hits the nail on the head though - just ignore the things altogether!! I still have friends (and my wife ashamedly) who have recently tested for covid ‘just in case’.
Not disagreeing entirely, but saying they are utterly without meaning is totally incorrect. I’m guessing you mean asymptomatic screening and not PCR in general. When used correctly, as they (mostly) were pre 2020, PCR testing was and is a valuable addition to clinical diagnosis for many bacterial and viral infections. However, using them for asymptomatic screening of a population is utterly incomprehensible, particularly in times of low transmission. Given the sensitivity/specificity profiles of most PCR tests, testing an asymptomatic population where less than approx 10% of are actually positive, simply leads to counting of false positives
Perhaps you can explain this to me about the likelihood of accuracy of the tests due to prevalence, isn't that just a coincidence. Throughout all this ridiculousness I keep seeing explanations for the PCR tests That justify them by prevalence in the in the community and that's just silly to me. They say the likelihood of a positive result being an actual positive result is higher when the prevalence of what they're testing for is higher in the community. That is completely unrelated to the quality of the test right?
The substack claimed that the use of a single gene was common. But there isn't any proof or even a suggestion at how common single gene positives were as a percent of all tests done. Maybe I missed something?
Just had a look, and was surprised at the general high percent, around 30% across the time period Sep 2020 to March 2021. I wonder if the increasing trend continued across 2021 and into 2022?
One of my big issues with the pandemic was the over simplification of it all. This is a good example, any test result or statistic will also have a uncertainty factor. But we never as general public hear stats or any data reported along with that uncertainty. Publishing the CT value would have been useful as well. If my CT value was in 20s or low 30s I'd be more convinced I was infectious at the time. But... some sample s were posted or had long delays meaning the CT value was much less useful
That was the point of my article - by October 2021 it continued.
Who oversimplified it? The establishment and authorities, that's who. The dissidents tortured themselves with uncertainty and took great pains to analyse data objectively.
Infectiousness isn't a property derivable from CT. Its an unsubstantiated assertion.
The over simplification partly came from a establishment and gov belief that they couldn't convince the population with anything but absolutes. Add in even insignificant truthful uncertainties and the public don't obey. That's the logic I think, but not that I agree with it.
A very low CT for me would be more convincing I was probably infectious, I know it doesn't prove it alone, but if I felt bad at the time of the swab or shortly after it would also form a more convincing picture to me, with my knowledge and ability to weigh it up.
But, all that weighing up by a GP was stopped, just like decisions to vaccinate. The whole thing was built on a pile of false absolutes like a stack of cards.
My recollection is that the initial PCR tests REQUIRED 3 hits on different sections of the gene to be scored as a positive result. This was silently dropped to 2 when the variants emerged. I also read that some labs didn't report the full details - just positive or not - so there is no way of analysing this stuff. What a mess
Lab performance is due to several variables, facility, people, equipment, procedures, environment, consumables. The test kits themselves were either commercial kits bought in or in house developed tests.
Remember that PCR COVID tests are all slightly different in different labs and different countries. Each will have its own different weaknesses and strengths.
Lab accreditation was all done remotely from what I remember. Due to COVID the auditors were not going out to labs to inspect them.
Also, in the early days there were no proficiency tests running (blind samples) , which is a key part of maintaining accreditation. Also, in my opinion, a brand new lab set up in weeks has a higher chance of dodgy results compared to a long standing lab with years of historical data to prove good performance.
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.
Yep.
Hard to miss real SARS.
Sudden
Acute
Respiratory
Syndrome
Blood oxygen saturation 98 tto 100. Check
Eyes clear normal pupils Check
Lung function normal no rails. Check
Doctor..." but you could have it so you need to take this test"
Patient.."Nope"
Doctor..."You're a Conspiracy theorist"
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a viral respiratory disease of zoonotic origin caused by the virus SARS-CoV-1, the first identified strain of the SARS-related coronavirus. (Wikipedia).
So-called SARS-2 is not really closely related to SARS-1 (20% sequence difference). Wikipedia lied, people died.
FYI https://substack.com/profile/32813354-jessica-hockett/note/c-50914586?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=jjay2
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.
Sure, I ran out of steam. It gets repetitive listing the wrongs.
Thought I’d help out. 😉
Always grateful :-)
From the "Tell the Truth While We're Lying" file:
Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.
The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.
August 29, 2020
https://web.archive.org/web/20200829094039/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
"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, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said.
Other experts informed of these numbers were stunned.
“I’m really shocked that it could be that high — the proportion of people with high C.T. value results,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. “Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing.”"
Pathological liars will often tell you they are lying, as they are lying. Daring you to call them on it. And then deny the lie when you call them on it to see if you'll actually do anything about it. Making them sociopathic, too.
They knew. They even told us they knew. And most people even went along with it anyways.
An unexpected bonus round of info with connections to the tangled web of the pandemic. Jeffrey Epstein's black book reveals one of his very besties at the forefront of PCR tests.
Joe Pagano
https://epsteinsblackbook.com/black-book-images/77.jpg
The Talented Mr. Epstein
Vanity Fair, March 1, 2003
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2003/03/jeffrey-epstein-200303:
"Joe Pagano, an Aspen-based venture capitalist, who has known Epstein since before his Bear Stearns days, can’t say enough nice things: “I have a boy who’s dyslexic, and Jeffrey’s gotten close to him over the years…. Jeffrey got him into music. He bought him his first piano. And then as he got to school he had difficulty … in studying … so Jeffrey got him interested in taking flying lessons.”
Ventures:
Sentigen Holding Corp
What is Sentigen involved in:
https://www.datanyze.com/companies/sentigen-holding/80019652
Sentigen Holding Profile and History
Sentigen Holding Corp. conducts business through two wholly-owned operating subsidiaries: Sentigen Biosciences, Inc. ("Sentigen Biosciences") and Cell & Molecular Technologies, Inc. ("CMT").
And Invitrogen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitrogen
Invitrogen is one of several brands under the Thermo Fisher Scientific corporation. The product line includes various subbrands of biotechnology products, such as machines and consumables for polymerase chain reaction, reverse transcription, cloning, culturing, stem cell production, cell therapy, regenerative medicine, immunotherapy, transfection, DNA/RNA purification, diagnostic tests, antibodies, and immunoassays.
In 2008, Invitrogen virtually doubled its size with the purchase of biotech instrumentation company Applied Biosystems, maker of DNA sequencing and PCR machines and reagents. The company then renamed the overall organization as Life Technologies. The Invitrogen brand and most of the brands acquired still exist on product packaging, although the overall company is called Life Technologies. In summer 2010, the company acquired the computer chip DNA sequencing company Ion Torrent Systems. Through this history of acquisitions and continued product research and development, Invitrogen / Life Technologies had over 50,000 products.
Innovation and impact
Under a contract from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), the company developed a prototype hand-held pathogen detection system for the detection of multiple toxins such as ricin, staphylococcal enterotoxin, and botulinum toxin, as well as bacteria that cause anthrax, plague, and other diseases, in a single sample.[4] Invitrogen was also awarded a contract to provide kits for detecting possible E. coli O157 contamination in food at the 2008 Summer Olympcics in Beijing, China.[citation needed] The monitoring program, based on World Health Organization food standards, is conducted by the Beijing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Olympic Food Safety program. Similarly, the company's PathAlert technology was selected to monitor Yersinia pestis, the causative agent of the plague, at the Torino Winter Games in 2006. Their Qubit platform for RNA, DNA, and protein quantitation was awarded an R&D 100 Award as being a "Top 100 Technologically Significant New Product" by R&D Magazine.[5]
GenomeWeb, May 26, 2006
https://www.genomeweb.com/cbanews/sentigen-biosciences-columbia-university-dartmouth-college-tosoh-corporation-bio
Sentigen Biosciences, Columbia University, Dartmouth College, Tosoh Corporation, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Bowling Green State University
Sentigen Biosciences and Columbia University have been awarded US Patent No. 7,049,076,
GenomeWeb, December7, 2006
https://www.genomeweb.com/proteomics/invitrogen-sentigen-prometic-biosciences-novartis-power3-university-thessaly-bri
Invitrogen, Sentigen, Prometic Biosciences, Novartis, Power3, University of Thessaly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CST, Aushon Biosystems, Sigma-Aldrich"
I bet most readers, including Martin Neil the author, wouldn't have had Jeffrey Epstein connected to PCR tests, and other pandemic-y things on their BINGO cards. Does this make anyone question if 'Epstein Didn't Kill Himself' over more than just those pesky pedophilia charges?
Question everything.
Yes. In Australia we also had diagnosis of covid as underlying cause of death for people who were ascribed ICD-10 codes of U07.1 and U07.2. For both these codes, it is possible that covid was only mild and could not have been the real underlying cause of death, or even that a patient did have had covid at all.
"All deaths due to COVID-19 in this report have been coded to ICD-10 code U07.1 COVID-19, virus identified or U07.2 COVID-19, virus not identified ...”
And
“Deaths 'with COVID' have been coded to U07.1 COVID-19, virus identified or U07.2 COVID-19, virus not identified or U09.9, post COVID-19 condition, as a contributing cause of death."
For code U07.1, the virus has been identified (by laboratory PCR test), irrespective of whether there are symptoms. For code U07.2, covid has been diagnosed clinically even if the virus has not been identified and in some cases the patient may have had an illness with similar symptoms, such as flu.
How can this wide casting of the net have arisen?
As noted in the WHO website, codes U07.1, U07.2, and U09.9 are among those designated by the WHO for use in emergency situations for the "provisional assignment of new diseases of uncertain etiology".
We interpret this as an indication that these codes are intended for use as a trigger for alerting the WHO to an emerging threat. Use of these codes for provisional assignment may have been reasonable for the purpose of triggering an early warning of a new disease for surveillance purposes, at a time when there were relatively few cases. However, such a broad categorisation of deaths is not appropriate and cannot be justified for ongoing recording of official deaths statistics.
Another observation I've made about the codes is that the codes do not specify a virus.
Also prevents appropriate basic treatment.
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.
The sequences in human genome you refer to are just the primer sequences. That itself doesn't equal a postive result. I can explain if you want?
Go for it.
The test has several stages, including a DNA digest as its a test RNA virus. Once converted to DNA which is double stranded and directional with the strands running in opposite directions.
The DNA amplification stage needs 2 primers one for each strand either side of the target section. Only then does the DNA exponentially increase up to a level that creates a positive result... but also... the probe sequence needs to be in the sequence inbetween those 2 primers. The DNA polymerase cleaves the fluorescent marker off the probe that allows it to fluoresce. It's that specific wavelength light Fluorescence that is detected as a positive for that DNA sequence.
How can you have a CT value that isn't an integer?
I did wonder that.
CT is the number of cycles the PCR went through to reach a psotoive result. It stands for Cycle threshold I think.
A cycle is a set of different temperatures needed in sequence to do 1 round of DNA copying. So that the DNA almost doubles from each cycle.
Quantitative PCR.
Ok - so the number of cycles is an integer, but the threshold is set at some arbitrary level, and the cycling is run up to 40, 45 or whatever? The fluorescent marker response is non-linear and is interpolated via some model to produce a fractional/decimal cycle-count that is equivalent to the threshold level?
Correct. In other words, you measure the amount of copies after each cycle, draw an amplification plot, and where that curve crosses your arbitrarily defined threshold on the y-axis, there's your non-integer "ct" result.
Good point!
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?
It made the Fakedemic real.
There never was a pandemic.
Only misattribution of ordinary illnesses, some of which were associated with the demise of an elderly, already sick, person but usually not, into the fictitious covid19.
The SOP to labs was to run up to 45 cycles. I found them on line ages ago. To answer your question - casedemic, instill fear, persuade punters to opt for their solution, for many, the final solution.
Almost as spoken in 1981 by Jacques Attali. We will provide the solution. ...they will go to the slaughterhouse all on their own.
And I remember reading after the vax, the cycle threshold was lowered to make it seem like fewer cases. And then I think they also ran different cycle thresholds for vaxed (lower) vs unvaxxed (higher) and played more games. Disgusting behavior that will never regain trust in ‘science’.
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
I used the word 'unclear'. Different labs used different terminology but there was no way for outsiders to decipher whether the differences in wording were material or not.
I personally received an "unclear" after rinsing a swab under the tap. Maybe someone had been rubbing their bum on the tap? If so would another PCR test confirm this or not (I need to find out).
I might be wrong, but after returning from abroad during the time period you refer to, you would need a clear, negative result and not an unclear result to ‘legally’ be released from quarantine. Not that it ever stopped most people if we’re being honest. I think your final statement hits the nail on the head though - just ignore the things altogether!! I still have friends (and my wife ashamedly) who have recently tested for covid ‘just in case’.
These tests are utterly without meaning.
No lab runs random, blinded negative & positive samples through the entire chain of custody.
A very experienced friend who routinely ran analytical PCR for decades managed to get hired into one of the lighthouse labs.
It’s all fraudulent.
Not disagreeing entirely, but saying they are utterly without meaning is totally incorrect. I’m guessing you mean asymptomatic screening and not PCR in general. When used correctly, as they (mostly) were pre 2020, PCR testing was and is a valuable addition to clinical diagnosis for many bacterial and viral infections. However, using them for asymptomatic screening of a population is utterly incomprehensible, particularly in times of low transmission. Given the sensitivity/specificity profiles of most PCR tests, testing an asymptomatic population where less than approx 10% of are actually positive, simply leads to counting of false positives
Swabs don't tell you much if anything about contagion in the lungs.
CDC EPIC studies referenced at the end here.
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/does-unacceptably-high-cross-reactivity
Perhaps you can explain this to me about the likelihood of accuracy of the tests due to prevalence, isn't that just a coincidence. Throughout all this ridiculousness I keep seeing explanations for the PCR tests That justify them by prevalence in the in the community and that's just silly to me. They say the likelihood of a positive result being an actual positive result is higher when the prevalence of what they're testing for is higher in the community. That is completely unrelated to the quality of the test right?
Hard to provide a comprehensive answer in a comments thread. We've written many articles on this subject. But this video might help:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDecehzaVQU&list=PLTav8ucfG_pl73UA3WClAyj0PWleSI3a_
The indoctrination runs deep.
The substack claimed that the use of a single gene was common. But there isn't any proof or even a suggestion at how common single gene positives were as a percent of all tests done. Maybe I missed something?
Our article is clearly cited. A version appeared in the BMJ as a letter on a rapid response
Just had a look, and was surprised at the general high percent, around 30% across the time period Sep 2020 to March 2021. I wonder if the increasing trend continued across 2021 and into 2022?
One of my big issues with the pandemic was the over simplification of it all. This is a good example, any test result or statistic will also have a uncertainty factor. But we never as general public hear stats or any data reported along with that uncertainty. Publishing the CT value would have been useful as well. If my CT value was in 20s or low 30s I'd be more convinced I was infectious at the time. But... some sample s were posted or had long delays meaning the CT value was much less useful
That was the point of my article - by October 2021 it continued.
Who oversimplified it? The establishment and authorities, that's who. The dissidents tortured themselves with uncertainty and took great pains to analyse data objectively.
Infectiousness isn't a property derivable from CT. Its an unsubstantiated assertion.
The over simplification partly came from a establishment and gov belief that they couldn't convince the population with anything but absolutes. Add in even insignificant truthful uncertainties and the public don't obey. That's the logic I think, but not that I agree with it.
A very low CT for me would be more convincing I was probably infectious, I know it doesn't prove it alone, but if I felt bad at the time of the swab or shortly after it would also form a more convincing picture to me, with my knowledge and ability to weigh it up.
But, all that weighing up by a GP was stopped, just like decisions to vaccinate. The whole thing was built on a pile of false absolutes like a stack of cards.
My recollection is that the initial PCR tests REQUIRED 3 hits on different sections of the gene to be scored as a positive result. This was silently dropped to 2 when the variants emerged. I also read that some labs didn't report the full details - just positive or not - so there is no way of analysing this stuff. What a mess
Lab performance is due to several variables, facility, people, equipment, procedures, environment, consumables. The test kits themselves were either commercial kits bought in or in house developed tests.
Remember that PCR COVID tests are all slightly different in different labs and different countries. Each will have its own different weaknesses and strengths.
Lab accreditation was all done remotely from what I remember. Due to COVID the auditors were not going out to labs to inspect them.
Also, in the early days there were no proficiency tests running (blind samples) , which is a key part of maintaining accreditation. Also, in my opinion, a brand new lab set up in weeks has a higher chance of dodgy results compared to a long standing lab with years of historical data to prove good performance.
Bitchute - search WITS Covid - see how early testing planned.
Was there ANYTHING sincere or genuine about COVID?
The sincere and genuine intention of locking us down permanently. See Oxford.
The sincere and genuine desire of Pfizer to make billions.
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'.