The PCR test has all along been the foundational fraud of the Plandemonium. Take any other given year not within the nonsensical Coronamania period and deploy a generally very non-specific gene assay empanelled test lab process, rig the positivity differential, overclock the sample reproduction and you would manufacture the same curves.
Even in the absence of any pathogen, novel or otherwise.
I'd like to see an investigative journalist, if there are any any more, well beside Seymour, Matt and Glen, find out just how and when all these PCR test units were purchased and put into operation.
The fraud of the PCR test is well documented in black and white and XML FDA-EUA protocol documents.
Diagnostic panels were concocted via "consensus genome" estimations via Christian Drosten's computer simulation based on Sars-CoV 2003 assays.
the FDA and 200 and something odd other health agencies readily admit they have no actual genome for the virus. The assays were pre-planned to include proteins that would be biologically induced by the distant future Warp Speed concocted transfections people would clamor for, either for their health or their freedom.
Which means that the genes to test for were contrived. Contrived is the actial word the FDA uses. Contrived to be as broad in general as possible to foment as much fear as possible to create as many positives as possible to create as much control as possible. Conveniently the well, detailed rebuke of Christian Drosten's work in consensus genome sourced PCR test only became public as soon as all of the Mules and mailman delivered enough votes to elect "Who's gonna take the shot" Biden.
No matter what was being tested for. no matter how specific those genes work to detect whatever may have made anyone sick or not, was endemic long before, most likely years before, these lab processes were even deployed and along the way, they manipulated the cycle count, and then manipulated which genes were needed to create the presumption of positivity, no matter whether it was infectious or pathogenic at the time of the test.
I know that the daily beagle has been dealing with that kind of stuff in the UK. Tests are run at with ct values at 40-45 cycles generally across the board although I personally recall a couple of examples earlier in the plandemic with lower values. Excellent article down below.
apparently millions of test kits were ordered in 2017 and 2018
https://stopworldcontrol.com/proof/ (scroll down for screen shot of World Integrated Trade Solution chart for test kit orders by country, and for 2015v patent on covid 19 testing kits by Richard Rothschild)
Thanks for posting this exegesis of the 'PCR test scam'. I have been railing against use of the PCR "Test Positive Rate" (TPR) in decision making, and for more than three years now nonstop. I have tried with no success whatsoever to get answers from my state's health department (Minnesota) regarding how the Completely Synthetic Index named TPR (test positive rate) can be used to reliably improve the health of groups of people. Excluding issues of weird PCR test cycle rates and foggy criteria for what a positive PCR test can mean in a given patient, etc.etc.etc. my beef always has been this one: That the denominator (i.e. the total number of new PCR tests performed in some given week, for example) will always be potentially, if not actually, SKETCHY -- for the simple reason that a policy regarding "whom to test" could be (and was in my state) so easily altered at different times as the pandemic rolled along. To wit: If lots of healthy folks get PCR-tested there will be generated a lot of negative PCR tests (DUH) in the TPR denominator. In contrast, if mainly sick folks showing up in ERs and clinics are the vast majority of patients getting PCR tested (which was official policy here for many months) then the *only* conceivable value of the resulting test outcome data that I can fathom would have been differentiating folks who are "sick with COVID" from people who are "sick because of ordinary influenza or other respiratory ailments prevalent at the time" --- and literally nothing more ! It was maddening for me, but revealing and stunning, to hear the second highest official in our state's vaunted Department of Health say one day (on live local television), "Please, please come in right now and get tested so that we can wash out all those positives". Note the five last words in that quote. The context here should be noted because it is so relevant: Local unrest and very deep citizen unhappiness with the mandated lockdowns of businesses had led our Minnesota government to formally enact a modified policy that said such lockdowns would be "eased" just as soon as our state had "achieved a test positivity rate" of less than 5 percent. Just think about what was going on here: A given TPR value for some week's worth of testing could be easily manipulated to showcase either "improvement" relative to past values, or as a "continuing harbinger of doom" merely depending on how the memberships of the compared TPR denominators had been accrued. If we tested "all comers" in any population we could surely see a "lower TPR value" than if we tested only (or mostly) those folks who staggered into ERs or clinics looking like hell and feeling like crap when there was ongoing COVID spread. The appalling ignorance of our state leadership in this matter was more than a little frightening to me. To date, I have received zero answers from "local authorities" despite the fact that I have asked via telephone calls or emails sent many times for guidance regarding the meaning of TPR measurements as they have been used in our state. As a medical doctor for nearly 50 years now (and also as a Senior Fellow of both the IDSA and SHEA) I note with chagrin but a nearly panicky sadness that we continue to see TPR values posted by the State of Minnesota on a regular basis. This practice is also going on in other states. My diagnosis -- what a load of bullshit.
"The true accuracy of tests for COVID-19 is uncertain
Unfortunately, it's not clear exactly how accurate any of these tests are. There are several reasons for this:
We don't have precise measures of accuracy for these tests — just some commonly quoted figures for false negatives or false positives, such as those reported above. False negative tests provide false reassurance, and could lead to delayed treatment and relaxed restrictions despite being contagious. False positives, which are much less likely, can cause unwarranted anxiety and require people to quarantine unnecessarily.
How carefully a specimen is collected and stored may affect accuracy.
Because these tests are available by EUA, the usual rigorous testing and vetting has not yet happened, and accuracy results have not been widely published.
A large and growing number of laboratories and companies offer these tests, so accuracy may vary.
All of these tests are new because the virus is new. Without a long track record, assessments of accuracy can only be approximate.
We don't have a definitive "gold standard" test with which to compare them."
Unless you know the Ct (Cycle Threshold) used for the PCR test, you have no idea what it's telling you. Did you ever get any tests? Do you know the Ct ?
The PCR test has all along been the foundational fraud of the Plandemonium. Take any other given year not within the nonsensical Coronamania period and deploy a generally very non-specific gene assay empanelled test lab process, rig the positivity differential, overclock the sample reproduction and you would manufacture the same curves.
Even in the absence of any pathogen, novel or otherwise.
#themediaisthevirus
I'd like to see an investigative journalist, if there are any any more, well beside Seymour, Matt and Glen, find out just how and when all these PCR test units were purchased and put into operation.
The fraud of the PCR test is well documented in black and white and XML FDA-EUA protocol documents.
Diagnostic panels were concocted via "consensus genome" estimations via Christian Drosten's computer simulation based on Sars-CoV 2003 assays.
the FDA and 200 and something odd other health agencies readily admit they have no actual genome for the virus. The assays were pre-planned to include proteins that would be biologically induced by the distant future Warp Speed concocted transfections people would clamor for, either for their health or their freedom.
Which means that the genes to test for were contrived. Contrived is the actial word the FDA uses. Contrived to be as broad in general as possible to foment as much fear as possible to create as many positives as possible to create as much control as possible. Conveniently the well, detailed rebuke of Christian Drosten's work in consensus genome sourced PCR test only became public as soon as all of the Mules and mailman delivered enough votes to elect "Who's gonna take the shot" Biden.
No matter what was being tested for. no matter how specific those genes work to detect whatever may have made anyone sick or not, was endemic long before, most likely years before, these lab processes were even deployed and along the way, they manipulated the cycle count, and then manipulated which genes were needed to create the presumption of positivity, no matter whether it was infectious or pathogenic at the time of the test.
I know that the daily beagle has been dealing with that kind of stuff in the UK. Tests are run at with ct values at 40-45 cycles generally across the board although I personally recall a couple of examples earlier in the plandemic with lower values. Excellent article down below.
https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/how-test-kits-are-used-to-perpetuate
apparently millions of test kits were ordered in 2017 and 2018
https://stopworldcontrol.com/proof/ (scroll down for screen shot of World Integrated Trade Solution chart for test kit orders by country, and for 2015v patent on covid 19 testing kits by Richard Rothschild)
https://stopworldcontrol.com/2017-covid19-testkits.pdf
Your mind almost doesn't want to go there, does it?
I always wondered where all of the sudden they got all the PCR Tests to test millions of people per day ...
Oh, my mind goes there!
The official narrative
I HATE Narratives ...
I Quixotically and Sisypheanly fight Narratives.
Narratives 100; TimE 0
EVERYTHING IS A LIE
Therefore your Comment is a lie ; )
And so too my reply !
Thanks for posting this exegesis of the 'PCR test scam'. I have been railing against use of the PCR "Test Positive Rate" (TPR) in decision making, and for more than three years now nonstop. I have tried with no success whatsoever to get answers from my state's health department (Minnesota) regarding how the Completely Synthetic Index named TPR (test positive rate) can be used to reliably improve the health of groups of people. Excluding issues of weird PCR test cycle rates and foggy criteria for what a positive PCR test can mean in a given patient, etc.etc.etc. my beef always has been this one: That the denominator (i.e. the total number of new PCR tests performed in some given week, for example) will always be potentially, if not actually, SKETCHY -- for the simple reason that a policy regarding "whom to test" could be (and was in my state) so easily altered at different times as the pandemic rolled along. To wit: If lots of healthy folks get PCR-tested there will be generated a lot of negative PCR tests (DUH) in the TPR denominator. In contrast, if mainly sick folks showing up in ERs and clinics are the vast majority of patients getting PCR tested (which was official policy here for many months) then the *only* conceivable value of the resulting test outcome data that I can fathom would have been differentiating folks who are "sick with COVID" from people who are "sick because of ordinary influenza or other respiratory ailments prevalent at the time" --- and literally nothing more ! It was maddening for me, but revealing and stunning, to hear the second highest official in our state's vaunted Department of Health say one day (on live local television), "Please, please come in right now and get tested so that we can wash out all those positives". Note the five last words in that quote. The context here should be noted because it is so relevant: Local unrest and very deep citizen unhappiness with the mandated lockdowns of businesses had led our Minnesota government to formally enact a modified policy that said such lockdowns would be "eased" just as soon as our state had "achieved a test positivity rate" of less than 5 percent. Just think about what was going on here: A given TPR value for some week's worth of testing could be easily manipulated to showcase either "improvement" relative to past values, or as a "continuing harbinger of doom" merely depending on how the memberships of the compared TPR denominators had been accrued. If we tested "all comers" in any population we could surely see a "lower TPR value" than if we tested only (or mostly) those folks who staggered into ERs or clinics looking like hell and feeling like crap when there was ongoing COVID spread. The appalling ignorance of our state leadership in this matter was more than a little frightening to me. To date, I have received zero answers from "local authorities" despite the fact that I have asked via telephone calls or emails sent many times for guidance regarding the meaning of TPR measurements as they have been used in our state. As a medical doctor for nearly 50 years now (and also as a Senior Fellow of both the IDSA and SHEA) I note with chagrin but a nearly panicky sadness that we continue to see TPR values posted by the State of Minnesota on a regular basis. This practice is also going on in other states. My diagnosis -- what a load of bullshit.
patient groups had been accrued.
"The true accuracy of tests for COVID-19 is uncertain
Unfortunately, it's not clear exactly how accurate any of these tests are. There are several reasons for this:
We don't have precise measures of accuracy for these tests — just some commonly quoted figures for false negatives or false positives, such as those reported above. False negative tests provide false reassurance, and could lead to delayed treatment and relaxed restrictions despite being contagious. False positives, which are much less likely, can cause unwarranted anxiety and require people to quarantine unnecessarily.
How carefully a specimen is collected and stored may affect accuracy.
Because these tests are available by EUA, the usual rigorous testing and vetting has not yet happened, and accuracy results have not been widely published.
A large and growing number of laboratories and companies offer these tests, so accuracy may vary.
All of these tests are new because the virus is new. Without a long track record, assessments of accuracy can only be approximate.
We don't have a definitive "gold standard" test with which to compare them."
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/which-test-is-best-for-covid-19-2020081020734
Unless you know the Ct (Cycle Threshold) used for the PCR test, you have no idea what it's telling you. Did you ever get any tests? Do you know the Ct ?
https://timellison.substack.com/p/what-we-also-know