Mitochondrial Eve Posted February 26, 2021 Author Share Posted February 26, 2021 (edited) Thanks for reviving this thread @DarianF - I appreciate it. Around Christmas time, I emailed information to a relative about PCR testing issues that I had accumulated up until that point. Some of the info I sent may duplicate what is already in this thread but I will post it all nevertheless. PCR Test Issues PCR Unable to Distinguish if Infectious Virus is Present The PCR test cannot detect if infectious virus is present and should therefore not be used as a diagnostic tool – the test can only detect viral genetic material. Kary Mullis invented the PCR test and died last year. But he himself said that the PCR test doesn't tell you if you are sick. The link below includes a video where he explains this. Until this video emerged, there had been considerable disagreement as to whether Kary Mullis had even said this but the video has now settled the issue as far as I am aware. https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/05/pcr-inventor-it-doesnt-tell-you-that-you-are-sick/ NHS Guidance on 'Understanding Cycle Threshold in SARS-Cov-2 RT PCR' also confirms, on page 6, the inability of the test to identify if infectious virus is present: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/926410/Understanding_Cycle_Threshold__Ct__in_SARS-CoV-2_RT-PCR_.pdf Similar can be said of CDC instructions. https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download Pages 36-37 of the CDC instructions - under the heading 'Limitations' - for the use of the RT-PCR test include the following two points. “Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.” “This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” This suggests that people could be diagnosed with Covid-19 whereas they are, in reality, infected with other viruses or even bacteria. The final paragraph of page 39 also appears to confirm that SARS-CoV-2 has not been properly isolated. The matter of whether the virus has even been isolated is controversial to say the least. “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for the detection of the 2019 n-CoV RNA were tested with characterised stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA of known titer spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium to mimic clinical specimen.” Number of Cycles It is well established that anything above 35 cycles of the PCR test is useless as too many false positives are generated. The more cycles used, the more risk of generating a false positive result. Some even think that no more than 25 cycles should be used. Unfortunately, NHS documents confirm that anything up to 45 cycles is being used – see page 16. https://www.rcpath.org/uploads/assets/90111431-8aca-4614-b06633d07e2a3dd9/Guidance-and-SOP-COVID-19-Testing-NHS-Laboratories.pdf Even Dr Anthony Fauci, the equivalent of Chris Whitty (Chief Medical Officer) in the UK, has publicly admitted that PCR thresholds over 35 are useless. Because there is no standardised worldwide cut off point for the PCR test cycle threshold, there is a danger with the cycle threshold that this can be abused for political reasons. For example, should the authorities wish to generate more positive cases, the cycle threshold would be at the higher end. But then, should authorities wish to have less positive cases (for example, if they wish to prove that a vaccine or other measures work), they can lower the cycle threshold. Unreliability of the Test The evidence is mounting against the reliability of the PCR test. Samples from Non-Human Sources Even in the early days of the pandemic, the Tanzanian President had the foresight to test samples of random things meaning that a goat, a sheep and a paw paw tested positive for Covid. https://guardian.ng/life/goat-sheep-and-paw-paw-test-positive-for-coronavirus-in-tanzania/ Many others have followed this idea and there are so many anecdotal reports of people testing dogs, puddles or not even swabbing at all and getting positive results – there are quite a few videos demonstrations of this. Also, there have been a number of reports of people abandoning the long queues at testing facilities but later receiving an alert that they had tested positive even when they have not even had the test. Re-Testing Cambridge University routinely test their students and then re-test the samples. In one week, the re-testing found that 100% of samples had been false positives. Authorities Admitting PCR Test Flaws More and more authorities are now starting to admit that there are issues with the test. The Portuguese Court has ruled that PCR is unreliable and it was therefore unlawful to quarantine people on the basis of the test. Despite the massive importance of this ruling, there has been silence from the UK mainstream media. https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/20/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful/ There is a link to the full judgment translated to English here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgsi.pt%2Fjtrl.nsf%2F33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec%2F79d6ba338dcbe5e28025861f003e7b30 According to this article below, apparently even the Australian government website admits that the tests are totally unreliable. https://off-guardian.org/2020/09/05/australian-govts-own-website-admits-covid-tests-are-totally-unreliable/ And even the WHO has been doing a U-turn on the reliability of the PCR test. https://off-guardian.org/2020/12/18/who-finally-admits-pcr-tests-create-false-positives/ https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users Criticism of Professor Christian Drosten and the PCR Testing Protocol Scientific Dissent For a more scientific examination of the issues with the test, you may wish to look at the following report completed by 22 experts as an external peer review of the Corman-Drosten paper upon which the PCR testing protocol has been based. This report has identified 10 major flaws with the Corman-Drosten paper which was published within a day of submission (!) on 23rd January 2020. Professor Christian Drosten is a leading virologist in Germany and is the equivalent of Chris Whitty in the UK. He has advocated strongly for lockdown measures on the basis of supposed asymptomatic transmission of Covid. The 22 authors have called for the urgent withdrawal of the Corman-Drosten paper. http://tapnewswire.com/2020/12/global-team-of-experts-finds-10-fatal-flaws-in-the-pcr-demands-its-urgently-axed/ The full report is here: https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ Legal Action in Germany Legal action is being taken against Prof Christian Drosten in Germany. Cease and desist papers have been issued against him recently and allegations of scientific fraud have been made in that he has been deliberately misleading politicians and the public. An unofficial English translation of the papers can be found here: https://www.covidtruths.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Cease-and-desist-papers-Prof.-Dr.-Christian-Drosten-by-Dr.-Reiner-Fu%CC%88llmich-Unofficial-English-Translation.docx.pdf You may have gathered that I am very sceptical about the pandemic. The testing for the virus is crucial because it is the basis for case numbers, mortality rates and the need for lockdowns and other restrictive measures. If it is flawed (which I am in no doubt that it is), then the entire justification for restrictive measures collapses. Edited February 26, 2021 by Mitochondrial Eve 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chud Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 Picking from the back of the throat and through the nose a sample that can bet get from saliva... it's torture, it's a 'punishment'... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarianF Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 10 hours ago, Mitochondrial Eve said: Thanks for reviving this thread @DarianF - I appreciate it. Around Christmas time, I emailed information to a relative about PCR testing issues that I had accumulated up until that point. Some of the info I sent may duplicate what is already in this thread but I will post it all nevertheless. PCR Test Issues PCR Unable to Distinguish if Infectious Virus is Present The PCR test cannot detect if infectious virus is present and should therefore not be used as a diagnostic tool – the test can only detect viral genetic material. Kary Mullis invented the PCR test and died last year. But he himself said that the PCR test doesn't tell you if you are sick. The link below includes a video where he explains this. Until this video emerged, there had been considerable disagreement as to whether Kary Mullis had even said this but the video has now settled the issue as far as I am aware. https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/05/pcr-inventor-it-doesnt-tell-you-that-you-are-sick/ NHS Guidance on 'Understanding Cycle Threshold in SARS-Cov-2 RT PCR' also confirms, on page 6, the inability of the test to identify if infectious virus is present: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/926410/Understanding_Cycle_Threshold__Ct__in_SARS-CoV-2_RT-PCR_.pdf Similar can be said of CDC instructions. https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download Pages 36-37 of the CDC instructions - under the heading 'Limitations' - for the use of the RT-PCR test include the following two points. “Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.” “This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” This suggests that people could be diagnosed with Covid-19 whereas they are, in reality, infected with other viruses or even bacteria. The final paragraph of page 39 also appears to confirm that SARS-CoV-2 has not been properly isolated. The matter of whether the virus has even been isolated is controversial to say the least. “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for the detection of the 2019 n-CoV RNA were tested with characterised stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA of known titer spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium to mimic clinical specimen.” Number of Cycles It is well established that anything above 35 cycles of the PCR test is useless as too many false positives are generated. The more cycles used, the more risk of generating a false positive result. Some even think that no more than 25 cycles should be used. Unfortunately, NHS documents confirm that anything up to 45 cycles is being used – see page 16. https://www.rcpath.org/uploads/assets/90111431-8aca-4614-b06633d07e2a3dd9/Guidance-and-SOP-COVID-19-Testing-NHS-Laboratories.pdf Even Dr Anthony Fauci, the equivalent of Chris Whitty (Chief Medical Officer) in the UK, has publicly admitted that PCR thresholds over 35 are useless. Because there is no standardised worldwide cut off point for the PCR test cycle threshold, there is a danger with the cycle threshold that this can be abused for political reasons. For example, should the authorities wish to generate more positive cases, the cycle threshold would be at the higher end. But then, should authorities wish to have less positive cases (for example, if they wish to prove that a vaccine or other measures work), they can lower the cycle threshold. Unreliability of the Test The evidence is mounting against the reliability of the PCR test. Samples from Non-Human Sources Even in the early days of the pandemic, the Tanzanian President had the foresight to test samples of random things meaning that a goat, a sheep and a paw paw tested positive for Covid. https://guardian.ng/life/goat-sheep-and-paw-paw-test-positive-for-coronavirus-in-tanzania/ Many others have followed this idea and there are so many anecdotal reports of people testing dogs, puddles or not even swabbing at all and getting positive results – there are quite a few videos demonstrations of this. Also, there have been a number of reports of people abandoning the long queues at testing facilities but later receiving an alert that they had tested positive even when they have not even had the test. Re-Testing Cambridge University routinely test their students and then re-test the samples. In one week, the re-testing found that 100% of samples had been false positives. Authorities Admitting PCR Test Flaws More and more authorities are now starting to admit that there are issues with the test. The Portuguese Court has ruled that PCR is unreliable and it was therefore unlawful to quarantine people on the basis of the test. Despite the massive importance of this ruling, there has been silence from the UK mainstream media. https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/20/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful/ There is a link to the full judgment translated to English here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgsi.pt%2Fjtrl.nsf%2F33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec%2F79d6ba338dcbe5e28025861f003e7b30 According to this article below, apparently even the Australian government website admits that the tests are totally unreliable. https://off-guardian.org/2020/09/05/australian-govts-own-website-admits-covid-tests-are-totally-unreliable/ And even the WHO has been doing a U-turn on the reliability of the PCR test. https://off-guardian.org/2020/12/18/who-finally-admits-pcr-tests-create-false-positives/ https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users Criticism of Professor Christian Drosten and the PCR Testing Protocol Scientific Dissent For a more scientific examination of the issues with the test, you may wish to look at the following report completed by 22 experts as an external peer review of the Corman-Drosten paper upon which the PCR testing protocol has been based. This report has identified 10 major flaws with the Corman-Drosten paper which was published within a day of submission (!) on 23rd January 2020. Professor Christian Drosten is a leading virologist in Germany and is the equivalent of Chris Whitty in the UK. He has advocated strongly for lockdown measures on the basis of supposed asymptomatic transmission of Covid. The 22 authors have called for the urgent withdrawal of the Corman-Drosten paper. http://tapnewswire.com/2020/12/global-team-of-experts-finds-10-fatal-flaws-in-the-pcr-demands-its-urgently-axed/ The full report is here: https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ Legal Action in Germany Legal action is being taken against Prof Christian Drosten in Germany. Cease and desist papers have been issued against him recently and allegations of scientific fraud have been made in that he has been deliberately misleading politicians and the public. An unofficial English translation of the papers can be found here: https://www.covidtruths.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Cease-and-desist-papers-Prof.-Dr.-Christian-Drosten-by-Dr.-Reiner-Fu%CC%88llmich-Unofficial-English-Translation.docx.pdf You may have gathered that I am very sceptical about the pandemic. The testing for the virus is crucial because it is the basis for case numbers, mortality rates and the need for lockdowns and other restrictive measures. If it is flawed (which I am in no doubt that it is), then the entire justification for restrictive measures collapses. Great work @Mitochondrial Eve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarianF Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 7 hours ago, chud said: Picking from the back of the throat and through the nose a sample that can bet get from saliva... it's torture, it's a 'punishment'... Be grateful you're not a US diplomat in China. They've been taking it up the arse apparently https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/25/asia/us-china-covid-swab-tests-intl/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chud Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 (edited) 20 hours ago, DarianF said: Be grateful you're not a US diplomat in China. They've been taking it up the arse apparently https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/25/asia/us-china-covid-swab-tests-intl/index.html Pure childish piss-crap propaganda made in USA... the Chinese have nothing to do with it... Quote It “felt like I was being stabbed in the brain,” one TikTok user wrote in a caption of a video showing her getting tested in her car. “It’s awful. I’m sorry,” the health-care worker who administered the test says. “I wish there was a better way to do it.”[…] They cough, or they sneeze, or it doesn’t work and they have to redo it. They get bloody noses. He said, ‘It doesn’t have to be this way’ https://www.fastcompany.com/90523752/how-covid-tests-are-becoming-a-lot-less-uncomfortable-and-safer-for-nurses https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03/getting-a-coronavirus-test-like-being-stabbed-in-the-brain.html Edited February 27, 2021 by chud 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmaxxxx Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 On 2/26/2021 at 6:52 PM, Mitochondrial Eve said: Thanks for reviving this thread @DarianF - I appreciate it. Around Christmas time, I emailed information to a relative about PCR testing issues that I had accumulated up until that point. Some of the info I sent may duplicate what is already in this thread but I will post it all nevertheless. PCR Test Issues PCR Unable to Distinguish if Infectious Virus is Present The PCR test cannot detect if infectious virus is present and should therefore not be used as a diagnostic tool – the test can only detect viral genetic material. Kary Mullis invented the PCR test and died last year. But he himself said that the PCR test doesn't tell you if you are sick. The link below includes a video where he explains this. Until this video emerged, there had been considerable disagreement as to whether Kary Mullis had even said this but the video has now settled the issue as far as I am aware. https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/05/pcr-inventor-it-doesnt-tell-you-that-you-are-sick/ NHS Guidance on 'Understanding Cycle Threshold in SARS-Cov-2 RT PCR' also confirms, on page 6, the inability of the test to identify if infectious virus is present: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/926410/Understanding_Cycle_Threshold__Ct__in_SARS-CoV-2_RT-PCR_.pdf Similar can be said of CDC instructions. https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download Pages 36-37 of the CDC instructions - under the heading 'Limitations' - for the use of the RT-PCR test include the following two points. “Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.” “This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” This suggests that people could be diagnosed with Covid-19 whereas they are, in reality, infected with other viruses or even bacteria. The final paragraph of page 39 also appears to confirm that SARS-CoV-2 has not been properly isolated. The matter of whether the virus has even been isolated is controversial to say the least. “Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for the detection of the 2019 n-CoV RNA were tested with characterised stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA of known titer spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium to mimic clinical specimen.” Number of Cycles It is well established that anything above 35 cycles of the PCR test is useless as too many false positives are generated. The more cycles used, the more risk of generating a false positive result. Some even think that no more than 25 cycles should be used. Unfortunately, NHS documents confirm that anything up to 45 cycles is being used – see page 16. https://www.rcpath.org/uploads/assets/90111431-8aca-4614-b06633d07e2a3dd9/Guidance-and-SOP-COVID-19-Testing-NHS-Laboratories.pdf Even Dr Anthony Fauci, the equivalent of Chris Whitty (Chief Medical Officer) in the UK, has publicly admitted that PCR thresholds over 35 are useless. Because there is no standardised worldwide cut off point for the PCR test cycle threshold, there is a danger with the cycle threshold that this can be abused for political reasons. For example, should the authorities wish to generate more positive cases, the cycle threshold would be at the higher end. But then, should authorities wish to have less positive cases (for example, if they wish to prove that a vaccine or other measures work), they can lower the cycle threshold. Unreliability of the Test The evidence is mounting against the reliability of the PCR test. Samples from Non-Human Sources Even in the early days of the pandemic, the Tanzanian President had the foresight to test samples of random things meaning that a goat, a sheep and a paw paw tested positive for Covid. https://guardian.ng/life/goat-sheep-and-paw-paw-test-positive-for-coronavirus-in-tanzania/ Many others have followed this idea and there are so many anecdotal reports of people testing dogs, puddles or not even swabbing at all and getting positive results – there are quite a few videos demonstrations of this. Also, there have been a number of reports of people abandoning the long queues at testing facilities but later receiving an alert that they had tested positive even when they have not even had the test. Re-Testing Cambridge University routinely test their students and then re-test the samples. In one week, the re-testing found that 100% of samples had been false positives. Authorities Admitting PCR Test Flaws More and more authorities are now starting to admit that there are issues with the test. The Portuguese Court has ruled that PCR is unreliable and it was therefore unlawful to quarantine people on the basis of the test. Despite the massive importance of this ruling, there has been silence from the UK mainstream media. https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/20/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful/ There is a link to the full judgment translated to English here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgsi.pt%2Fjtrl.nsf%2F33182fc732316039802565fa00497eec%2F79d6ba338dcbe5e28025861f003e7b30 According to this article below, apparently even the Australian government website admits that the tests are totally unreliable. https://off-guardian.org/2020/09/05/australian-govts-own-website-admits-covid-tests-are-totally-unreliable/ And even the WHO has been doing a U-turn on the reliability of the PCR test. https://off-guardian.org/2020/12/18/who-finally-admits-pcr-tests-create-false-positives/ https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users Criticism of Professor Christian Drosten and the PCR Testing Protocol Scientific Dissent For a more scientific examination of the issues with the test, you may wish to look at the following report completed by 22 experts as an external peer review of the Corman-Drosten paper upon which the PCR testing protocol has been based. This report has identified 10 major flaws with the Corman-Drosten paper which was published within a day of submission (!) on 23rd January 2020. Professor Christian Drosten is a leading virologist in Germany and is the equivalent of Chris Whitty in the UK. He has advocated strongly for lockdown measures on the basis of supposed asymptomatic transmission of Covid. The 22 authors have called for the urgent withdrawal of the Corman-Drosten paper. http://tapnewswire.com/2020/12/global-team-of-experts-finds-10-fatal-flaws-in-the-pcr-demands-its-urgently-axed/ The full report is here: https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/ Legal Action in Germany Legal action is being taken against Prof Christian Drosten in Germany. Cease and desist papers have been issued against him recently and allegations of scientific fraud have been made in that he has been deliberately misleading politicians and the public. An unofficial English translation of the papers can be found here: https://www.covidtruths.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Cease-and-desist-papers-Prof.-Dr.-Christian-Drosten-by-Dr.-Reiner-Fu%CC%88llmich-Unofficial-English-Translation.docx.pdf You may have gathered that I am very sceptical about the pandemic. The testing for the virus is crucial because it is the basis for case numbers, mortality rates and the need for lockdowns and other restrictive measures. If it is flawed (which I am in no doubt that it is), then the entire justification for restrictive measures collapses. thanks eve i have the portugese pdf in English and was struggling to find a way to up load thumbs up 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chud Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 (edited) On 2/26/2021 at 9:20 PM, DarianF said: Be grateful you're not a US diplomat in China. They've been taking it up the arse apparently https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/25/asia/us-china-covid-swab-tests-intl/index.html could anyone ever believe it ?... world wars were started for much less than that... Quote "As far as I know, and I have also checked with my colleagues, China has never asked US diplomats in China to take anal swab tests," ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian told reporters at a daily briefing on Thursday. The US diplomatic source told CNN that US representatives in China have been "negotiating with the Chinese for a while" to avoid their staff being subjected to such tests. frankly I think this is a hoax and it's real torture being now performed by Western countries on their own peoples... America hit the bottom, really... Edited February 27, 2021 by chud 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarianF Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 @Mitochondrial EveI suggest bookmarking this particular link/tag [ https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/tag/pcr/ ]. Mr Rappoport is doing a sterling job with this particular archive of posts. Updated regularly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarianF Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 "Testing to help slow the spread of SARS-CoV-2 asks not whether someone has RNA in their nose from earlier infection, but whether they are infectious today. It is a net loss to the health, social, and economic wellbeing of communities if post-infectious individuals test positive and isolate for 10 days. In our view, current PCR testing is therefore not the appropriate gold standard for evaluating a SARS-CoV-2 public health test." https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00425-6/fulltext Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarianF Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 "Complete live viruses are necessary for transmission, not the fragments identified by PCR. Prospective routine testing of reference and culture specimens and their relationship to symptoms, signs and patient co-factors should be used to define the reliability of PCR for assessing infectious potential. Those with high cycle threshold are unlikely to have infectious potential." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33270107/ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitochondrial Eve Posted February 28, 2021 Author Share Posted February 28, 2021 3 minutes ago, DarianF said: @Mitochondrial EveI suggest bookmarking this particular link/tag [ https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/tag/pcr/ ]. Mr Rappoport is doing a sterling job with this particular archive of posts. Updated regularly. Thanks for the suggestion @DarianF - I have bookmarked the page. I do drop into Jon Rappoport's blog every so often and agree that it is well worth keeping an eye on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarianF Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 4 minutes ago, Mitochondrial Eve said: Thanks for the suggestion @DarianF - I have bookmarked the page. I do drop into Jon Rappoport's blog every so often and agree that it is well worth keeping an eye on. This video he did recently was really good [ https://banthis.tv/watch?id=6036e179ed1d9d19b0cb7599 ]. Makes the point clearly that the PCR test is their massive Achilles heel. We really need to fire all guns on this PCR turd. PS. John looks like a dead man, but still love his guest host segments Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarianF Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarianF Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 Massive number of flu cases are re-labeled COVID cases Jon Rappoport | March 1, 2021 https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2021/03/01/massive-number-of-flu-cases-are-re-labeled-covid-cases/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowintheSnow Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 (edited) On 2/26/2021 at 9:28 PM, chud said: Picking from the back of the throat and through the nose a sample that can bet get from saliva... it's torture, it's a 'punishment'... I thought the same thing early last year. All you'd need to do is hack something interesting up from the back of your throat and spit it into a cup. Then I read somewhere (sorry I can't recall where now.) that can indeed be done. But that disappeared and I couldn't find it again. Meanwhile all the images we were getting were health officials dressed up like space walkers, poking sticks down peoples' throats. Haha....I bet they had to evolve to the nasal test! However, equally torturous in its own exquisite way. Being poked with a stick down the throat and the gag reflex don't go together very well. Especially soon after breakfast..... I couldn't work out if they were really that stupid? I came to the conclusion they probably were, based on the stupidity of "news" items I kept hearing. In my opinion there seems to be no need for sticks poked anywhere. But what do I know? Medics would come up with a "scientific reason" you bet. Edited March 1, 2021 by CrowintheSnow 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarianF Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 1 minute ago, CrowintheSnow said: I thought the same thing early last year. All you'd need to do is hack something interesting up from the back of your throat and spit it into a cup. Then I read somewhere (sorry I can't recall where now.) that can indeed be done. But that disappeared and I couldn't find it again. Meanwhile all the images we were getting were health officials dressed up like space walkers, poking sticks down peoples' throats. Haha....I bet they had to evolve to the nasal test! However, equally torturous in its own exquisite way. Being poked with a stick down the throat and the gag reflex don't go together very well. Especially soon after breakfast..... I really couldn't work out if they were really that stupid? I came to the conclusion they probably were, as a result of "news" items I kept hearing. In my opinion there seems to be no need for sticks poked anywhere. But what do I know? Medics would come up with a "scientific reason" you bet. It's all just to get you to submit to the vaccine eventually. You will be given only two choices... either submit to things being stuck painfully up your nose with increasing frequency everywhere you go, or take the needle in the arm. Most people will get so exhausted from the nasal invasions they'll beg for a needle instead. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowintheSnow Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 1 minute ago, DarianF said: It's all just to get you to submit to the vaccine eventually. You will be given only two choices... either submit to things being stuck painfully up your nose with increasing frequency everywhere you go, or take the needle in the arm. Most people will get so exhausted from the nasal invasions they'll beg for a needle instead. All about fear and body-invasion. Who needs Aliens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarianF Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 3 minutes ago, CrowintheSnow said: All about fear and body-invasion. Who needs Aliens? The anal swabs are coming soon, just to complete the dehumanisation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowintheSnow Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 Just now, DarianF said: The anal swabs are coming soon, just to complete the dehumanisation. Yes, so I hear. That's on the Aliens' repertoire too. How interesting There's a joke somewhere here about Uranus, but I just can't capture it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarianF Posted March 1, 2021 Share Posted March 1, 2021 4 minutes ago, CrowintheSnow said: Yes, so I hear. That's on the Aliens' repertoire too. How interesting There's a joke somewhere here about Uranus, but I just can't capture it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluke Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 So if you start a job in the UK its likely they'll require a test? And also driving tests? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrowintheSnow Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 I don't know, @Fluke I live in the middle of nowhere, have been too old for a job for a few years, and am massively out of touch with the "real" world. I wonder if the job centre or recruitment agency might be able to tell you? But I do have the most perfect hidey-hole just off my land just in case some government twerps come round with bright ideas about poking ME down the throat with sticks. They will just not find me at home. The only problem being that having a smoke in it would be a dead giveaway, sniffer dogs would find me in max. 3 minutes and it's pretty freezing at night, plus it's only 3ft high, 5ft long and....well, say no more. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarianF Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346483715_External_peer_review_of_the_RTPCR_test_to_detect_SARS-CoV-2_reveals_10_major_scientific_flaws_at_the_molecular_and_methodological_level_consequences_for_false_positive_results Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarianF Posted March 2, 2021 Share Posted March 2, 2021 1 hour ago, Fluke said: So if you start a job in the UK its likely they'll require a test? And also driving tests? "We want as many employers as possible to sign up to regularly test their employees. This will reduce the risk of transmission among those who cannot work from home and ensure vital public and economic services can continue." https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-testing-guidance-for-employers/coronavirus-covid-19-testing-guidance-for-employers-and-third-party-healthcare-providers It's voluntary, for now. But I predict that once you refuse the vaccine, the tests will become mandatory. i.e. Prove you're vaccinated, and if you dare refuse, prove you're Covid negative. If you read their health passport plans, these are literally your only two options. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anti Facts Sir Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Still cannot my head around these "Covid Testing Sites" that are basically an open-air car park in some community centre, with pizza delivery blokes in Hi-Viz standing around some plastic boxes. I mean, would YOU trust such a set-up to be anything actually serious and genuine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.