The Tests Are Fraudulent
The PCR test forms the backbone of the entire plandemic project. It's the original source of the panic. And as it turns out, PCR is a fraudulent method for diagnosing infectious disease.
The test itself is not fraudulent - but its current usage is.
It has a legitimate use, as a gene-sequencing tool, for research purposes.
But it is inappropriate for use as a tool for diagnosing infections in patients, and to use it for such a purpose is fraudulent.
Kary Mullis, the Nobel laureate who won his Nobel prize specifically for inventing this test - the PCR test - explaining why it should not be used as a diagnostic:
Kevin McKernan, a world-renowned geneticist and member of the Human Genome Project, explaining why PCR is problematic, even bordering on criminally fraudulent, when used for diagnosing Sars-CoV-2:
Longer interview, on the Tom Woods show:
Episode: "The PCR Testing Fiasco":
Other long version, on the Accad and Koka report:
Highly technical presentation on the problems with using the PCR test for covid:
Written article explaining why PCR can't be used for detecting infections:
Portugese court rules the test unreliable and invalid:
* * *
What is the problem with the PCR test? Here's a summary:
Imagine you have a haystack, and you want to know whether there are any needles in it.
You spray the stack with a chemical that causes all needles to replicate. So if there's a needle, it will turn into two needles.
Then you spray it again, and if there are two needles, they will become four. Then you spray gain, and if there are 4, they will become 8. Then 16, then 32, 64, 128, 256, and so on.
Eventually, if you do this replication enough, you'll wind up with thousands (or millions) of needles. At some point, there will be so many needles, you can't help but notice them.
And of course, if there were zero needles at first, then there will still be zero, no matter how many times you replicate. 0 x 2 = 0.
That's roughly how PCR works, when they use it for detecting Sars-CoV-2 in a person. Just replace "needle" with "viral RNA strand", and "haystack" with "nasal swab sample." It sounds simple enough. It should work.
But the problem is, the human body has so many chemicals in it, that if you replicate a swab sample enough times, you'll inevitably find something that looks like the molecule you're looking for. Our bodily fluids are littered with just about everything - including fragments of decaying RNA. And if you create enough of those fragments (through using a high number of PCR replication cycles), eventually you will find a strand that looks similar enough to the type you're looking for, that it will trigger a "positive" result."
When testing for Covid, the standard range of cycles used in the testing labs is anywhere from 25 to 40.
If you do less than 25, you will always get a negative result (because there just aren't enough replications to detect anything).
And if you do more than 40, you will get a positive result nearly every single time!
And the number of cycles used, in each lab, is entirely arbitrary. There is no "scientific" indication of what number of cycles ought to be used. The number is solely at the discretion of the health department bureaucracy in the state, province, or nation in question.
Is this starting to look a little... unscientific yet?
Here's where it gets sinister:
Because of this wide range of bureaucratic discretion, a government has the ability to control the "number of cases" reported within their jurisdiction. If they want reports of high numbers of cases, all they have to do is set the cycle number close to 40, and there will be a "surge" in cases. And if they want to say the "surge is over", they can bring the cycle number back down closer to 25.
This means that if a population is rebellious, and has been defying their public "health" orders (by congregating in groups, refusing to wear muzzles, etc.), their government can increase the cycle number to make their "number of cases" shoot up, to shame them, and to justify a new wave of lockdowns to punish them for their defiance.
And if a population is complying with their medical martial law, their government can reward them for their compliance, by bringing the cycle number back down, and having their "cases" head back in the direction of zero. And then you get to go outside again! Yay! "All because you complied."
When you see "news" that countries with draconian lockdowns (like Australia and New Zealand) "got rid of their covid", this is likely what happened.
And likewise, when cases shoot up, this technique is also likely to be involved.
In such a way, governments can entrain a new ethos of totalitarian compliance in their population.
It's carrot and stick. The oldest behavioral conditioning in the book. Straight outta B.F. Skinner.
Fake Fatality Statistics