The people need to research and stop living in fear it's time to see the truth we should not be talking about masks, lockdowns,and testing asymptomatic people, but telling the politicians that we no longer will endure their policies that limits the civil liberties of the people. There is every reason to take greater steps toward reopening the economy, our schools, and normal life..
Many Doctors around the world have exposed the real truth regarding PCR Tests that have misled officials worldwide into insanely authoritative reactions.
Now Listen to Sanjeev Sabhlok
Sanjeev Sabhlok a State Treasury economist resigned from the Victorian government in protest against being asked to remove social media posts critical of Victoria's tough COVID-19 lockdowns,
His social media posts were critical.of the Chief Health Officer and the government's continued restrictions on people's liberties..Sanjeev has a petition of crimes against humnaity,which has been submitted to the International Criminal Court.
Interview By Martin North and John Adams - In The Interest Of The People
Sanjeev Sabhlok has a blog: https://www.sabhlokcity.com/
Now FDA Admits PCR Tests Give False COVID Results
The FDA today joined The WHO and Dr.Fauci in admitting there is a notable risk of false results from the standard PCR-Test used to define whether an individual is a COVID “Case” or not.
This matters significantly as it fits perfectly with the ‘fake rescue’ plan we have previously described would occur if the Biden admin took office. But before we get to that ‘conspiracy’, we need a little background on how the world got here…
continue @ article source
Here are a few headlines from those experts and scientific studies:
1. Experts compiled three datasets with officials from the states of Massachusetts, New York and Nevada that conclude:“Up to 90% of the people who tested positive did not carry a virus.” 2. The Wadworth Center, a New York State laboratory, analyzed the results of its July tests at the request of the NYT: 794 positive tests with a Ct of 40: “With a Ct threshold of 35, approximately half of these PCR tests would no longer be considered positive,” said the NYT. “And about 70% would no longer be considered positive with a Ct of 30! “ 3. An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2, and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful. 4. A new study from the Infectious Diseases Society of America, found that at 25 cycles of amplification, 70% of PCR test “positives” are not “cases” since the virus cannot be cultured, it’s dead. And by 35: 97% of the positives are non-clinical. 5. PCR is not testing for disease, it’s testing for a specific RNA pattern and this is the key pivot. When you crank it up to 25, 70% of the positive results are not really “positives” in any clinical sense, since it cannot make you or anyone else sick
So, in summary, with regard to our current “casedemic”, positive tests as they are counted today do not indicate a “case” of anything. They indicate that viral RNA was found in a nasal swab. It may be enough to make you sick, but according to the New York Times and their experts, probably won’t. And certainly not sufficient replication of the virus to make anyone else sick. But you will be sent home for ten days anyway, even if you never have a sniffle. And this is the number the media breathlessly reports… and is used to fearmonger mask mandates and lockdowns nationwide…
The PCR test does not detect a live virus. For a virus to infect an individual or be transmitted to another person, it must be capable of replication. The PCR does not measure the ability of the material detected to make additional copies of itself. It is appropriate to use the word material because the PCR test looks for pieces of the virus’s RNA. It does not require a complete RNA strand to return a positive result.
The CDC knows this, and so does the FDA. This knowledge is why the CDC no longer suggests retesting recovered patients.
In the article, Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, explained the problem:“We’ve been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus — that’s all,” Dr. Mina said. “We’re using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making.”
Comments