Snapshot#4: Testing, Testing ...... a Beginner's Guide
Anybody beginning to look into the real nature of the 'current situation' will inevitably soon come to see the fraudulent - and by 'fraudulent' I mean totally, 101% - characteristics of so-called convid testing. Amazingly, vast numbers of people continue to labour under the delusion that there is a real test, detecting real cases of a real and conclusively proven illness. For those uninformed souls, I present a few salient points on the fake convid test.
The PCR test lies at the centre of the global illness story. In the UK amongst many other countries, it was late spring of last year (2020) when insufficient people could be shown to be dying to maintain the momentum of the pathogen story, so the focus had to be slyly altered from 'deaths' to 'cases'. By now a considerable proportion of the population worldwide had been so shattered by the non-stop barrage of fear-and-horror propaganda that they would turn shit-scared at the mere mention of the word 'con-vid'. This being so, 'cases' could do the trick nicely. Provided you could conjure up enough 'cases' the fake illness agenda would be able to run unabated. The fact that the majority of these 'cases' felt absolutely fine was beside the point. They had convid, and were therefore a grave danger to the health of the general population.
The first thing to note about the PCR test is that it was never intended as a diagnostic tool. Let me repeat that, in case you didn't quite get it first time round: the test that has gripped humanity in fear with its diagnoses was never intended to diagnose illnesses. This was made crystal clear by its inventor, Kerry Mullis (who, 'coincidentally', died a few months before the convid drama kicked off). The PCR test is a tool for studying DNA; it is a research instrument, no more, no less.
Should you be under the (reasonable) illusion that a convid test will go searching for a 'vai-russ' kind of thing, which you can look at under a microscope, maybe, like a piece of dust or a wiggly little insect thing, then you will be wrong again. The PCR test does no such thing. It scans for particular sequences of genetic material in the substances that it is presented with, mainly snot-kind of stuff collected from deep up a human's nasal passages, somewhere near the barrier with the brain and the pineal gland. The test responds to bits of a long chain of genetic stuff, which someone somewhere (all a bit mysterious, that) decided were the unique characteristics of our uniquely dangerous global illness.
Another feature of the PCR test is that it can be turned up or down according to ones wishes, or ones whims. The number of cycles that are run determines how closely you examine the material in the 'test'. How much amplification is used in the tests routinely used to find global illness 'cases' is not a piece of information that is easy to come by, though persistence may produce results. But the general gist is the more cycles, the greater the detail you look at. And, as a corollary, the more 'cases' you are likely to find.
Literature seems to vary on how many cycles may produce a vaguely reliable result. 25 - 30 maybe. Freedom of Information requests have eventually turned up devastating but unsurprising findings. A health authority in Cornwall had them turned up to 38 cycles; Manchester, to 45 cycles for the entire period of the global illness. In other words, the amplification is far far higher than might be responsibly (honestly) made. So far far more 'cases' are created, of people who are basically in tip-top health. And in this way the notion of Manchester as 'convid city' is conjured up, which strikes fear and terror into people, and gives the First Minister of Scotland ammunition to do what she likes doing most - telling people what they are not allowed to do - and order people in Scotland not to visit Manchester.
'Coincidentally', last January, the WHO recommended that countries reduced the number of cycles of the PCR test being used. The coincidence is that this was around the time that 'vaccine' roll-outs were getting under way across the world. Fewer cycles = fewer cases = evidence of the effectiveness of the experimental injections.
This also clarifies why last summer the UK witnessed the sudden appearance of the mantra 'Test, test, test', as if this was the way back to normality. Whereas, as is so often the case in the inversion of modern times, the opposite was true: testing in carpet-bomb fashion was the sure-fire method of perpetuating the convid programme.
This 'looking for genetic material to determine illness and get people to stay prisoner in their house' barney is a criminal hoax. Literally. Especially when the PCR is turned up high. The thing is this. Lungs, nasal cavities, mouths, intestines, and the rest, are incredibly complex ecosystems of flora and fauna. Loads and loads of things, little bits; good and bad, beneficial and detrimental, nice and nasty: you name it, they are there, in some quantity or another. If you look closely enough, for example by amplifying the PCR tests sufficiently, you can probably find whatever you want. Had a cold this time last year? We'll probably find remnants still. Turn up the test far enough, and everybody on the planet will test positive for convid!
Understanding how the test works also sheds light upon another special aspect of the novel pathogen: 'asymptomatic spread'. To put the cart before the horse: from what I have read, this is another myth, to put it kindly; or a lie, to take another perspective. But the story works like this. Through doing loads of cycles with PCR, you dredge up large numbers of people who feel fine, but who test 'positive'. Translated into everyday common sense language, this means that tiny fragments of something or other have been found among the vastness of their bodily flora and fauna. They are in such tiny amounts that they do no harm to anyone. There is no way that that such microscopic quantities can infect another person, it's simply not possible.
But it makes for an effective story, to maintain the agenda. In particular, it's a story targeting young people to comply with quarantines, injections, and the rest, under the threat that 'You wouldn't want to give convid to granny, would you? You might kill her.' Which very few young people would want to do, even if they have ambivalent feelings about their elders. Their own ignorance and trust in adults, understandable to a degree amongst the young, is manipulated mercilessly.
For a final spin, here is a video of an interview between Reiner Fuellmich and Dr David Martin. Actually, the original is over six hours long, but the first four hours are mainly in German, so of limited interest to some readers here. Anyhow, there is enough hard evidence here alone to bring the entire convid programme come crashing down around its pathogenic ears. Spoiler alert: convid gene sequences and treatments were patented before - sometimes long before - convid actually 'appeared'. Can any convid believer explain that to me, please?
