“Given the foregoing, it is no longer possible to view the last two years as well-intentioned errors. Instead, the objectives of the perpetrators are most likely to be totalitarian control over the population by means of mandatory digital IDs and cashless central bank digital currencies (CBDCs).” – Dr. Mike Yeadon
THE NARRATIVE POINT 4
People can carry this virus with no signs and infect others: asymptomatic transmission.
This is the central conceptual deceit. If true, then anyone might infect and kill you. Falsely claimed asymptomatic transmission underscores almost every intrusion: masking, mass testing, lockdowns, border restrictions, school closures, even vaccine passports.
The best evidence comes from a meta-analysis of a larger number of good studies, examining how often a person testing positive went on to infect a family member (they compared as potential sources of infection people who had symptoms with those who did not have symptoms). ONLY those WITH symptoms were able to infect a family member at any rate that mattered.5
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
Asymptomatic transmission is epidemiologically irrelevant. It’s not necessary to argue it never happens; it’s enough to show that if it occurs at all, it is so rare as not to be worth measuring.
In this video, we also have Fauci and a WHO doctor telling us exactly this.6 Also, I show why it is like it is. It’s very clear.
THE NARRATIVE POINT 5
The PCR test selectively identifies people with clinical infections.
This is the central operational deceit. If true, we could detect risky people and isolate them. We could diagnose accurately and also count the number of deaths.
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), at its best, can confirm the presence of genetic information in a clean sample and is useful in forensics for that reason. It involves cycle after cycle of amplification, copying the starting material at the beginning of each cycle.
The inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, won a Nobel Prize for it and often criticised Fauci for misusing that test to diagnose AIDS patients, which Mullis insisted was inappropriate.
In a “dirty” clinical sample, there is more than a possible piece of, or a whole, virus which might replicate. There are bacteria, fungi, other viruses, human cells, mucus, and more. It’s not possible unequivocally to know if a test is judged “positive” after many cycles, what it was that was amplified to give the signal at the end that we call “positive”. In mass testing mode, commonly used, no one ever runs so-called “positive controls” through the chain of custody. That’s diagnostic testing 101. It’s a deception.
Every test has an “operational false positive rate” (oFPR), where some unknown per cent of samples turns positive, even if there is no virus present. A good oFPR would be less than 1%, but is it 0.8% or 0.1%? If you test 100,000 samples daily, and the oFPR is 0.8%, you will get 800 positive tests or “cases,” even if there is no virus in the entire community. Often, the “positivity,” the fraction of tests that are positive, is in that range, sub-1% or low-single-digit per cent. I believe much or all of that can be caused by false positives. Note, criminals can manipulate the content of the test kits because there are very few providers in a territory, often just one. The conditions for running the test are also subject to variation by the authorities, like the CDC.
CONCLUSION AND VERDICT FALSE
You can be genuinely positive, yet not ill. There is no lower limit of true detection below which you’d be declared to have some copies of the virus, but declared clinically well. It’s an absurd idea.
You can have no virus yet test positive (with or without symptoms). All of these are swept together and called “confirmed Covid-19 cases”. If you die in the next 28 days, you’re said to be a “Covid death,” no matter what the cause.
Those using the test kits provided commercially are what are called “black box”. They are unable to say what is in the kit because this is proprietary. The original “methods paper” was published in 48 hours, making a mockery of claimed peer review, by a Berlin lab headed by Professor Christian Drosten, scientific advisor to Angela Merkel of Germany. The paper was comprehensively rebutted by an international team.7
The WHO released a series of guidance notes on PCR,8 and it was clear that their technical staff did not approve of mass testing the population because it’s possible to return wholly false positives. Indeed, at times of low genuine prevalence, that’s all they can be.
I often wonder if this 2007 real-life example of a PCR-based testing system which returned 100% false positives, yet convinced a major hospital that they had a huge disease outbreak for weeks, might have been the inspiration for the untrustworthy methods used in the Covid-19 deception? 9
Drosten also led the TV publicity around the idea of asymptomatic transmission. One lucky scientist is at the centre of the two most important deceptions in the entire Covid-19 event!
Professor Norman Fenton here presents a multi-part lecture with two main elements.10 First, he describes how mass testing of people with no symptoms unavoidably drives up the proportion of positive PCR test results that are false. The second part deals with the possibility that data fraud entirely accounts for the apparent efficacy of the vaccines, while attempting to hide vaccine deaths, by classifying them as unvaccinated for 14 days after injection.
5 Madewell ZJ, Yang Y, Longini Jr IM, Halloran ME, Dean NE. Household transmission of SARS-Cov-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Dec 1;3(12):e2031756.
6 “Exposing the lie of asymptomatic transmission, once and for all.” May 10, 2021. https://www.bitchute.com/video/lIj22KttYq7z/
8 World Health Organization. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Interim guidance, Sep. 11, 2020. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/334254/WHO-2019- nCoV-laboratory-2020.6-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
9 Kolata G. Faith in quick test leads to epidemic that wasn’t. New York Times, Jan. 22, 2007. Available at https://eumeswill.wordpress.com/2020/08/11/faith-in-quick-testleads-to-epidemic-that-wasnt/
10 “Prof. Norman Fenton – Open science sessions: How %awed data has driven the narrative.” PANDA, Feb. 3, 2022. https://rumble.com/vtxi1h-open-science-sessionshow-“awed-data-has-driven-the-narrative.html