Reply With Quote2468.jpgOriginally Posted by Organ Morgan.
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Ta for that link. It opens with:-
- Matt Hancock wanted to “deploy” a new Covid variant to “frighten the pants off” the public and ensure they complied with lockdown, leaked messages seen by The Telegraph have revealed.
The Lockdown Files – more than 100,000 WhatsApp messages sent between ministers, officials and others – show how the Government used scare tactics to force compliance and push through lockdowns. -
But we can be sure someone who's unable or unwilling to comprehend simple English (AKA a Teletubby) will come along to insist Covid wasn't a contrived psy-op from the off and that the government and its ministers acted in good faith throughout.
We can be equally confident they were mug enough to volunteer for a Covid needle which was the primary objective of the entire caper that most seemingly still haven't cottoned on to.
I posted two links a few days back that detailed Pfizer's decades long history of lies and deceit. Those who rolled a sleeve up for something made by those charlatans must feel like kicking themselves.
2468.jpg
I think the WHO need to take over when the next pandemic hits.
Orwell's greatest warning from his novel 1984 was the state (government = govern mind) controlling the psychology of the population through fear.
For almost two years it, in alliance with corporate media, induced mass hysteria and psychological conformity.
The Edward Bernays propaganda schtick worked a treat.
"...which as mentioned happened in Blighty when they ran it at 42 cycles whenever the prevailing narrative required more (fake) cases of Covid-19."
Can you provide a source for this wild claim?
"The presidents of Haiti and Burundi were two of the others [who ended up "brown bread"]
Yes, I remember this one. You said that the president of Haiti was assassinated so they could install a pro-vaccine shill. The new president wasn't pro-vaccine either though, was he? Like all of your claims, they turn out to be false.
Of course they didn't act in good faith throughout. Anybody with a modicum of sense can recognise that.
I had the Oxford/Moderna vaccines - how does that fit with your Pfizer/Satanic narrative?
Who?
You're terrified of everything because you watch endless YouTube videos, for God's sake
PCR Pandemic: Ramp up PCR 'test' to 40-45 cycle yielding 97% false positives. Apparently Matt Hancock was testing twice a week.��You're terrified of everything because you watch endless YouTube videos, for God's sake
That’s was the issue with the PCR test , too many false positives, which became a casedemic
Where's the source for that? I've used that quote: "PCR Pandemic: Ramp up PCR 'test' to 40-45 cycle yielding 97% false positives." to try to find a source for it and I'm not getting any hits.
Thanks.
The thing is this is not new information… but I can get a link
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1411/rr
Hancock now wants immunity on care home deaths
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news...ution-26391476
I don't know whether it's new or old information as I can't find the information anywhere other than what has been presented as fact on here.
Even now, the link you have just shared is about lateral flow tests - not PCR tests - which is what you and Organ Morgan have said were flawed.
Do you have any sources to back up the quote "PCR Pandemic: Ramp up PCR 'test' to 40-45 cycle yielding 97% false positives"?
He's an absolute ghoul. I hope he sees the inside of a cell in the near future.
Apologies, the article does go into PCRs as well as LFTs.
"Not as accurate as previously thought" is the determination from the person who submitted that article to BMJ.
Nothing in there about "40-45 cycling" and 97% false positives though, as far as I can see.
https://rumble.com/vd70ip-world-heal...ielded-to.html
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...453-7/fulltext
Lancet study
0.8 % - 4%
That could be a large number when testing 300k per day
An interesting read about numerous issues that PCR testing could face but, nonetheless, there's absolutely nothing (again) relating to "PCR Pandemic: Ramp up PCR 'test' to 40-45 cycle yielding 97% false positives".
You couldn't have just plucked those figures from thin air so if you can remember where you got them from, I'd love to be educated on it.
This article explains it a bit better
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-b550133.html
I accept that there is a scope for error. I'm not saying that there isn't.
But 0.8%-4% is a little bit short of the 97% false positives that have been bandied about for the last few pages without any evidence.
You'd be hiding under the bed before you could say H1N1.You're terrified of everything because you watch endless YouTube videos, for God's sake
I think the high percentage error rate is apparently when a person can test positive two or three months after the initial infection, when they are basically asymptomatic and no risk at all.
No doubt the Covid Files will cover this in due course
Hiding
Hi D ing
Hi D
I can't speak to that. It's interesting though - so if you can give a source for that then I'd definitely give it a read.
All I'd really like to see sometime this side of Christmas is evidence of " PCR Pandemic: Ramp up PCR 'test' to 40-45 cycle yielding 97% false positives".
Posting Permissions