In January 2020, the WHO issues new guidelines regarding the PCR test. They included the following advice:

Users of IVDs must read and follow the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is recommended by the manufacturer.

WHO guidance Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 states that careful interpretation of weak positive results is needed (1). The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load. Where test results do not correspond with the clinical presentation, a new specimen should be taken and retested using the same or different NAT technology.

Manual adjustment means lowering the number of cycles used, and if one has to present with symptoms, plus a test in order to be classified as a case, it will make a huge difference to the numbers of ‘cases’.

Implementation of these changes, even partially, has the potential to virtually eliminate positive tests and consequently cases. The great advantage of modifying the testing protocols is that case reduction can be managed to appear to coincide with measures the government would like to get the credit for, nicely supporting the propaganda of our ‘magnificent achievement’.

The pandemic has been an exercise in smoke and mirrors from the outset, don’t look at reality (Sweden); look at what we tell you. Now you see it, now you don’t.  A strategy of moving the goalposts every five minutes, ludicrous contradictions by government ministers deliberately muddying the waters, fantastical predictions from the serial failure Neil Ferguson, and behind every obfuscation a pile of Bill Gates’s (aka American Taxpayer’s) money.

We’ve seen the most pervasive and successful campaign of distraction to avoid awkward questions, from NHS clapping, through Sir Tom the hero and EU shenanigans trying to prevent the United Kingdom on its quest to jab everyone before any other country. All, of course, in line with Gates’s instructions. Nobody, it seems, is interested in asking the really pertinent questions.

  1. Why was it that former trials of mRNA vaccines were so disastrous for animals, and what’s changed?
  2. Why are antibodies against the real virus different from the antibodies created from the existence of synthetic antigens?
  3. What happens when a person is injected with the vaccine, who has already contracted the disease and recovered, and has a natural and long-lasting immunity?
  4. What program is in place to monitor efficacy and safety?
  5. What happens to mRNA that doesn’t enter the cells?
  6. How does this synthetic mRNA react with all the other types of RNA?
  7. Why did Pfizer lie about the efficacy predictions?
  8. Why are we using a completely unknown technology without the usual 10 – 15 years of thorough testing?
  9. What about injury that takes time (years to reveal itself)?
  10. Why are so many people suffering injury and death after having the vaccine?
  11. What legal protections are in place to stop this technology from creating any kind of biological pathogen, for any purpose.

And many more, but the biggest and most fundamental one of all is, why do white coats in hobnail boots think they can do better than the most extremely complex immune system, when they understand very little about how it really works?

When the smoke clears, (it will have to be a new government and many new brooms to sweep it away), we’ll see that the nightmare on UK street was, in fact, a realistic dream. Artificial horror upon artificial horror and none of it was remotely necessary.

An undeniable fact is that people do come to the end of their lives; it’s how things work. However, before then, our best chance of dealing with a pathogen is defending against it or treating it. One cannot run away from it. There are many pathogens past, present, and those we’ve yet to encounter; they will appear regularly, and some will be a little bit worse than others. In that context, we really do need a better way of coping with them.

A logical, well-supported, and better approach would have been to strengthen immune defences, not try to hide. Everything our government has done has had the opposite effect, that of weakening defences. Fear weakens the immune system because energy is diverted away to deal with the stress. Vitamin balance is essential, particularly vitamin D3, in which we are all deficient. Vitamins A and C are also critical in combatting respiratory infections.

We are a society that has been completely convinced of the efficacy, safety, and need for vaccines. Crippling diseases, such as polio, are subject to this pervasive myth. Polio, which was never a particularly prevalent disease and naturally survived by most, still exists, and the paralysis which is synonymous with our perception of polio was largely caused by factors other than the polio virus that could not possibly have been affected by a vaccine. Clinicians used a particularly loose diagnostic protocol at the time diagnosing polio when another virus was to blame. Later, the diagnostic protocols were tightened; naturally, polio diagnosis reduced—nothing to do with a vaccine, everything to do with changing the rules.

As a point of interest, in the United States and from 1900, mortality from measles had declined by 98% before a vaccine was introduced and Whooping Cough by more than 90%. Clearly, something else did that!

We have an amazing immune system. If it is kept in good order, it is probably a better bet than the synthetic solutions.

Socialising, exercise, sports, family, beaches, fresh air all strengthen the immune system, as does immune exercise. We need exposure to pathogens. If the machine is running well, our systems will defeat it and provide immunity for us and our descendants, not just for the version we encountered but also for variants and mutations. Just as muscle needs work, so does human immunity.

An interesting question is why? I mean, why did most governments take actions that were logically the exact opposite of what they should have done? Why leap into unsound actions, never effectively used before, destroy the economy by their enaction and create a situation far worse than the virus itself?

The one fundamental question that nobody has ever asked is ‘why do pandemics go away’? They all do, in the sense that they are no longer pandemics. The causal factors don’t, because former viruses and bacterial infections still exist. Scarlet Fever, at one time, killed more children than all the other childhood illnesses put together, yet now that morbidity is a long distant memory. It still exists in about 10%-15% of schoolchildren, but it does no harm. So why is that?

Why did the H1N1 pandemic of 2009 go away? What about the H3N2 pandemic of 1968? What about all the Influenza outbreaks that occur every few years? Why did they all end? Why are they not still dangerous?

Just one expression of simple logic totally undermines the government’s actions.

None of these pandemics were resolved by lockdowns, masks, or closing businesses. None of them were resolved by mass vaccination. These pandemics ended, and these measures were not used, so why have they been employed now?

The live and current example, Sweden, which is a fully formed and huge control group, shows clearly that the UK restrictions are not making any difference, but nobody wants to notice, we all prefer cheering the NHS, being on Sir Tom’s side and berating the EU.

So, what happens now? I fear that restrictions of some sort will be with us until the people finally drag themselves away from voting by rote and choose an alternative, one that has not been available before. In the meantime, though, things aren’t going to get much better. Power is addictive, so unless we vote to be free, we won’t be.

Things are clearly getting worse. When 10-year prison sentences for filling out a form wrongly become the accepted norm, then imprisonment for anything becomes acceptable. The process of cancellation, of silencing political disagreement has already begun, not just by big tech silencing opinion or national media following a biased agenda, but government officials instructing them to do so.

William Francis Galvin, the 27th Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, was ordered, by The United States District Court of Massachusetts on October 30th, 2020, not to instruct social media (Twitter) to silence political opponents.

Eventually, the truth will out. People will look back in amazement as to how an entire country allowed themselves to be so easily subjugated. Let’s hope it’s not too long coming.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email