It is beyond question that the PCR research tool was never intended to be used as a diagnostic test. Indeed, Kary Mullis, the developer of the method is on record as explicitly warning that PCR should not be used in this fashion. PCR was developed as a method for amplifying small samples of DNA and RNA so that they can be detected, period. The issue Mullis pointed out with PCR being used for diagnosis is that the number of amplification cycles the researcher uses is purely arbitrary and after around 35 cycles the test is extremely prone to false positives. Mullis went on to assert that after 60 cycles 100% of tests for any section of DNA would likely prove positive given that so much genomic code is shared across all living organisms. In the case of the current situation, we understand that the number of cycles used varies between laboratories and across regions (i.e. this implies that it has not even been standardised). While the number of cycles used is commonly not advertised in the press, it is understood from a number of sources that between 35 and 45 cycles is commonplace. That means the PCR test results must be assumed to be inherently prone to significant error rates. A second issue with PCR is that the method does not actually test for the presence of a virus, but rather for sections of DNA (or in this case RNA) that have somehow been identified as being uniquely associated with the genome of a target organism.
As such, a positive PCR result cannot actually be used to ascertain whether there was a live target virus was present or that the host from which the sample was obtained was in fact currently infected given that the test could just be picking up detritus remaining after an infected cell had been eliminated by the host’s immune system. This brings into focus the third issue with the PCR test and that is how the reference sections of DNA (or RNA) have been established. In this case, it seems that lung fluids from a supposedly infected person was obtained and somehow the researchers identified some supposedly unique sections of RNA that they assumed were from a new virus. Note that this was based on a diagnosis of the person as being infected by the SARS-COV2 based on the person having the symptoms; however, as we know, this disease has no unique symptoms —every one of the primary symptoms identified has major commonalities with those of seasonal influenza, pneumonia infections and even the common cold.
This issue is further compounded when we recognise that the SARS-COV2 virus has never been isolated and proven to be the causative agent of this disease using Koch’s Postulates (indeed, such as proof is not even possible given that satisfying the postulates requires culturing the organism in a neutral medium which is not possible for a virus). Although the antibody tests are held to cover some of the issues with PCR, the core issue remains — antibodies to what? Given this false positive issue with PCR, it is perhaps no great surprise that many people test positive then negative and then positive again. Moreover, it is a significant concern that a positive PCR test result on someone exhibiting no symptoms may be automatically taken as a sign of asymptomatic infection, rather than as a sign that the test is inherently prone to giving false results and that the person may not actually be infected at all.
Deaths and Cases
As to deaths in UK and Scotland, it is evident from the death statistics that the bulk of deaths attributed to this virus occurred during the period from 22 March to 5 July, since when the attributed UK death rates have been rather lower and below 50 per day up until Sept 29 when they rose to above 50 for the first time since early July. However, the “spike” in deaths in October has remained below 90 per day (only reaching 87 on one day in the last week). We must recognise that a rise in deaths associated with influenza like illnesses is common every autumn and the scale of deaths observed in the last week is not particularly significant, given that many thousands of people in the UK die of influenza and pneumonia every year —indeed pneumonia is what tends to finish off a very large number of old people when the body ceases to be able to fight off infection due to age related immune system issues or other diseases to which the elderly tend to be prone, such as cancer, heart disease, renal failure and the like. In this regard, it is not unusual in past years for hospitals to be overloaded with patients suffering exactly the same symptoms as the flu season takes hold. This happens all over the world and in a severe flu seasons the press has often reported just this fact.
However, that said, the validity of the COVID-19 death statistics is a special concern. Early in this pandemic, when the horrific predictions of the Neill Ferguson’s modelling was predicting hundreds of thousands of deaths in the UK and millions of deaths across the world, the UK government instituted a number of measures that were ostensibly aimed at controlling the outbreak and streamlining administrative procedures. This included making space in hospitals by moving people said to have the disease to care homes for recovery, routinely issuing do not resuscitate (DNR) orders on people over the age of 45 and instructing doctors to note COVID-19 as a cause of death for anyone having died after receiving a positive test or having shown symptoms of the disease prior to death. It appears that these measures resulted in three major outcomes 1) an increase in elderly people in care homes getting the disease from infections being brought into the care homes, 2) a large number of people dying from as a result of not being given life-saving treatments due to over use of DNRs or being unable to be transported to a hospital, 3) masses of deaths being attributed to COVID-19 based on a positive test or just having shown one or more of its ostensible symptoms. In the latter case, no autopsy was necessary for this to go on the death certificate. In the extreme case, these rules led to people who tested positive at some point being recorded as dying of the disease having actually died from a motorcycle accident some month or more later. This rule was later changed to only recording COVD-19 as a cause if a person dies within 28 days of a positive PCR result, but still it appears no other proof is required and the bias in favour of a COVID-19 cause of death remains. As it stands, it seems it is no longer possible to die of old age in the UK.
As is the situation with much of what we now read in the press, much is made of the increase in “cases” as an indicator of the ongoing severity of the pandemic and urgency for actions to combat it. This issue is that the definition what is a “case” has been widely conflated with “infections” and, even worse, with “positive test results”. In the first instance, medically speaking, a case should refer to presentation of a person manifesting clinical symptoms of a disease – in other words, they should be clinically sick. Traditionally, this definition is what is used in determining the Case Fatality Rate (CFR), which is the number of people who died of the disease divided by the number who manifested clinical symptoms of the disease. This is contrasted to the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR), which is the number of people who died of the disease divided by the number who were proven to have been infected with the disease. As we have seen above, a positive PCR result cannot be taken as proof of infection, but merely the detection at some unspecified level of amplification of a segment or basket of segments of DNA or RNA said to have been associated with the disease. The conflation of these terms has led to the situation where people testing positive based on the PCR test are being included as cases, even where they may have cleared the disease and still have dead DNA or RNA fragments in their systems or may not actually have the disease at all having been subject of a false positive. It is noteworthy to observe that as the authorities increase PCR testing the numbers of positives rises and that a huge number of these are completely asymptomatic. This is compatible with the disease being much more prevalent in the population than the original estimates indicated and/or the PCR returning masses of false positives. Strangely, the numbers of deaths, while slightly up, has not even remotely paralleled the rise in “cases”. According to many scientists and researchers, what we have now is more properly termed a “case-demic” rather than a pandemic.
Given that the statistics used to determine both the CFR and the IFR are completely unreliable and, considering the level of fraud attached to both likely to be gross overestimates, it is difficult to see how anyone could confidently and in all honesty state with any level of certainty that we are facing any sort of species threatening viral apocalypse. As it stands, the WHO has only in the last week affirmed that the IFR is approximately 0.14%, which means that 99.86% of people infected with the disease do not die from it. Prior reports indicate that some 80% said to be infected do not even evidence any significant symptoms. However, given the testing fiasco, we have to be careful here due to the uncertainty of being able to say with any degree of confidence that these people either died of the disease or were infected with it.
That said, there is clearly something going on in the world in connection with this so called pandemic and that should be of extreme concern to everyone. The core issue being that this pandemic has a series of economic, political and societal contexts which have a bearing on how the authorities and media have dealt with the “pandemic”, including how it has been reported in the media, what measures have been rolled out to ostensibly deal with it and who benefits from those measures.
At a range of national, state, regional and local levels, it is obvious that opportunistic political and business leaders have taken advantage of this situation to advance their own agendas. We can clearly see this in the USA where responses to the pandemic have been highly politicised with Democratic governors and mayors implementing tight lockdowns and mask mandates, while Republican areas have been less so. Trump originally minimised the event, while his opponents played it up to discredit him. In Australia, several State premiers have locked borders and drummed up inter-state rivalry to bolster their own electoral popularity. This sort of political point scoring behaviour has been mirrored in nations around the world—even in Russia, where the western-leaning mayor of Moscow reportedly implemented lockdown measures as a way of attacking Vladimir Putin. Speaking of Russia, we also see the politicisation of the pandemic in the race for a vaccine, where the Russians apparently won and immediately came under attack for being too fast (as opposed to the 12-18 month accelerated process seemingly being pursued by the western vaccine makers which is only 6 to 12 years shorter than the previously acknowledged period required to develop and approve a new vaccine).
However, apart from these, relatively speaking, minor local and national opportunistic events, the pandemic must be seen in the context of several much more fundamental shifts in world economic and geopolitical events. In this sense, it does not matter whether a virus really exists or we have been sold a mirage. What really matters is what is enabled due to the crisis that has been created through the pandemic and who benefits from that crisis. In considering these questions, I would refer you to Naomi Klein’s work The Shock Doctrine, where she describes how natural and created crises are leveraged by people in power to implement changes to societies which would not be possible under normal business-as-usual conditions. In her book, Klein describes how these techniques were employed to implement neo-liberal regime change measures favouring US corporates in a raft of nations through the 1980s and beyond, including the CIA led coups in South America, a prime example being the Pinochet coup in Chile. It is clear that just this sort of crisis has now been presented to those inclined to make such changes, albeit on a much larger global scale than has been possible before.
In the present situation, it is important to recognise at least three major geopolitical and economic factors that have a bearing on what has been done and who benefits:
The weak financial situation following the 2008 financial shock, the failure to correct the underlying causes of that shock, the financial asset price bubble that resulted and the realisation that the world economic system had reached a debt crisis in August 2019 when the Federal Reserve was forced to rescue the US overnight bank interchange markets. Added to the $25 trillion US government debt, apparently there is some US$4 trillion in backlogged infrastructure spend and maybe as much as US$180 trillion in unfunded future liabilities. And then, there’s the current historic stock market bubble which has been driven virtually interest free credit and tax cut funded stock buybacks and the apparently precarious derivatives market which may top several hundred trillion and puts at risk a number of the big multinational banks such as the currently highly at risk Deutsche Bank.
It is clear that under the smokescreen of the pandemic response a number of economic events have taken place that hugely advantage the elites. The first has been the takeover of the US Treasury by an investment company called BlackRock, which is the largest private investment company in the world with some US$7 trillion of the funds under direct investment (mostly belonging to the elite 0.001%) and another US$18 trillion or so managed via its investment platform. Under devices such as the US CARES Act, the Fed has printed some US$7 trillion in debt as recovery funds of which only some US$1.5 trillion has gone to the people; the remainder of which has gone to investment banks to buy up toxic debt instruments, bail out failing corporates like Boeing and use to fund speculation on the already divorced from economic reality stock market. The result is that US government debt has ballooned well past US$25 trillion, representing a massive transfer of wealth from the country to the elites. Collectively, these events represent maybe the biggest theft of a nation’s wealth in all of history.
But, the theft goes on. As nations around the world have implemented lockdowns and other measures that have effectively shut down or at least severely constrained their economies, they have lost export and tax revenue while having to compensate out of work citizens and businesses suddenly deprived of an income. To do so, nations have firstly drawn on their foreign reserves and then gone to the IMF or World Bank for a loan. For instance, the IMF chief recently predicted a US$345 billion financing gap in African countries due to the COVID pandemic. This lumps on the people of Africa another $345 billion that will need to be serviced and repaid by future generations — no debt forgiveness in sight. In the past, inability to repay or service such loans have been used to force governments to accept austerity programmes that have involved reduced social spending on educations and health, and also sales of public assets such as utilities and mining rights at basement prices to US and other corporates (i.e. to the western elites). For more details on the IMF and World Bank’s role in all this, please take a look at an article by Peter Koenig, “IMF and WEF – From Great Lockdown to Great Transformation” at https://www.globalresearch.ca/imf-wef-great-lockdown-great-transformation/5721090. Curiously, it also appears from comments made by the Belarus’ President Lukashenko that these IMF loans may come with conditions that oblige recipient governments to implement lockdowns and mandate face mask wearing.
The realisation by some segments of the Anglo-US elites that the globalisation project which had seen investments and jobs move to China (driving down their own costs while reducing wages in the west and destroying labour movements) had resulted in China (in conjunction with Russia) now being able to challenge the West’s economic, military and political dominance, worse still that they had not been able to drag either the CCP nor the Russians under Putin into their orbit of control and exploitation—in fact, their numerous regime change operations, sanctions and other economic acts of war had brought these closer together.
Along with the more recent oil rich Persian Gulf regions and some other nations with strategically important resources, China and Russia are the top of the western elites’ shopping list for conquest. While China has a potential labour and consumer market of 1.4 billion people, Russia as the world’s largest country by land area sits on an estimated US$70 trillion worth of resources. Moreover, in geopolitical terms, these two nations sit at the core of what is called the “world island”, meaning they dominate the strategic centre of the biggest land block on the planet. Geopolitical theory is that whoever controls this location can control the world, ergo the Great Game of the 1800s and, more recently, the US’s obsession with conquering and holding Afghanistan and infiltrating and bringing under its umbrella the neighbouring central Asian nations — a position from which it can threaten both Russia from the south and China from the west, while also creating chaos for Iran, Iraq and maybe India (if Modi or one of his successors falls out of line).
However, as mentioned above the US elite’s use of sanctions as a weapon of choice has not worked well against Russia, China or even Iran and, more recently, Venezuela. Rather, recognising what has been done elsewhere it has forced these nations together so that the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has been embraced as a way for them to connect and cooperate in a manner that avoids US and western interference by-passing the US dominated maritime routes in favour of a network of land connections using roads, rail and pipelines. Wherever possible, the US has sought to impede construction of these networks by dissuading other nations from participating and casting doubt on the financial benefits and costs (such as portraying loans made by China as debt traps). Places where the BRI meets the sea have been targeted for destabilisation, such as the Rakhine region of Myanmar where there is a major BRI railway terminus and port development both funded by the Chinese (you probably thought the events there had something to do with the Rohingya people’s welfare) and, more recently, Lebanon as an entry port to the Mediterranean connecting via Syria, Iraq and Iran (note that Hezbollah’s leader has in the last year or so spoken fondly of stronger linkages with China). Likewise, Russia’s Nord Stream 2 link to Germany has been attacked and delayed using direct sanctions on companies building the pipeline and threats of secondary sanctions on others supporting it. Since Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” the war on China has been accelerated using intense propaganda campaigns, threats of military action (e.g. under the guise of freedom of navigation exercises and positioning of ever more missiles and armaments in South Korea, Japan and Taiwan) and domestic chaos operations such as the Xinjiang terrorism and the CIA/USAID backed “democracy” protests in Hong Kong last year.
In connection with their response to the COVID-19 events, there is some evidence that the Chinese leadership believes that the US has used biological weapons against the nation on a number of occasions over the last few decades and they point to the US having used biological weapons in North Korea during the Korean War, having picked up entire the Japanese biological weapons experts and programmes after World War2. Significantly, the 2018/19 swine flu epidemic that devasted Chinese pig farms has been traced to a US bioweapons lab in Georgia (country) from where it passed through herds in Russia and then to China. The resulting swine flu culls of Chinese herds meant that China had to purchase large quantities of pork from, guess where — the USA.
Getting back to COVID-19, a little research shows that the Wuhan biolab variously blamed for either accidentally or deliberately releasing COVID-19 was funded and staffed at least in part by US institutions, with the famous Dr Fauci being a key player. In fact, there is evidence to support the assertion that a “gain of function” research program involving horseshoe bat derived coronaviruses had been transferred from US biolabs to the Wuhan lab after the US authorities banned the practice on US soil. Whether they knew or not about this research, the Chinese government’s rather extreme reaction to discovery of the virus in the general population may point to them being under the impression that they were under attack, the Russians had a rather similar response, but not as effective.
3) The Great Reset:
The coming to fruition of a package of economic, political and societal changes outlined under the auspices of the World Economic Forum under the banners of The Great Reset, Agenda 21 and the Fourth Industrial Revolution, wherein the Western elites have laid out their vision for the total re-engineering of societies across the world.
The WEF’s Great Reset is no secret, there is an entire website dedicated to telling the world all about it and providing myriad papers on how it will affect and re-engineer all aspects of our lives. This comprehensive social re-engineering program has deep linkages to the issues of Climate Change and population control. It entails a genuine programme to change society at all levels, but not one that you or I will ever get to vote on. No, this all-encompassing programme is being rolled out across the planet without even the most elementary levels of public discussion or mandate from the voting populations of any of the nations that have signed up to it.
It is evident from the volume of material that has been gathered and the think tanks involved that this Great Reset has been in planning for a considerable length of time. Some of the thinking can be traced back to the Rockefeller Foundation, which coincidently produced a paper in 2010 entitled “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” http://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RRS/Rockefeller%20Foundation.pdf, in which four scenarios or narratives were proposed. The first of these was the “Lock Step” scenario which quite closely anticipates the current situation of a pandemic resulting in rising authoritarian nationalistic states and tighter population controls. An analysis of this scenario and comparison to the present situation can be found here https://principia-scientific.com/2010-rockefellers-operation-lockstep-predicted-2020-lockdown/
Even Boris Johnson has couched the UK government’s solution to the COVID-19 crisis in terms of language reminiscent of the Great Reset — does “Build Back Better” ring any bells?
It is worth reflecting on the degree of change that has already been brought through under the guise of this COVID-19 pandemic. Whole industries, such as international tourism and airlines, have been collapsed, masses of people have been cast out of jobs and made dependant on the government, government tracking and control over everyday activities (even to how long someone can exercise or far they can travel from home or how many people they can have to dinner) has been implemented, face mask wearing has been mandated and protests banned, opposing information has been censored and banned, people have been fined and even beaten for disobeying the ever changing, inconsistent and often utterly illogical and unscientific rules. Spies patrol pubs and clubs looking for transgressors and report them to the authorities who fine them or close them down. People such as doctors, nurses, scientists and others who speak out against the lockdowns, mask wearing and other forms of oppression are censored, pilloried and their reputations sullied by the press, social media hacks and officials, many have lost their jobs for speaking the truth. Small mainstreet businesses have been bankrupted. Children are told they are a risk to their elders, forced to wear masks and social distance even when they are proven not to be either seriously affected nor carriers. People are forced to wear masks in the street when all credible research shows these are utterly ineffective at preventing viral transmission and are actually dangerous to health.
A crisis has been engineered and changes are being imposed without any voting or consultation with those affected. Who gains? Well, I’ll leave that for you to ponder.