Fire Them All – Part 2

In COVID Canaduh 15 Equals 35

FYI.  I posted the first three paragraphs from Fire Them All – Part 1 on LinkedIn and then included a link to the posting here on Minds.  LinkedIn censored it, or should I say, LinkedOut?

In Fire Them All – Part 1, “In COVID Canaduh Wild Guesses Equal Trusted Truth”, I exposed the flaws of using models to drive political policy and proved the COVID-19 Response as being unnecessary because more than 99% of people would not die from the novel coronavirus, essentially attributing the impact of the natural human immune response system to the COVID-19 Response political system. Furthermore, I showed the COVID-19 Response was also illegitimate because the models were guaranteed to be wrong, and wrong in a fashion explicitly designed to overhype the viral threat. 

Fake News Narratives are political justification tools. Applying that principal to COVID-19 leads to the understanding that the objective of using the flawed models was to justify implementation of the totalitarian COVID-19 Response. 

In this essay, I’ll show how they have managed to keep the unnecessary Tyranny going for two years when they promised, through crossed fingers obviously, they would “stop the spread” in two weeks.  On top of the deceits and fraud revealed in Part 1, this essay will show that governments have engaged in grammar/linguistic/perceptual fraud, statistical fraud, and process fraud to justify their use of the PCR Test Protocol.

The totalitarians deceived us into accepting the Response and it should come as no surprise they have deceived us into keeping it going indefinitely.  The sole purpose of political deceit is always the accumulation of political power with respect to control of society’s wealth and freedom.  The antidote is a people with the courage to stand up and say NO!  Unfortunately, …..

Courage is a Timid Thing

Have you heard the saying “courage is contagious”?  It reflects the truth that courage isn’t our default setting, as much as we like to believe it is.  The unscrupulous and corrupt understand this human failing very well and are more than willing to psychologically exploit this weakness through strong emotional manipulation. Never forget that politicians who deceive to manipulate society are not on the side of the people, and this includes those people who vote for them. 

A word of warning to those who believe that government relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions equates to a restoration of citizen’s liberties.  The relaxation of restrictions is better viewed as little more than a loosening of the leash.  The chain collar remains firmly affixed around society’s neck and we can be brought to heel at any moment at the snap of a new decree.  Can you say variant? Climate Change?

My goal is to convince you cross the bridge called courage before it is too late, and my hope is that your leadership will be highly contagious.

The PCR Test Protocol Scam

I am going to begin with an example of grammar/linguistic/perceptual fraud brought to you by the Alberta government. There are five such frauds in the following Q & A, and they are all laid out in plain sight for those willing to apply a critical look.  After disentangling the frauds, you will clearly see that none of it is by accident. It is not a combination of five honest or dumb mistakes, the sheer import of the PCR Test protocol to the promulgation of the entire COVID-19 Response destroys that thought. 

The work below is quite an exquisite piece of deliberate confusion.  We’re talking Master Class here.  Once you realize what they’ve done and that they did so right in front of our faces it is hard to escape the feeling that we are being mercilessly mocked by those we entrust to manage our affairs. 

The following Q and A is taken from the Alberta Government’s PCR page.

“Q: How many cycles are used in the amplification process, and what is the cut-off threshold for determining a positive result?"

 "A: The number of amplification cycles required to determine whether a COVID-19 sample is positive generally ranges from 15 to 35 cycles, but the threshold is dependent on many factors specific to each test platform, the equipment being used, as well as the quality of the samples being tested.“     

Look fairly benign at first glance? There will be quibblers out there but if I can prove there are at least three frauds in this Q and A I hope you’ll demand your government representatives answer to them.

1. The question does not explicitly refer to COVID-19, it refers to the number of cycles used by the amplification process to determine a positive result. Now, some will say that COVID-19 is implied as the entire page regards COVID-19.  That idea might hold water this missing word were the only example of fraud in the Q and A.  In addition, if COVID-19 is implied in the question then why is it explicitly referenced in the answer?  Furthermore, the question as written could be included on a page for pretty much any topic. Try adding COVID-19 to the question and see if your placement survives fraud number 3 below.
2. The use of the word “positive” in the question is misleading because positive is one of two possible answers, positive or negative.  The cutoff threshold obviously applies to both options, otherwise there is no cutoff until a positive result is achieved.  Accurate grammar would simply ask about the threshold for determining a result.  The perceptual purpose here is to link an implied COVID-19 to a positive PCR amplification test result.  
3. The phrase “whether a COVID-19 sample is positive” in the answer does not have the same meaning as “whether a sample is COVID-19 positive”.  The answer as written is speaking to a positive amplification result whereas the definitive version speaks specifically to a positive COVID-19 result.  Once again, this is a perceptual trick to link COVID-19 to a positive amplification result.
4. The phrase “where a COVID-19 sample is positive” is misleading because at this point the sample has not yet been tested so it’s status remains unknown. It is simply a sample like any other and could be Influenza A, Influenza B, non-COVID-19 Coronavirus, or Stool for that matter.  The phrase is an outright linguistic deceit and perceptual fraud.
5. There is no cycle related cutoff threshold.  The solution to “what is the cutoff threshold for a positive result” is found in the answer as being “dependent on many factors specific to each test platform, the equipment being used, as well as the quality of the samples being tested.”  This is an admittance that the protocol has platform discrepancies and equipment inconsistencies to deal with, guaranteeing all results have reliability issues.  The inclusion of sample quality in the cutoff threshold decision means, from a procedural standpoint, that the cycle rate used should be calculated for each and every sample being put through the amplification process test.  The point here is that there is no defined cycle cutoff threshold and the general cycle range of 15 to 35 can be breached if deemed necessary by the condition of the platform/equipment/sample combination.

There is zero chance that this PCR Test Protocol Q and A misleads by mistake.  It is designed to improperly link positive results to COVID-19 and to add hide that fraud behind irrelevant scientific complexity buried within the many factors found in test platforms and equipment.  It is a dangerous blend of lies and confusion whose toxicity is hidden behind a benign façade, much like the Poison Dart Frog.  

Do you not have PCR questions for your government reps yet?  Please read on before contacting them because you may wish to ask about process and statistical fraud as well.

15 Equals 35

As noted in the answer above, the Alberta government typically runs the amplification process within a general range of 15 to 35 cycles.  This is an admission that the PCR Test Protocol does not explicitly look for the COVID-19 virus for if it did only one cycle rate, the right one, would be necessary. The process works like a model, it gathers bits and pieces of information with each cycle until the results match to what the model is looking for to indicate a positive result. To reiterate, the PCR Test Protocol is not searching for the COVID-19 virus.

The problem with the reliability of PCR Test Protocol results can be seen in one simple question. 

If a sample tested negative at 15 cycles but positive at 35 cycles, is the individual infected with COVID-19?

The reality is that every different cycle rate is a different test because at some point the result can CHANGE. The fact that the result can change indicates that the protocol’s results are at best arbitrary, and at worst, wholly unreliable and completely untrustworthy.  On second thought, arbitrary results are also wholly unreliable and untrustworthy so the PCR Test Protocol has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. 

However unreliable the results are, you should be aware that the PCR Test Protocol process itself can be managed in a highly reliable fashion. 

It should be obvious to all that running the amplification process at higher cycle rates must return a higher rate of positive returns.  This means that government can report a higher number of cases simply by ordering an increase in the number of cycles the test is to be run at.

There is more to this charade, however. It is also obvious that increasing the number of tests being run will also increase the number of positive results. Contact tracing serves as an example of government policy that results in an increase in the number of tests run.

So, ask yourself what happens when both the number of tests and the cycle rates are increased or decreased by government order?  Increasing both will result in a SURGE of positive results and decreasing both a WANE in positive results.  They can make the case numbers go up or down at will.  Does this understanding cause your innards to rumble a bit?

The PCR Test Protocol is not a test for COVID-19.  It is a controllable tool, or programmable process, for manipulating the number of positives being reported.  It is a process fraud, pure and simple.

Now the government could feign ignorance and claim they don’t control the process in such an egregiously corrupt fashion, but the fact remains they could, which proves that they did not perform appropriate due diligence to protect Albertans from a blatantly fraudulent process that is guaranteed to produce unreliable results. 

Statistical Fraud

OK, so there is significant grammar/linguistic/perceptual fraud in Alberta’s simple PCR Test Q and A plus process fraud in the insanely corrupt design of the PCR Test Protocol.  Is it possible there is more fraud buried somewhere in the PCR Test Protocol that governments have used to sustain the COVID-19 scare for more than two years? 

Why, yes there is, and I’m not talking about the well-known trick of padding death counts by tallying those who died “with COVID-19” rather than “ by COVID-19”, although knowing what you know now, the “by COVID-19” numbers are also suspect so even if the victim wasn’t involved in a motorcycle accident, who knows the truth about cause of death?

What I’m referring to is a risk conflation deceit, and it is absolutely massive.  It would take a serious statistician to determine the exact size of the deceit with a high degree of precision but to do that would require accurate and trustworthy case counts and they don’t exist anywhere the PCR Test Protocol is in use. 

Still, the deceit can be explained simply enough, and we can produce a decent idea of just how nasty the statistical fraud is.

What is the primary concern of media and government when it comes to “Stop The Spread” policy?  The number of cases!  Society has been taught to equate fear with the number of cases being reported believing that there is a direct correlation between the number of cases and subsequent number of deaths.

However, if the fatality rate of any particular disease is ZERO, who cares about the number of infections?   There are great differences in casualty rates between age groups when it comes to COVID-19 and other flu like diseases, and this fact is acknowledged by government and media alike.  We know that all cases are not the same and therefore do not carry the same risk of death. 

According to the CDC, a 15-year-old is several thousand times less at risk than an 85-year-old, but that difference is ignored the moment the two are pooled together into a single “number of cases” total.  The error rate changes by age-related risk but in this case, for the 15-year-old, treating the two infections as equals injects a “fear” error of hundreds of thousands of percent into the “number of cases” statistics used to keep society on the edge of terror. 

This is the second place our natural immune response system has been rejected in favour of the COVID-19 Response. The first, as explained in Part 1, was when governments ignored the fact that over 99% of the people would not die from COVID-19.  This crucial deceit was necessary to illegitimately justify the COVID-19 “Stop The Spread” Response in the first place. 

Pooling all infections into one number is a massive statistical deceit that for some reason garners little attention, and none by government nor the mainstream media for the obvious reason that such a grievous deceit cannot be defended.  It is statistical fraud, they know it, and they should be held accountable for the gigantic lie. 

Who will do that if not you? 

COVID-19 Truths

In Fire Them All – Part 1 we see how unproven models were used to justify political action.  They tell us to follow the science but the science they promote is unproven, meaning it isn’t science at all.  The models made unsubstantiated claims that were subsequently used by corrupt or ignorant politicians to impose unnecessary policy.

This essay provided an example of grammar/linguistic/perceptual fraud that causes us to misunderstand the PCR Test protocol.  It also exposed the fraudulent nature of the PCR Test Protocol that provides us with much of our COVID-19 information, which ensures our knowledge and understanding of the disease is mistaken. 

In both essays we see how governments have replaced our powerful natural immune system response with the power grabbing COVID-19 Response and how deceit was used to first instill unwarranted fear with wild model projections and then propagate that fear through the “number of cases” ploy that utilizes manipulatable and highly unreliable case counts while simultaneously conflating massive differences of age-related risks.

We can make the following logical conclusions.  First, the COVID-19 Response is both unnecessary and illegitimately justified. It should never have been imposed, so it’s imposition had a purpose other than our health and safety.

Second, the PCR Test Protocol is so corrupt, and our data so inaccurate, that there is no reliable COVID-19 information in any jurisdiction in the world where the PCR Test was utilized. That is one chewy, hard to swallow fact, isn’t it?  Regardless, it is still the truth.

So how does one explain the idiocy of our situation?  Well, one reason is courage is a timid thing, and few have enough to speak out against the lies that everyone else believes are true.  Please share this essay so that we can grow the number of people who understand how the COVID-19 Narrative and political fraud has occurred.  Hold your political representatives accountable to these truths and challenge others to challenge themselves.  Cross that scary bridge from knowing what is wrong to doing what is right.

Fire Them All – Part 3.

One of the major impacts of deceit is that it has a reverse Midas touch.  It turns up, down and down, up.  It flips good to bad, and bad to good thereby destroying everything it comes in contact with. 

This effect holds true in politics as well and understanding this truth provides us with a simple way of knowing when politics is driven by deceit.  How?  Look for instances when the consequences of political policy do not match with the political spin. 

Deceit driven policy will always produce negative unexpected consequences which run contrary to the political promises of that policy.  The foundation of the policy, the reasons given for its need, are wrong and therefore the solutions that follow must also be wrong.  The solutions must always be less than optimal, which in COVID-19’s case means, the COVID-19 Response will save less people than the correct response would.

Keep in mind that the nasty consequences are only unexpected by those who trust the media and political spin behind the policy.  Those who know they are deceiving the people do in fact expect those negative consequences and skillfully incorporate them to advance their political agenda.

We’ll explore deceit further next Wednesday in Fire Them All – Part 3.  The subtitle is “In COVID-19 Canaduh Caring Equals Killing.”