Another court acknowledges limitations of PCR testing

Another court decision you won’t read about in the mainstream media.

On 24 March 2021 an Austrian administrative court ruled that the Viennese County Police wrongfully prohibited a protest in the country’s capital which was slated for 31 Jan 2021. The demonstration was organised by a political party and was aimed at the Austrian Government’s severe Covid-19 measures. The court acknowledged the limitations of PCR and antigen testing for evaluating the epidemiological situation.

Below I summarise the parts of the reasons for judgment which are particularly interesting. 

Keep Reading

Do as you’re told or else!

Australian health professionals who are questioning the wisdom of Australia’s Covid-19 vaccination policy have been effectively silenced. A position statement of 9 March 2021 (a short extract below with my margin notes) reads like a thinly veiled threat to either toe the line or, if you do have objections, shut up about it and do as you’re told anyway, or else you face disciplinary action – in other words you risk losing your license to practice.

The Hippocratic Oath, the Declaration of Geneva, or the International Code of Medical Ethics, all thrown out of the window. It’s all about blind obedience – but that has quickly become the norm over the past year.

The next stage: corrupt artists

It was probably only a question of time. Recently, in the German city of Düsseldorf, young artist Leon Löwentraut was given a platform to display his “art” on the city’s landmark tower, the Rheinturm. According to this local news article, his work, a light show projected onto the tower, was explicitly dedicated to the UN’s sustainability goals (aka Agenda 21 / Agenda 2030), and the fight against Covid.

The main slogans on display were: “together against corona” and “vaccination = freedom”. 

So this artist allowed himself to be instrumentalised to help turn ultimately anti-human agendas into a dystopian reality. In my view, this is not art, this is pure propaganda disguised as art.

What is particularly ironic about this story is that according to this article, during an anti-lockdown demonstration last May in another German city, Freiburg, someone displayed a placard which caused much outrage at the time. It read “vaccination makes free” (“Impfen macht frei”) written in a manner which was an unmistakable reference to the “work makes free” (“Arbeit macht frei”) slogan displayed over the entrance gate to the Auschwitz Nazi concentration camp. The person is still being prosecuted.

So just to get this straight: a display of a slogan which criticises our apparent and dramatic loss of freedoms and our simultaneous enslavement to the dark powers that be, that is considered offensive and criminal, whilst an almost identical slogan which is displayed in the context of support for those same dark forces is widely celebrated and considered art. 

The writing is on the wall.

Who cares whether Covid vaccines are safe?

Not the government, that’s the short answer.

I was curious to see whether any deaths that occur at least some time soon after the date of vaccination will by default be referred to the coroner in my home state of New South Wales, where vaccinations began just a few days ago.

I did this out of suspicion, because I already found out at the beginning of the Covid-19 scamdemic that coroners throughout Australia were specifically instructed not to examine deaths that were attributed to Covid-19, which of course means that we will never know for sure whether those people who allegedly died of Covid-19 actually did die from Covid-19.

In fact, it was clear to me early on that no government anywhere around the world had any interest whatsoever in finding out the truth about what was sold to us all as an incredibly deadly virus. It seems that no country anywhere mandated deaths be having them properly investigated through autopsies, with very few localised exceptions through personal initiative (eg Hamburg in Germany, and Basel in Switzerland). These did show that all or at least the vast majority of those who allegedly died from Covid-19 had one or several other pre-existing conditions that led to their deaths. Not to forget that it is highly likely that the treatment of so-called Covid-19 patients could also have contributed to the demise of these patients (intubation was quite fashionable early on, and as were ridiculously high doses of Hydroxychloroquine). 

The only chance we have to actually know whether any deaths that occur soon after vaccination were caused by the vaccine is via a thorough investigation by the State coroner. 

From this page of the NSW Health website and from the linked checklist I can only conclude that there is certainly no compulsion to refer any possibly Covid-vaccination related deaths to the coroner.

Given the extraordinary situation we are in, I would have expected such a strict requirement. 

Under point 5 of the checklist, a death following Covid vaccination “should” be reported to the coroner. But guidance note 1 gives the doctor an easy out, as they can simply conclude themselves that the vaccination (the “health related procedure”) did not cause the death. 

Given there is already so much pressure on doctors to push these vaccines on the entire population, it would be all-too human if doctors preferred to simply not rock the boat.

And our governments of course have many more important things to worry about than public health. There are many millions of doses of vaccines to deliver, no matter what.

With commonsense out of the picture for the last 12 months and scientific principles completely sidelined throughout this scamdemic, we can only hope that the biggest ever medical experiment with many millions of human guinea pigs, does not end in a huge catastrophe.

PCR testing in New South Wales

  • Jan 24, 2021
  • /
  • Blog

I was curious, so on 20 December 2020 I asked the Premier and the Health Minister some questions about the PCR testing regime in the Australian state where I live, New South Wales.

Essentially I was curious to know whether and how Ct values are being taken into consideration when interpreting PCR test results. If you don’t know what Ct values are about, or even what PCR testing actually is, the best explanation I’ve come across is by Dr Sam Bailey, which you can watch here.

I also asked why there is no information about the nature and the limitations of PCR testing in the public arena, and I asked whether the state was aware of certain publications that suggest that PCR testing is highly problematic. My letter is reproduced at the end of this article.

On 6 Jan 2021 I received a reply from Stephen Braye, the Chief Medical Information Officer and Executive Director Statewide Clinical Services.

The reply was a little underwhelming in that it did not address all my questions. I guess the state does not want to admit to knowing of the existence of material that is critical of PCR testing in case there are legal consequences further down the track.

But at least I now know and want to share the following information:

  • all positive results undergo confirmatory retesting before publication, preferably using different testing systems, and new positive persons are retested by collecting a second PCR sample. Serology blood test and sometimes viral culture is also performed, and sometimes whole genome sequencing may be done;
  • all tests are done testing for 2 or more gene targets in each test (E, N1, N2, RdRp2, RdRp4, Orf8, Orf1 and S genes)
  • there are 30 different combinations of machines and systems used in Australia, all to NPAAC standards assessed by NATA;
  • generally, the number of Ct cycles run by PCR systems is 45, depending on the machine and assay used;
  • the Ct cut-off threshold is set at 40 cycles, but this is influenced also by manufacturer instructions and required validation processes. 

Considering that even the famed Dr Fauci says that a threshold over 35 cycles is too high, and he’s clearly not the only one saying so, we would be justified in asking why NSW Health is using such high CT thresholds.

My letter to Premier Gladys Berejiklian and Health Minister Brad Gazzard:

Re: PCR testing in NSW

I am a concerned citizen with some specific questions regarding PCR testing done in NSW. The data that is publicly available on your website does not answer my questions.

Question 1:

Is the following data in relation to all reported test results collected and collated in the one database along with the personal data of the persons being tested, and is there a requirement that this data is supplied to you by the testing centres and laboratories?

The name of the testing station

The name of the laboratory

The name of all personnel who interacted with the tested persons

The name of the testing kit used 

The cycle threshold (Ct) value that was applied

All the gene sequences tested for each sample (E, N, RdRp)

Question 2:

Do you acknowledge that it is of fundamental importance for the interpretation of PCR tests to collect the data referred to in Question 1, in particular to ensure that we are not dealing with a test pandemic of false positives (given the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in the community must be very low) or contamination issues?

Question 3:

In the event that samples are only tested for one gene, are laboratories required to test for other genes before they report a positive result?

Question 4:

Why are you referring to people who merely tested positive as “cases”? Do you not think this is a misleading characterisation, given a PCR test does nothing more than indicate that matter with certain gene sequences is present in a person’s body, and a PCR test is not in itself a diagnosis of anything and says nothing about the state of health or infectiousness of a person? I refer to the CDC’s definition of a “case” here: https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dsepd/ss1978/lesson1/section5.html

Question 5:

In light of this, do you agree it would be better to refer to positive test results in your publicised statistics as “positive test results” or “people tested positive”?

Question 6:

In light of the above, do you not think it is your duty to inform the public and the media about the nature and limitations of PCR tests?

Question 7:

Are you aware of the following article which fundamentally questions the validity of the WHO-supported Corman/Drosten PCR test protocol? https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

Question 8:

Are you aware of the WHO’s own media release of 14 December 2020? https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users

Question 9:

Are you aware of the Portuguese court of appeal decision which was highly critical of PCR testing? https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2020-11-27/covid-pcr-test-reliability-doubtful-portugal-judges/56962

I look forward to your response.

Covid sources

Below are some sources I can recommend if you’d like to inform yourself more wholesomely and broadly on the Covid issue, beyond the hype and hysteria of the totally corrupted mainstream media.

Of course, don’t just blindly believe anything you read, hear, and watch there either. Instead, always think critically, remain skeptical, and think for yourself.

Remember: the best fact checker is your brain!

2020 – it’s almost over – or is it?

Phew, 2020 is almost over, I hear you sigh heavily. You think the moment the new year begins, you can make a fresh start, the world will somehow change for the better after a harrowing year.

Of course we can all be forgiven for thinking like that. But I fear we’d be sadly mistaken. 2021 will bring no relief, on the contrary. The coronavirus narrative will need to be kept alive, the population must remain sufficiently scared until we’re all thoroughly vaccinated and, above all, thoroughly brainwashed. 

I hope I’m wrong, I really do, but the signs are not good.

It will begin with a big bash in January 2021. The World Economic Forum under its looney leader Klaus Schwab will map out what our world should look like, just how things are going to change, and they will push and push until they’ve got what they want.

You’ve heard that phrase, right? The Great Reset. It’s been bandied around enough this year, along with other cute and catchy phrases like The New Normal and Building Back Better. What about other phrases like technocracy, transhumanism, smart cities, the Internet of Things, ID2020, Agenda21, Agenda 2030? You see, it’s all connected, but you’ll see it only when you take a more holistic view.

Of course, those pressing the reset button don’t want you to take a holistic view, that’s why they’ve made sure your mind is focusing sharply on the nasty virus that’s so deadly it even exterminated influenza. Yeah right!

But if you’ve swallowed the narrative so far, you’re 99% ready to swallow the rest of it too, so well done, dutiful citizen, you have faithfully watched the mainstream news, followed your government’s every instruction no matter how senseless, contradictory, and idiotic. You may have laughed about it, you may have been shaking your head, but you still did what was asked of you. But somehow it just wasn’t ever quite enough, so you’re going to have to make a few more little sacrifices. They’re going to have to, you know, impose just a little more, cut a few more freedoms here and there, twist your arm a little more, jab you in the arm with a needle, slap you around a little more, but don’t worry, you soon won’t feel the pain anymore, it will soon be normal, quite the new normal, and you will embrace it, wholeheartedly. 

You are now well prepared to put up with just about anything you will be served, just so you can lead some kind of a normal life – a New Normal life of course, not the old normal, that’s old, that’s over. See how quickly that worked? 

You don’t even notice anymore when you’re being conned. It was that simple. It took less than a year to relieve you of any ability you might have had to think critically. And you always wondered how the Germans could possibly fall for a looney like Hitler? Well…

You are now faithfully tagging along with the narrative, ready to follow the narrative behind the narrative, all the way through 2021 and beyond.