Published on October 1, 2021
Written by Jon Rappoport
—Memo to attorneys and political leaders who want to destroy the COVID narrative that has been used to justify the lockdowns, masks, economic destruction, mandates—
As you well know, the PCR test is at the heart of the narrative. A positive test supposedly equals a “COVID case.” Many COVID cases equal: “we must clamp down on the citizenry; we must lock them up, close businesses; roll out a vaccine…”
I’ve spent a year dissecting the PCR test and its MANY terminal flaws and problems. In short, the test is complete fraud.
Here I want to highlight just ONE major scandal.
The one I’ve chosen, if pursued, will make a devastating case. It’s simple; stark; startling; the public can grasp it easily; and even if a court filing doesn’t fly, the exposure of facts can be built into a hurricane of a story.
There is an open secret in the professional PCR testing community: DIFFERENT LABS COME UP WITH CONFLICTING TEST RESULTS FOR THE SAME SAMPLE.
A nasal swab taken from John Jones, sent to six different labs, will frequently come back POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, INDETERMINATE, NEGATIVE…
Therefore, there is no reliable result. There is no standard. There is no way to ascertain whether the test should read “COVID” or “NON-COVID.”
This basic variable is on the order of an engineer saying, “I’ve finished the design of the bridge, my experts all disagree on whether the design is viable, and therefore we can’t build the bridge.”
So how do you apply this irreparable horror story when it comes to the PCR test?
You choose five people. In the space of one day, you send each person’s swab sample to six different labs for analysis. You document this process, so there is no argument about “chain of custody.”
When the results come back on the five people from all the labs, and you see the conflicting findings—COVID, NOT COVID—you have the case. You have the evidence. You have the truth. You have the story.
This is not complicated. You don’t need to compose a 500-page filing for the court.
And as I say, even if a sold-out or dumb-as-a-rock judge tosses your case, you have a hell of a revelation.
If you happen to be political leader—I’m thinking of you, Governor DeSantis—you can launch your court case from on high. You can use your state attorney general to force the case into court and make it a mountainous public scandal.
As a bonus, I have another strategy.
As I’ve documented, mainstream experts agree that the PCR test should be run at 35 cycles or lower; otherwise the result is meaningless and unusable.
However, FDA/CDC guidance recommends running the test at 40 cycles. Therefore, labs comply.
This in itself is a major scandal.
But there is more. Labs are not required (except in Florida  [1a]) to report how many cycles they deploy in their PCR tests. Therefore, the labs don’t report this essential factor to the patient or his doctor.
So…you have a client who has been ordered to take the test say, “Sure, I’m willing. But first, I’ll need the lab to state in writing how many cycles they’re using to process my sample.”
If the government official or corporate employee refuses to pass the request to the lab, sue him.
If he does forward the request, and the lab refuses to state how many cycles they’re using, sue the lab.
If the lab states it’s using more than 35 cycles, sue the lab.
Sue all connected parties.
Here is background supporting these two strategies—
ONE: CONFLICTING LAB TEST RESULTS
In a half-sane world, the PCR test would have been validated, decades ago, before its original release for use.
I’m talking about a large study of, say, five thousand volunteers. From each volunteer, take a tissue sample and send that sample to a dozen different labs, with the instruction to look for a particular microbe.
When the results come back for all 5000 volunteers, check them for consistency.
THIS TEST OF THE TEST, THIS STUDY HAS NEVER BEEN DONE.
The uniformity of test-lab findings has never been established.
The study has never been done, because the “experts” knew what the results would be, and the prospect of exposure as frauds terrified them.
The FDA has never demanded a serious validation of the PCR test.
TWO: THE TEST-CYCLE PROBLEM
July 16, 2020, podcast, “This Week In Virology” : Tony Fauci makes a point of saying the PCR COVID test is useless and misleading when the test is run at “35 cycles or higher.” A positive result, indicating infection, cannot be accepted or believed.
Here, in techno-speak, is an excerpt from Fauci’s key quote  (starting at the 4m01s mark through to the 5m45s mark (Fauci begins his first answer to the first question at the 4m20s mark and begins his second answer to the second question at the 5m26s mark)):
“…If you get [perform the test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”
Each “cycle” of the test is a quantum leap in amplification and magnification of the test specimen taken from the patient.
Too many cycles, and the test will turn up all sorts of irrelevant material that will be wrongly interpreted as relevant.
That’s called a false positive.
What Fauci failed to say on the video is: the FDA, which authorizes the test for public use, recommends the test should be run up to 40 cycles. Not 35.
Therefore, all labs in the US that follow the FDA guideline are knowingly or unknowingly participating in fraud. Fraud on a monstrous level, because…
Millions of Americans are being told they are infected with the virus on the basis of a false positive result, and…
The total number of COVID cases in America—which is based on the test—is a gross falsity.
The lockdowns and other restraining measures are based on these fraudulent case numbers.
Let me back up and run that by you again. Fauci says the test is useless when it’s run at 35 cycles or higher. The FDA says run the test up to 40 cycles, in order to determine whether the virus is there. This is the crime in a nutshell.
Here are two chunks of evidence. First, we have a CDC quote on the FDA website, in a document titled: “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel For Emergency Use Only.”  See page 35. This document is marked, “Effective: 07/21/21.” That means, even though the virus is being referred to by its older name, the document is still relevant as of July 2021. “For Emergency Use Only” refers to the fact that the FDA has certified the PCR test under a traditional category called “Emergency Use Authorization.”
FDA: “…a specimen is considered positive for 2019-nCoV [virus] if all 2019-nCoV marker (N1, N2) cycle threshold growth curves cross the threshold line within 40.00 cycles ([less than] 40.00 Ct).”
Naturally, testing labs reading this guideline would conclude, “Well, to see if the virus is there in a patient, we should run the test all the way to 40 cycles. That’s the official advice.”
Then we have a New York Times article (August 29/updated September 17, 2020) headlined: “Your coronavirus test is positive. Maybe it shouldn’t be.”  Here are money quotes:
Set-the-limit would mean, We’re going to look all the way to 40 cycles, to see if the virus is there.“Most tests set the limit at 40 [cycles]. A few at 37.”
The Times: “This number of amplification cycles needed to find the virus, called the cycle threshold, is never included in the results sent to doctors and coronavirus patients.” That’s the capper, the grand finale. Labs don’t or won’t reveal their collusion in this crime.
So…attorneys and sane political leaders, do you want to make moves whose upsides are enormous, in the cause of freedom?
 https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download (document page 35 (pdf page 36), “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, For Emergency Use Only, Instructions for Use, Catalog # 2019-nCoVEUA-01, 1000 reactions, For In-vitro Diagnostic (IVD) Use, Rx Only”; CDC-006-00019, Revision: 07 CDC/DDID/NCIRD/ Division of Viral Diseases, Effective: 07/21/2021)
See more here: nomorefakenews.com
Thanks to: https://principia-scientific.com