The criminal WHO blows its own cover: fake PCR test

In early 2020, the WHO accepted a PCR test for “SARS-CoV-2” that was designed without having possession of the virus. Yet the test is meant to detect…the missing virus. This is evidence of deep criminal intent. But as of December 14, 2020, WHO has made a correction. Thereby blowing its own cover. Why? Two reasons. Huge numbers of people have caught on to the PCR test scam. And by their correction, WHO paves the way for “declining COVID case numbers”---thereby making it appear the new vaccine is a roaring success. I predicted this development.

The PCR test -- a complete fraud

(To read about Jon's mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed) A brief review. The PCR test (a complete fraud for several reasons) is run in “cycles.” Each cycle is a giant magnification of a tiny portion of the swab sample taken from the patient. As I’ve reported, even Tony Fauci readily asserts that if the PCR is run at 35 cycles or higher, it’s meaningless. Every positive result---indicating “infection with the virus”---occurring at 35 cycles or higher is meaningless. BUT, as I’ve also pointed out, public health agencies recommend running the PCR test at up to 40 cycles. Therefore, labs comply. Therefore, millions upon millions of PCR tests results, over the last nine months, which indicate “infection,” are a vast lie. Therefore, the COVID case numbers are a vast lie, and the lockdowns, which are based on those numbers, are absurd, insane, criminal, and predatory. NOW, the WHO is walking back their stance on how the PCR should be run, for the reasons I mentioned above. The WHO document is titled, “WHO Information Notice for IVD Users/Nucleic acid testing (NAT) technologies that use real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for detection of SARS-CoV-2.”

---

WHO Money Quotes

Here are the money quotes. The language is mealy-mouthed, intentionally confusing, cautious, and sterile. Nevertheless, we can see the intent to lower the number of test cycles.

“Users of RT-PCR reagents should read the IFU [Information for Use] carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is necessary to account for any background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a positive result.”

Translation: Using too many test cycles---aka “high cycle threshold (Ct) value”---has resulted in patients being told they’re infected, which is a lie.

“In some cases, the IFU will state that the cut-off should be manually adjusted to ensure that specimens with high Ct values are not incorrectly assigned SARS-CoV-2 detected due to background noise.”

Translation: Running the test with a high number of cycles yields “background noise”---aka a false positive result. The patient is told he’s infected but he’s not.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

Millions of false positives, and those numbers were deployed to justify the lockdowns

“The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus and so the Ct value will be low. Conversely, when specimens return a high Ct value, it means that many cycles were required to detect virus. In some circumstances, the distinction between background noise and actual presence of the target virus is difficult to ascertain.”

Translation: When the test is run with a high number of cycles, we can’t tell the difference between “irrelevant” and “meaningful.” A frank and honest translation of the WHO message: “We’re changing the way we’re doing PCR tests. We were running them with a high number of cycles and getting millions of false positives, and those numbers were deployed to justify the lockdowns---but NOW we’re moving to a lower number of cycles. This change, all on its own, will result in fewer positive results, fewer case numbers, making the vaccine look VERY GOOD.” The WHO is still crazy, still criminal, but not entirely stupid. They know what they’re doing and why. (The link to this article posted on my blog is here -- with sources.)