How Safe is Too Safe? How Safe is Dangerous?

Written by Eric Francis, planetwaves.net on November 16, 2020. Posted in Current News

Everywhere you shop, there is a shower curtain or sheet of Plexiglass that could no more stop a virus than it could stop smoke. Then there is the hand sanitizer, and the obsessive washing, and the bleaching of shopping carts, and doing the do-si-do at the convenience store.

There are the people who stand back when you pass, like you’re strolling by waving a sharp sword. There are the people who drive with a mask and a visor when alone in the car.

Dear Friend and Reader:

With the Unites States election now over, maybe we can think about things that make a difference in our lives. First, whoever is declared the winner and takes office on Jan. 20 is tasked with doing his part to ensure that the United States remains a free society.

That includes not only the freedom to move around and do what you want, but also the freedom to make personal health choices, and have food to eat.

The new president’s role is not merely about getting a claimed pandemic under control. It is making sure we have lives worth living — the ones we’ve worked for all these years, dutifully contributing two days’ salary each week to support the government, and sacrificing life and limb in war upon war.

For the past nine months, the world and in particular the United States have been obsessed with what is claimed to be safety. We are wrapping our lives around obsessive-compulsive germophobia, fit for psychiatric diagnosis. Along the way, a prison-like mentality has taken hold throughout our society.

This has us lingering somewhere between a cloudy day in East Germany and an episode of Black Mirror. The readiness with which people have sacrificed their liberty to promised safety has been astonishing, particularly given that the sacrifices are real, and the safety is not.

Around the world and throughout much of the United States, people have submitted to mandatory masks and social distancing, and to lockdown and quarantine orders for healthy people for the first time in history. We have seen small community businesses devastated, while Target, Walmart and Amazon thrive. New York City culture, composed mainly of restaurants and theaters, is gone. This has mostly been accepted without any proof of effectiveness, all in the name of safety.

There are curfews coming back, as if a virus runs on a schedule. There are discussions of whether a “snack” is a “meal” for the purpose of what beverage you can drink, allegedly to create safety from the virus. I am not following the logic of any of this.

Everywhere you shop, there is a shower curtain or sheet of Plexiglass that could no more stop a virus than it could stop smoke. Then there is the hand sanitizer, and the obsessive washing, and the bleaching of shopping carts, and doing the do-si-do at the convenience store. There are the people who stand back when you pass, like you’re strolling by waving a sharp sword. There are the people who drive wearing a mask and a visor when alone in the car.

We have been told to wear masks when having sex, and better yet, (as reported over the summer) to have sex through a hole in the wall. Yes, health officials in both Vancouver BC and in New York City suggested that “glory holes” were protection against the virus. I wish I was kidding. Then it would be funny.

Fine and Imprisonment for Failure to Quarantine

Visit New York for vacation or to see family and you’re supposed to quarantine for two weeks, or face a $10,000 fine and two weeks imprisonment — when a person is healthy and has no known exposures. That’s a long time to hole up in a midtown hotel or your cousin’s house.

In England, you cannot meet with a friend in your home, if they don’t already live with you. You are supposed to socialize only within your ‘support bubble’. The government has regulated all social activity by fiat. Despite a claimed pandemic that is supposedly killing so many, deaths in England are down 11% from 2019.

Ordinary social events are being raided in the United States and elsewhere. New York City has been terrorizing Hasidic Jews.

Private homes are being invaded as well — for things like writing a Facebook post suggesting people go to a protest. New Zealand announced it is implementing camps for people who test positive, and by one report, for those who refuse to be tested, even though they have no symptoms. [Note, we know that some of these are in hotels, but involuntary detention is involuntary detention.]

In the U.S., the CDC recently released a plan for creating what it calls ‘Green Zones’ to keep us all safe. These range from confining people to a room in their home, or separating them from their family and taking them to camps in their community, such as in a converted school.

In New York, a law just passed the State Assembly giving local health departments the ability to rip individuals or groups from their homes and detain them if they are suspected of carrying a disease. Not actually sick. Not actually contagious. Merely suspected of being a carrier. Could you get more vague than that?

And all for what? A supposed illness with the same infection fatality rate as the seasonal flu (which has mysteriously disappeared). I often note the rhetorical device of using coronavirus, as mere influenza could have never evoked such terror. I had literally never heard the word until 2020. Novel indeed.

We are in an environment where rational ideas are not welcome. because they threaten the basis of fear. Anyone who suggests that some or all of this is wrong or even questionable risks being called a psychopath who wants to kill grandma. Many live as if there is a mandatory requirement to be anxious all the time, and attack anyone who seems even meekly serene about the presumed virus.

If you’re not nutso bonkers terrified, you must be careless and are therefore a health risk (to them). If you use science to question claims of government officials, you must be up late every night reading Q-Anon. If you care about the law, you risk being called a subversive.

I would, however, encourage you to do your own reading (which takes time) and to set aside the whole notion of a “conspiracy theory” and strive to understand the basic science behind this issue. That begins and ends with the PCR test. It is both the most important issue to understand, and the easiest.

Welcome to Planet PCR

Currently the world is held hostage by a bunch of people working various agendas (from governors, to leaders of NGOs like the World Health Organization, to those who proffer vaccines), and state-controlled media that cannot admit it was wrong. They have help from an artificial intelligence (AI) device called the PCR, or what you might think of as the virus dream weaver.

What you see on the news described as the “case count” is the count of PCR positives — not of cases of disease.

We live in the age of virtual and enhanced reality, and that is just what the Polymerase Chain Reaction is. I know this concept will sound like I read about it in a trashy science fiction novel with a cyborg on the cover in the back of the used bookstore down the street, but please, allow me to explain.

Based on computer programming, the PCR machine identifies fragments of genetic material (using primers, like what you type into a word search window), and makes more of it. Unlike word search, which can tell you accurately how many times the word “oxymoron” appears in a document, the PCR adds a little extra. Or a heck of a lot extra. It is so sensitive that according to Kary Mullis (photo, right), its inventor, PCR “can find anything in anyone.”

Once started, the machine chugs along in what are called cycles, which double the amount of sought-after substance each time. The thing can be set for any number of cycles, though the usual range is 25 to 40. By the time you get to the higher end, the amount of genetic material found has been multiplied into the trillions.

If you set the PCR with a low cycle threshold, such as 25, you will get very few positives. If you set it at the higher end, you will get a great many positives. It seems most jurisdictions in the United State are using 40 or more cycles, which is going to create grossly disproportionate number of positives. In case anyone is wondering why the U.S. “pandemic” is allegedly so out of control, we might ask how many cycles are used in other countries.

So this ‘test’ is fully customizable, which is fantastic if you use it as a research tool (as it was intended) but deceptive if you claim it diagnoses anything, or that whoever gave the sample is sick. Using what the PCR finds and calling it a diagnosis is as ridiculous as finding half a hoof-print and claiming to have the whole unicorn.

In one lively incident, the PCR informed its masters that there were 146 cases of pertussis (whooping cough) at a large medical school in New Hampshire. This caused a massive disruption of life, contract tracing, 4,500 people getting injected with a vaccine and an actual health scare as so many in hospitals are vulnerable. When the samples were sent for proper confirmation, there were no cases, as in none whatsoever.

The Test that Tests for Nothing at All

It is well known and documented in all of the published technical literature that the PCR ‘test’ does not identify live virus, or infection, or infectiousness, or contagiousness, or illness. You might ask what it does identify then. I told you — fragments of genetic material called nucleotides, which match codes that are programmed into a computer. And evidently a bunch of other things, like pawpaw fruit and motor oil.

The ‘test’ identifies some genetic code that allegedly matches the PCR’s digital code. It is a device that is believed to hunt for a few molecules of any biological substance in the world. Then it goes to town making more of what is looking for — by a factor of a trillion or more. To state that a different way, this device can find two molecules of something and at a cycle threshold of 45, create approximately 35,500,000,000,000 of them. This stunt all takes place in approximately a quarter of a drop of water.

Then the result ends up on the front page of The New York Times, where they claim that 99,000 “confirmed cases” of sudden acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have been diagnosed in one day. In reality, the PCR cooked it all up with enzymes and heat.

I mention the Times in particular because that’s the newspaper that has twice this year and once in 2007 published extensive articles about the problems with using the PCR as a test for anything. Invented in 1983, the controversial history of this device goes back to the mid-1990s, at the peak of the AIDS era — when it was causing similar problems.

In one lively incident, the PCR informed its masters that there were 146 cases of pertussis (whooping cough) at a large medical school in New Hampshire. This caused a massive disruption of life, contact tracing, 4,500 people getting injected with a vaccine and an actual health scare as so many in hospitals are vulnerable. When the samples were sent for proper confirmation, there were no cases, as in none whatsoever.

The Times covered Covid and ran its count of “confirmed cases” through the entire crisis, into August without admitting it knew about the problems with the PCR. It never admitted it had reported that an outbreak could be “confirmed” by the PCR when there were no cases.

Then mysteriously, an article appeared on Aug. 29, 2020 which admitted that 90% of these PCR positives might be wrong. The newspaper played it off as a situation where people were being tested too late, to claim that the case count still had relevance. But they know that’s not true. The newspaper aptly noted that when a “case” is “positive,” the cycle threshold is not discussed.

Notably, there are many documented sources of false positives with the PCR. To name a few, they include cold viruses, past SARS infection, other coronaviruses (there are many), according to one published paper, “all Asian viruses,” healthy genetic material, and cross-contamination at the time of sampling or in the processing lab.

“It’s very frustrating for the patients as well as for the physicians. Somebody comes in and they repeat their PCR and it’s like 37 cycle threshold but you never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle. So I think if somebody does come in with 37 or 38 even or 36 you got to say you know it’s just it’s just dead nucleotides.”

— Anthony Fauci, virus czar at the National Institutes of Health

The article quoted scientists incredulous that the 40 CT result (as used in New York) could be called a positive. One source in the story said that a CT of nothing more than 25 should be considered positive. However, for a test that can generate 100% false positives, zero cycles would seem to deliver the most accurate reading.

“I’m shocked that people would think that 40 could represent a positive,” Juliet Morrison, a virologist at the University of California, told the newspaper.

In a July interview, Anthony Fauci, the infectious disease czar at the National Institutes of Health, talked about the PCR problem. “If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more, then the chances of it being replication competent are minuscule,” he said.

He’s saying you can’t take the stuff the PCR cooks up and actually make someone sick with it. You can’t grow some more in a lab. It is inert. He explained further:

“It’s very frustrating for the patients as well as for the physicians. Somebody comes in and they repeat their PCR and it’s like 37 cycle threshold but you never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle. So I think if somebody does come in with 37 or 38 even or 36 you got to say you know it’s just it’s just dead nucleotides.”

Frustrating to doctors and patients? What about frustrating to the whole world, which is being held hostage by the misuse of this device?

Back in early January, a German researcher named Christian Drosten wrote the PCR primers from the codes of known viruses, and gave instructions for the supposed test that included a cycle threshold of 45. He was not taking any chances; I guess he didn’t want to miss a single dead nucleotide. In the U.S., the Aries-Luminex PCR, one of the top four devices used, is set by default at 45 cycles. Thinking this is medically relevant is like amplifying electrical static so loud that it shakes the windows and expecting to hear Carole King.

These modes of proof are the scientific foundation of virology — the thing that distinguishes it from a religion. These are not mere technicalities; they are the elements of proof, which are necessary when a society is making a “scientific” claim that it is using to justify extreme measures against its population.

The Case of the Mimicked Human Specimen

In the document above, the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) admits that it does not have a sample of the virus. The way they say that is, “since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for 2019-nCoV were characterized stocks”— that is, a lab-made pre-selected genetic sequence, to “mimic clinical specimen.”

(See more about this issue in the British Medical Journal. The question of the existence of the virus has become a topic in mainstream medicine.)

This is for the purpose of telling the PCR what to look for — to program the primer into the machine, like a word into a search field. It is in essence looking for a fake virus — one that is based only in computer code.

To find a real virus in the real population, they must use a real sample, or the whole thing is science fiction. The reason they have to mimic a clinical specimen is because they don’t have any actual specimens. The government claims that some 220,000 people have died from a virus and they cannot get an actual clinical specimen.

So they tell the PCR to look for something else, a virus that nobody can actually be infected with because it’s just some code off the shelf in the gene bank database. Read that document below carefully! Don’t let the technical jargon get in the way. All it says they take some stock virus, mix it with human cells, sequence that, tell the PCR to look for it and then when it finds that, call it “Covid positive.”

I am actually laughing writing this. That’s how ridiculous it is to call this a “outbreak.” They are looking for a virus that cannot exist naturally in the population because the PCR primers come from a lab. So when it finds something, it has to be something other than 2019-nCoV because they never found the stuff in nature, that is, in sick people. Don’t worry, my head is spinning too.

The Scientific Foundation of Virology

Virology is a science, which means that it has methods that must be used and standards that must be met to establish proof of its claims. This includes isolation and purification of a virus, so that it can be tested and proven to be dangerous, or not (most viruses are harmless). Yet the federal government by its own admission has no measurable quantity of SARS-CoV-2 (see graphic above).

The United States is claiming that a virus has killed more than 220,000 people but admits that it has no actual virus from patient samples.

Classical modes of proof are the scientific foundation of virology — the thing that distinguishes it from a religion. They are called Koch’s postulates and Rivers’ postulates, virology’s special scientific methods proving that a claimed agent causes a disease.

Dr. Tom Cowan is the best source for an explanation of the isolation and purification issue and why it is so important. For a coherent, short presentation on Koch’s Postulates and viruses, please see this presentation by Dr. Andrew Kaufman.

They are not mere technicalities, or dusty relics of another century; they are the elements of establishing the truth, which is necessary when a society (that is, the government) is making a “scientific” claim that it is using to justify extreme measures against its population. They are also necessary when considering measures to mitigate the outbreak, for example, a vaccine.

How is creating a vaccine is even possible when by the federal government’s own admission, the virus has not been isolated or purified?

It is true that scientists claim that SARS-CoV-2 exists. Yet The assertion of a scientist is not the same as scientific proof. Science is a method of arriving at the truth, not the claim of an authority figure to be taken on faith.

I am wondering why we even need a vaccine for a claimed disease with a survival rate of around 99.8%. That would be classified as a nonlethal illness — which only kills when a person is already very sick and near or beyond the average life expectancy. By one reading, this is all about the vaccine.

A survival rate of 99.8% is different from the disease we were promised, that could infect up to 70% of the population and kill 2.2 million healthy Americans. We remember that, right — the false calculation of Neil Ferguson that led to the lockdowns? We were told that it was not a matter of when, not if, everyone was going to be infected.

This all leads to a question: If SARS-CoV-2 is not proven to exist, and if the tests are not picking up anything that leads to sickness, then what is making people sick? That needs to be studied, not covered over with a virus that has not been properly identified.

This is a crucial question and sadly, there are a lot of possibilities. People get sick every day, and respiratory illnesses are common — and every disease state ascribed to causation by SARS-CoV-2 existed before the outbreak is said to have begun. This is crucial: there is no new disease, rather, there are only old diseases that are being blamed on a virus that cannot be tested for, and which the government admits it does not have a sample of.

The Health Information Blackout

In the midst of a supposed health crisis, we’re not being told anything about how to take care of our health or nurture immunity. We are only being ordered to stay apart and cover our faces until Corporate America comes to the rescue with another product — one that they’re planning to force-inject despite a person’s state of health, philosophy of health or religious views.

Through this year, I’ve learned many things about how to boost immunity and ward off viruses, which include getting rest, reducing stress, eating well, drinking water, proper breathing, and use of specific vitamins (C and D) as well as zinc and melatonin. It is well established science that zinc deactivates coronaviruses, whether in supplement form, gargling or lozenges. Why aren’t people being told about this? Why isn’t this on CNN every hour of the day and night?

When the president of the United States was hospitalized for Covid, C, D, zinc and melatonin was one of the protocols he was given — and it’s available for ten bucks at the local CVS or Rite Aid. Some might think that “nutritional health” is voodoo, but if so, why is it administered by captains and colonels at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center? Were they brainwashed by holistic health propaganda on Mercola.com?

It seems to be that any product that might get in the way of a vaccine or patent medicine has been banned from public knowledge. In the middle of a “pandemic,” I have seen multiple notices that the U.S. Congress is taking up a measure to ban homeopathy — a form of medicine that has helped many during this crisis. Restricting other forms of medicine is historically about driving business to conventional medicine and drug companies.

A similar situation exists with masks. We are told over and over again how effective they are, something most people evidently believe. We are not told that they are depriving our brains of oxygen (dangerous, particularly for children). While surgeons do wear masks, we are not told that extra oxygen is supplied to operating rooms to compensate for the loss.

Of Law and Medicine

This week, we learned that Purdue Pharma, who got millions hooked on OxyContin (that is, opioids), will be dissolved, as it cannot pay $8.3 billion in fines for the damage that it caused society. Many still look to the pharmaceutical industry as the paragons of virtue.

A similar situation exists with masks. We are told over and over again how effective they are, something most people evidently believe. We are not told that they are depriving our brains of oxygen (dangerous, particularly for children). While surgeons do wear masks, we are not told that extra oxygen is supplied to operating rooms to compensate for the loss. We are not told that masking forces people to re-breathe bacteria and viruses that we need to exhale to stay healthy. [Also please see this essential video.]

We are not told that the mask activates the immune system because it’s a foreign object interfering with a bodily function. Wearing a mask is like running your car’s exhaust into the passenger cabin.

There is no discussion of the toxicity of plastic masks, which include particulates, Teflon, phthalates, dyes and many chemicals. All we see is endless propaganda that masks “work” with no acknowledgment of the other sides of the issue.

There is not one study anywhere demonstrating that a surgical mask or cloth face covering blocks a virus — which is exactly why we are using it.

Last week an article appeared in The Guardian, a left-leaning British newspaper. It profiled Jonathan Sumpton (photo, right), a former justice on the country’s Supreme Court. He said something to the public I have thought many times this year.

“The ease with which people could be terrorised into surrendering basic freedoms which are fundamental to our existence…came as a shock to me in March 2020,” he said.

“The British public has not even begun to understand the seriousness of what is happening to our country. Many, perhaps most of them don’t care, and won’t care until it is too late. They instinctively feel that the end justifies the means, the motto of every totalitarian government which has ever been.”

How many times have you heard “whatever it takes” or “better safe than sorry”? This is being used to justify everything — no matter how dangerous, toxic, pointless or intrusive of privacy and personal boundaries.

When I ventured to criticise [the police] in a BBC interview for acting beyond their powers, I received a letter from the Derbyshire police commissioner objecting to my remarks on the ground that in a crisis such things were necessary. The implication was that in a crisis the police were entitled to do whatever they thought fit, without being unduly concerned about their legal powers. That is my definition of a police state.

— Lord Sumpton, former justice of the British Supreme Court

Governing by the Power of Public Fear

Lord Sumpton summed it all up when he said: “The government has discovered the power of public fear to let it get its way.”

“I do not doubt the seriousness of the epidemic,” he added, “but I believe that history will look back on the measures taken to contain it as a monument of collective hysteria and governmental folly.” (I would like to explain the PCR to him. He might want to litigate the issue.)

The UK government’s advisory board, called SAGE, cautioned earlier this year that, “Citizens should be treated as rational actors, capable of taking decisions for themselves and managing personal risk.” This is not the approach that was taken, however. That’s not what a lockdown is.

People take health risks voluntarily every day, and subject one another to them. I don’t believe anyone has a right to spray Roundup on my food, on their land or in public parks. It causes non-Hodgkins lymphoma. But to live in society, I have to live with those potential dangers and avoid them if I can.

Read more at https://planetwaves.net/how-safe-is-too-safe-how-safe-is-dangerous/

Please DONATE to HELP support our ongoing battle to expose the COVID-19 FRAUD!

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method

Trackback from your site.