Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

When It Comes To COVID, The Predatory Testing Labs Are Complicit In the Crime

Written by:

Published on: February 18, 2021

The PCR tests are being used fraudulently.  The propaganda coming from the Center for Disease Control and the Big Pharma companies, along with the corrupt politicians they have bought off is in the open for all to see.  The vaccines are experimental and haven’t worked on animals. And the testing labs for COVID are complicit in the crimes.

Former CBS Healthwatch reporter and author of The Matrix Revealed Jon Rappoport has the story.

Test lab: “This specimen tests positive. The patient is infected with SARS-CoV-2.”

Patient: “Wait. How did you run the test? With how many cycles?”

Trending: Doctor Mocks Anti-Vaxxers While Getting Experimental COVID Jab – Dies Days Later (Video)

Test lab: “That information is proprietary. You have no right to know.”

Patient: “Really? The number of cycles can determine the outcome. Change that number, and ‘infected’ becomes ‘healthy’.”

Test lab: “We know what we’re doing.”

Patient: “I’m sure you do. You’re ruining people’s lives and jacking up case numbers.”

Test lab: “You have no right to question our methods. This is bordering on harassment.”

Patient: “No, this is bordering on the truth.”

Test lab: “We’re official. You’re unofficial.”

Moderna Vaccine Recipient With Adverse Effects Speaks Out & The CDC Lies About COVID Deaths

Considering the COVID-19 Vaccine? FIRST Read these Reports of DEATHS & INJURIES

Media Blackout: Moderna’s FDA Report Lists 13 Deaths in Vaccine Trials

PCR Testing & The Mysterious Death Of A Vaccine Safety Advocate

I’ve written about this issue before, several times.

Now, I’m suggesting a solution.

If you, or someone close to you, is being pressured to take the COVID PCR test, ask the clinic or the doctor’s office how many cycles the test will deploy.

Chances are high they’ll tell you they don’t know, and only the testing lab has that information. Ask for the name of the lab.

Call the lab and ask them. Chances are high they won’t tell you. Inform them that the number of cycles affects the outcome of the test. Make them aware you know this.

Except in Florida [1] [2], US labs are under no obligation to inform the patient or the doctor how many cycles the PCR test deploys. They never inform doctor or patient.

Why? Because a crime is underway. The positive or negative result of any given PCR test is hanging in the balance, depending on the number of cycles.

A cycle is a quantum leap in magnification of the swab sample taken from the patient.

As even Fauci has asserted, at 35 cycles and above, the test result is useless. [3] [4]

Worse, at 35 cycles and above, the tendency of the test is to spit out false-positives.

Yet, as I’ve detailed, the CDC and FDA recommend doing the test at up to 40 cycles; and therefore, most if not all labs will follow that guideline. [5; See pdf page 38 (doc page 37)] [6]

This is a disaster for the patient, and it results in a flagrant inflation of COVID case numbers, which in turn provide a rationale for the lockdowns.

People at testing labs who have a few active brain cells to rub together know all this. They keep their mouths shut. They’re complicit in the crime.

They’re part of a silent bureaucracy that is there to rule The People.

Here is a further variation on a strategy. If you or anyone close to you is under pressure to take the PCR test, obtain the services of a good lawyer. Have the lawyer demand, before the test, a sworn affidavit from the lab stating how many cycles they’re using.

If necessary, explain why.

If necessary, go to court.

If necessary, sue.

It’s long past the time when labs should be allowed to stay secretive and pose as neutral.

History is littered with examples of faceless bureaucracies that have enabled leaders to commit crimes against humanity. Nazi Germany, the USSR, post-World War 2 East Germany. These days, China.

And now, every other country where rulers are declaring brutal lockdowns.

If a small handful of people who are told to get tested—three or four hundred—demand to know, from the labs, what is going on—how many cycles they’re using—and legal and personal pressure is exerted—the truth will come tumbling out, into the open.

This target of attack will expose a gaping vulnerability in the enemy’s position.

Test lab: “All right, you want to know? We run our tests at 40 cycles.”

Lawyer: “Very good. We are prepared, with a mountain of evidence, to show that you’re violating universally agreed upon science. Your lab is spitting out false-positives like a fire hose. You’re ruining lives and falsely inflating case numbers…”

Test lab: “We’re just following orders from the FDA and the CDC.”

Lawyer: “I’M JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS. Where have I heard that before? Oh yes, during the Nuremberg trials, after World War Two. That’s what the Nazi bureaucrats kept saying. It didn’t fly then, and it won’t fly now.”

Just so we’re clear, Rappoport is exactly right in tying this right back to the Nazis.

According to The Nuremberg Code (1947), “The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:

  1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
  2. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
  3. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
  4. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.
  5. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
  6. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
  7. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment..  
  8. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
  9. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
  10. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
  11. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

For more information see Nuremberg Doctor’s Trial, BMJ 1996;313(7070):1445-75.

Become an insider!

Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.

Don't forget to like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of SonsOfLibertyMedia.com.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Trending on The Sons of Liberty Media

Newsletter SignupStay up to date on the latest news: Sign up for the Sons of Liberty newsletter!

Stay up to date on the latest news: Sign up for the Sons of Liberty newsletter!

Send this to a friend