New Lawsuit Against “FactCheckers” in Germany

Click Here

A new lawsuit attempts to shift the burden of proof (in defamation context) to Factcheckers so they have to prove their “factchecks” true. In this case, a physician (who called into question a hastily prepared vaccine for Swine Flu more than a decade ago) is now being attacked for his criticism of PCR testing.

The hypothesis we here at GrantFraud.Com are working on and developing involves the “scientific establishment,” in this case referring primarily to Public Health Agency Heads, BigPharma companies, Research Institutions and some professional journals (“the Cabal” display purposes and to make it sound extra sinister). The Cabal’s purview was limited through #incomcorrupt to a very narrow set of options. Namely, any solution or system of solutions for Covis19, had to comply with the Cabal’s parochial interests which were not coextensive with the interests of Americans or their elected representatives:

What were they? here is an opening bid (please correct me if you think this is wrong)

1) potential Covid19 solutions could not involve totally safe, efficacious and “non-specific, form of action” solutions like Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin.

2) as opposed to malaria prevention or SARS where you were not required to be tested prior to receiving medication, Covid19 treatment, whether by the Cabal’s intention or accident, was embargoed for everyone except those who could produce a positive test.

3) This, combined with CDC incompetence, resulted in a ban on prophylaxis and became a method to deny patients early treatment, particularly early in the pandemic, before early treatment was formally banned. This defacto system was “swapped out” for a formal system known as the the FDA treatment protocol that banned early treatment and off-patent treatments that were actually safe and effective.

4) The FDA protocol is beneficial to the financial interests of the Cabal, while sabotaging Americans and their elected officials whether they be Republicans or Democrats.

5) any prophylaxis or treatment solution or protocol that somehow managed to emerge through the #incomcorrupt Cabal’s briar thicket, would be killed if it presented an existential threat to vaccine development efforts for Covid19. Remdesivir created almost no risk because it was given late and it save no lives; HCQ and Ivermectin were vaccine development killers.

6) A massive drop in hospitalizations and deaths prior to deployment of a vaccine, was a direct threat to vaccine development and administration because it would have threatened government and public support for a vaccine.

7) The idea that Covid19 vaccine might not be necessary was ever present in the Cabal’s collective conscience. It motivated sabotage and suppression of off-patent solutions that were viable and lowest risk options. This idea was suppressed from reaching elected representatives because “off patent” prophylaxis and cures, that could be administered without the necessity of a test, was an existential threat to vaccine development.

8) The funding mechanisms for the Cabal–public, private, non-profit–and now, funding (cash and like kind) from media monopolies, guarantees massive corruption and a public health system that does not serve the needs or interests of Americans.

Regarding the claim that PCR testing above 25 cycles is inaccurate, the New York Times reported on this in August.

“The most widely used diagnostic test for the new coronavirus, called a PCR test, provides a simple yes-no answer to the question of whether a patient is infected.

But similar PCR tests for other viruses do offer some sense of how contagious an infected patient may be: The results may include a rough estimate of the amount of virus in the patient’s body.

“We’ve been using one type of data for everything, and that is just plus or minus — that’s all,” Dr. Mina said. “’We’re using that for clinical diagnostics, for public health, for policy decision-making.’”

But yes-no isn’t good enough, he added. It’s the amount of virus that should dictate the infected patient’s next steps. “It’s really irresponsible, I think, to forgo the recognition that this is a quantitative issue,” Dr. Mina said.

The PCR test amplifies genetic matter from the virus in cycles; the fewer cycles required, the greater the amount of virus, or viral load, in the sample. The greater the viral load, the more likely the patient is to be contagious.

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, although it could tell them how infectious the patients are.

In three sets of testing data that include cycle thresholds, compiled by officials in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada, up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus, a review by The Times found.

I will return soon to continuing to develop this working hypothesis.