@Leadfoot,
And now I've heard that insurance companies want to charge people who refuse to accept the experimental injection a higher rate. If that happens to me, I'm going to send them this letter. It would be interesting to hear them argue against me in court. I'm much more effective in person.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
To whom it may concern,
We have received notification that there will be an increase in our premium due to our choice to not submit to an experimental injection whose long-term safety profile has yet to be established. Should our next bill reflect such an increase, we will challenge that discriminatory policy in small-claims court. We find that your only justification for this increase amounts to an "appeal to authority." However, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy that holds no weight in a court of law in the absence of verification of the credibility of the authorities to which you are appealing.
To that point:
The pandemic was predicated on the number of cases; the number of cases was predicated on the results of the PCR-test; the PCR-test did not include clinical presentation or observation; the PCR-test does not distinguish between Covid and influenza or other pathogens; the PCR-test does not tell you whether a virus is dead or alive; the PCR-test does not tell you that someone is sick or how sick they are. Thus, the PCR-test was the worst choice among the available alternatives. Therefore, the authorities which you must necessarily appeal to were either ignorant of that fact, or they knowingly allowed a fraudulent test to be used. Whichever the case, their credibility will be given the attention it deserves in court.
From the CDC:
“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” —
The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.
“…you can find almost anything in anybody…it doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you…” —
Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD (Nobel Peace Prize Winner inventor of the PCR test).
Perhaps that would explain why this test was not approved for the purpose of Covid detection and had to be given Emergency Use Authorization. What it does not explain is why the highest medical authorities in the land said nothing when an unapproved test that does not distinguish between Covid and Influenza or other pathogens was used to determine something as serious as the spread of a "deadly" virus. Neither does it explain why all of them--all at once--were unaware of the many approved alternative tests that were available.
From the CDC:
Audience: Individuals Performing COVID-19 Testing
Level: Laboratory Alert
After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.
So, not only did the CDC allow for the WRONG test to be used, they were also aware of the existence of APPROVED alternatives after all. I am showing you that the authorities which you must ultimately appeal to are clearly guilty of gross criminal negligence by virtue of their willingness to turn a blind eye as labs around the world used the PCR-test despite being fully aware of its limitations in the context of its application in this case. Furthermore, these "experts" also turned a blind eye as labs used a cycle threshold of 40+, despite every medical authority (including the CDC and Mr. Fauci himself) clearly stating that a cycle threshold of anything over 35 will produce meaningless results.
From Fauci:
“…
If you get [perform the PCR test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”
The CDC, the WHO, the FDA, and Mr. Fauci have all been spared the embarrassment of having to explain in a serious public forum why they sat back and allowed for the use of a test they knew would produce virtually nothing but false positives at a time when accurate data was of the essence. However, in a court of law, you will not enjoy the same privilege that these organization-heads and Mr. Fauci have enjoyed so far. They were clearly feigning ignorance of the limitations of the PCR-test for reasons that make sense only in the context of a calculated campaign to create a much greater number of cases than would otherwise exist.
We believe that, in court, your attempt to enrich yourself at the expense of those not willing to follow recommendations from "experts" who were clearly ignorant of something as basic as a test will be frowned upon. In fact, it would be difficult not to interpret your decision to profit from the mandates issued by these ignorant "experts" as a tacit approval of medical fraud.
