This is The WHO definition of a "confirmed covid case"
See how it REQUIRES testing A,B,C all require testing.
Well... Keep reading...
Here's the part where they admit that their definition of a "confirmed case" is only a suggestion, and that they actually accept the "confirmed covid case" numbers no matter what criteria was used to deem the person a "confirmed covid case"
So their definition means nothing, and don't represent the numbers seen on their charts. Because every locality uses their own definitions.
So.... Whatever your locality says is a "confirmed covid case" the WHO accepts as a "confirmed covid case" and places it on their charts, beside their definition.
As an example... Here are Canada's definitions.... How do they stack up against The WHO's recommendations?
Isn't it odd that no part of Canada uses the WHO definitions??? Don't you think a looser definition will lead to a bigger pool of "confirmed cases"
Well let's look... Quebec has some of the highest covid numbers anywhere. so... What's their definition?
Huh..... Quebec has the loosest definition of anyone???????
Let me paraphrase this..... You don't need any test. You just need covid-like symptoms (cough/cold/flu) + high exposure risks (anyone around people, nurse, teacher, etc...) = CONFIRMED COVID CASE in Quebec.
Then they send these numbers to Canada and the WHO and we see record numbers of "confirmed covid cases" listed beside the WHO definitions, and NOT the definitions that the numbers were found under...
Oh... And they change the definitions all the time.. Because if you loosen the definitions, you get more numbers... look at the dates.
This creates an IMMEDIATE spike. Because as of that moment, you no longer need a test, ever, to be a confirmed case.
And they're still doing it. Here was January 5th, where they made false positives impossible.
This states that once you are positive, there is no amount of negative tests that can be done within a 90 day period to ever make you a false positive for statistical purposes.
Some of these definition changes are retroactive too, meaning that right now as they change definitions today, they add cases to the historic counts. AKA they are changing the 2020 numbers as they alter definitions.
And the more we alter definitions, the further our results get from the WHO suggested definition. But the suggested definition remains prominently beside their charts, without explanation unless you like rabbit holes.
Frankly, this is all the tip of the iceberg. I can go in to any state or nation you choose and show you that they are doing this.
This is how the data is falsified. Through the assumption that you're all too stupid to know that none of the numbers are comparable, they're all different. Quebec isn't tracking more infections than other provinces, they just have looser tracking criteria and thus are tracking more potential cases.
Here is Manitoba ADMITTING that they use a different definition for a public purposes, and another for clinical. MEANING, when they put out public numbers, they ADD PROBABLE CASES, which only require a covid-like symptom. BUT they DO NOT send those as "confirmed cases" to the WHO, they only display them as "cases" to the public... They can inflate these anytime they want.... 1 teacher has a cough? shut down a school! because 1 case = an outbreak in canada and 1 case doesn't require testing. (i can attach all of these PDFs. they change monthly generally, so they can alter definitions.)
All if this should look horrific to you.
This is political science not science.
I can go further... Even with what they call "testing" the standard is PCR which NEVER proves infection. It only SUGGESTS infection.
To simplify. PCR looks for fragments of Covid RNA. AKA Covid rna dust. By amplifying the smallest fragments we get a picture of what the person has been around. If they have enough "dust" we ASSUME they have Covid.
PCR NEVER looks for the complete of active virus. A culture or antibody test would be needed to prove infections and these are not standardized, partially due to time. We use PCR because it's fast, but not accurate.
You see... Most humans encounter the fragmentary dust of almost every molecule on earth. PCR tests are all about knowing how much dust is likely to correlate to infection. If we see enough dust, we assume it's there or was there, and we treat. (this is how you test dogs for worms, you scrape their skin, if there's enough dust of worms, you treat assuming the worm dust is from worms affecting the dog) it's an educated guess based on history.
We have no history with Covid. And we have lowered the levels needed to call someone a "confirmed covid case" that if i dropped the levels that low and tested that same person for HIV i would be able to do so.
Even YOU, the reader. If you let me set the threshold levels however low i want, i could make you PCR positive for HIV, eventhough you've never had HIV and never been in danger of HIV.
By the way, the WHO LOWERED these testing levels AGAIN on the 20th........
We are not tracking infection. We are tracking covid-like symptoms and fragmentary rna dust.
They can add and subtract cases anytime they want this way.
Don't believe me on PCR??? look up the inventor of PCR. He's on a tour trying to scream the same thing. His test is being used for political purposes. bastardized.
All pdfs, screenshots, links, available.
Watch your definitions, they don't advertise the changes... you have to look. if you think that seeing in August that there are 100000 cases and in december 1000000000 cases..... Best check that "case" means the same thing in both months, and that they also aren't retroactively changing historic numbers based on novel/altered definitions.
Read the fine print. PCR testing is non-diagnostic on its own. it's only used for tracking and statistical purposes. PCR positive is not the same as infection positive.
But don't let science get in your way here...................