Read The Fine Print - Covid

This is The WHO definition of a "confirmed covid case"
See how it REQUIRES testing A,B,C all require testing.
Awesome right?


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...................

Agenda science

If you read it close you will see that the cases are UNDERestimated.
The variables mean that the true cases of covid are Greater than the estimates.

Keep the people in fear! And they have tons of usefull idiots helping carry the water.

Ain't no body got time to read all that.

Is this in response to the post immediately before yours.....? Hahaha!

No.
You can't read.
They are suggesting a hypothesis. They are not stating a fact.
Try sciencing a little harder.

That is MODELLING, based on whatever criteria, definitions, and thresholds they chose.

I could make 95% of American PCR positive for HIV if you gave me the freedom they are taking.

You don't understand the science at all. Their underestimates OF WHAT?!?! READ THE DEFINITIONS

You're the reason their circle talk works. You trust feelings not science.

OF COURSE we are underestimating ACTUAL CONFIRMED AND TESTED CASES, because WE DONT ACTUALLY CONFIRM AND TEST CASES RIGHT NOW. So if they actually chose to do antibody and cultures universally the numbers of truly confirmed cases WOULD GO UP. Because it would be going up from ZERO! Because they don't test to confirm PCR, they confirm with epi-links.

I'm sure none of this will make sense to you, since you were lost before i added more information.



FURTHERMORE. If you or yours got sick or died of Sars-Covid-2, they would have got sick and died just the same from Sars-Covid-1. There is no NEW threat.
Go look at the WHO stats on the Flu.... Guess what..... it's dissapeared!!!!! on their own charts! in perfect correlation with the uptick in "confirmed covid cases"
That's because the flu is being registered under Covid, because we don't test to confirm covid, we just assume covid. Even if it was more likely the flu.They aren't testing to confirm covid and the flu has disappeared statistically. shocking right? it should be

science is hard.

Not I

How could you possibly come to that conclusion ? Its not even rational sorry. Since we know the PCR tests gives lots and lots of false positives, the only logical conclusion is that a high percentage of those who have, or will, test positive, do not in fact have covid. That means the actual numbers would have to be far fewer than what they are saying. Its not complicated.

Wish they would read it ,make it available ,and just give an opinion of the entire article or parts they find interesting or important

Its right in the first couple paragraphs.
Guess pasting stuff is easier for you than comprehension.

The micro-wave is just too slow. Can't someone invent a way to cook meat faster. After listening to one version of the Great Reset I get the feeling I'm just a worker bee with only 4 weeks to live. So I got to move fast ! Ironically an add on the Rest was from Amazon selling just one food that will keep me living to 120 yrs old, lol.

Its also common knowledge that many countries,big ones like China and Russia, are deliberately underestimating/reporting their covid numbers.
Obviously its happening here only in a sneakier way,
Covid is much more rampant and the new strains more virulent that they are telling you.

Maybe the undertakers are lying. Don't know what is killing them, just that there is lots of them. lol.

I'm done with it. This was intentional. I'm living my life like normal and going about my business.

Are you trying to tell me a world controlling, super governmental body is being anything less than completely transparent?

I just can't believe that.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Its harder for some to be normal than others, that's what a shrink once told me.

Unfortunately, there are far to many Americans who are content to be just that and don't mind having someone else be the master of their universe. Their vote saddles us all with their master.

Votes didn't matter this time.

Nor will they...

Maybe Plato had it all figured out in his Republic ?

The new Patriot Party is the answer.

It can be! Seems like those that drink the koolaid tend to over induldge! He is a big believer in the un too. I think he foundered and hurt his head.

"What is Common Knowledge?

You may have heard people say that you do not have to cite your source when the information you include is “common knowledge.” But what is common knowledge?

Broadly speaking, common knowledge refers to information that the average, educated reader would accept as reliable without having to look it up. This includes:

Information that most people know, such as that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit or that Barack Obama was the first American of mixed race to be elected president.
Information shared by a cultural or national group, such as the names of famous heroes or events in the nation’s history that are remembered and celebrated.
Knowledge shared by members of a certain field, such as the fact that the necessary condition for diffraction of radiation of wavelength from a crystalline solid is given by Bragg’s law.
However, what may be common knowledge in one culture, nation, academic discipline or peer group may not be common knowledge in another."

Source: MIT.

And then "take no pleasure in their loss of freedom"

Index:

: a number (such as a ratio) derived from a series of observations and used as an indicator or measure

"What is Common Knowledge?

You may have heard people say that you do not have to cite your source when the information you include is “common knowledge.” But what is common knowledge?

Broadly speaking, common knowledge refers to information that the average, educated reader would accept as reliable without having to look it up. This includes:

Information that most people know, such as that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit or that Barack Obama was the first American of mixed race to be elected president.
Information shared by a cultural or national group, such as the names of famous heroes or events in the nation’s history that are remembered and celebrated.
Knowledge shared by members of a certain field, such as the fact that the necessary condition for diffraction of radiation of wavelength from a crystalline solid is given by Bragg’s law.
However, what may be common knowledge in one culture, nation, academic discipline or peer group may not be common knowledge in another."

Source: MIT.
[/quote]

Let me re-phrase it for you professor.
People for the most part arent stupid.They know when they are being lied to,and are fed up with the "fake this fake that BS"
Thats why you got the government you got now.

I haven't read anything that long since they made me read Charlottes Web in grade school.

Junk science, fake news, 39.67 dif genders, revised history, and baco thinks canada won a war. What is next?

Will someone actually think biden got more votes from his basement than obomber or killary either one LOL

It's Ok to be wrong Boco! Just never admit it!

Signed," The Professor"

The only fear I have right now is that I may get cut by my FINE Lee Steinmeyer custom-made fleshing knife. That's about it.

Dale

Practice what you preach.
I am seldom wrong.
I was wrong here once and admitted it to wissmiss when she pointed out my error.

If the govt. told you liberals that the sun was going to come up in the west tomorrow, you would come on here and fight tooth and nail till 6 AM. Then you would just sulk away like the forum libs do here. Ever notice the absence of a few from Wisconsin since Evers got elected, openly supported the fool they did. Now they sulk away in forum never never land muttering something about a RR.