Letter to the Editor
It is possible to legally skirt the current regulations regarding the mask mandate in Queensland, if you can match one of the following conditions. The health clause could apply to everyone!
This is the law as it stands. Interstate readers may check their State Government regulations.
Transcribed directly from the above website
“There are exceptions to wearing a face mask, including:
Children under 12.
A person eating, drinking or taking medicine.
Where visibility of the mouth is essential.
Where a mask needs to be removed to clearly communicate.
A person with a particular medical condition or disability.
A person undergoing medical treatment.
If a person is asked to remove a face mask for identity.
If wearing a mask creates a risk to a person’s health.
For emergencies or when allowed by law.
In any circumstances when it’s not safe to wear a mask.”
from David Blake
“He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.”
George Bernard Shaw, Major Barbara
By TONY MOBILIFONITIS
QUEENSLAND’S “health” dictators have again shut down the state on the basis of dodgy PCR (or RT-PCR) testing that they lie about on their official website. Thousands of Brisbane businesses, schools and other facilities are being shut down for three days before Easter along with schools and other facilities based on four new alleged “COVID-cases” around the city, bringing the “case” total to seven.
In reference to the accuracy of PCR testing, Queensland Health states: “It’s very uncommon for these tests to return an incorrect result, but it’s important to remember that issues can occur in all types of testing.” Research by the highly-respected
Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine in the UK largely contradicts this claim.
But to that claim, Queensland Health adds a little qualifer: “To account for this, if there are doubts about the accuracy of a particular test result, your doctor may ask you to be re-tested.” The “go back to your doctor” escape clause is also used by PCR testing companies.
One of Queensland’s five COVID-19 testing companies refused to comment on the accuracy of its PCR testing process. When contacted and asked about the accuracy of tests, the Brisbane office of Sullivan Nicolaides told a caller to “contact your doctor”. The company simply refused to answer any questions about testing accuracy.
Local GPs may not know much about the accuracy of PCR tests if they are not familiar with recent research showing them to be highly inaccurate. PCR testing is also the subject of legal action around the world. Nevertheless, Queensland and other state medical authorities are still relying to the tests to inflict damaging lockdowns on the state.
Worldwide, it has been revealed that PCR testing has been testing with high cycle thresholds, that is, the times that the amplifying test has to be repeated to get a positive result. The higher the viral concentration the lower the amplification cycles are necessary.
The state of Florida, which is defying Biden and the Democrats’ use of COVID as a wrecking ball against small business and society in general, is making reporting of cycle thresholds in testing mandatory. This will help the state health authorities get a more accurate indicator of real viral threats instead of citing every positive test as “a case”, as happens in Australia.
According to the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine “PCR detection of viruses is helpful so long as its accuracy can be understood: it offers the capacity to detect RNA in minute quantities, but whether that RNA represents infectious virus may not be clear.”
But after reviewing 14 studies, the CEBM reported “It was not possible to make a precise quantitative assessment of the association between RT-PCR results and the success rate of viral culture within these studies. These studies were not adequately sized nor performed in a sufficiently standardised manner and may be subject to reporting bias.”
In other words, Queensland Health and the entire Australian health bureaucracy are relying on tests based on poor, inconclusive research. “These studies provided limited data of variable quality that PCR results per se are unlikely to predict viral culture from human samples. Insufficient attention may have been paid how PCR results relate to disease. The relation with infectiousness is unclear and more data are needed on this,” the CEBM reported.
Significantly, the CEBM said if this was not understood “PCR results may lead to restrictions for large groups of people who do not present an infection risk.” Are you listening Queensland Health? It’s unlikely, because the clowns running our health bureaucracies are under the control of the global pharma complex pushing vaccines for their own stupendous profits and the idiotic social engineering schemes of the World Economic Forum and Gates-Rockefeller mass eugenics.
An extensive open letter by Danielle Burnie on the PCR testing scandal and addressed to Professor John Skerritt of the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration was published by Cairns News on February 26. Ms Burnie is threatening to sue the TGA if they do not act to rectify procedures based on the testing.
“PCR tests results have been used by the government to justify implementation of strict and drastic measures that have negatively impacted on people’s lives and resulted in many deaths. The results have been a violation of human rights by removing freedom, destroying businesses, isolating and torturing our elderly, causing a major mental health crisis, causing great suffering to children and families, greater poverty, increased suicides and other unnecessary deaths. The people of Australia are suffering PTSD as a direct result of Government measures,” Ms Burnie wrote.
“This is a clear act of misfeasance. This practice needs to be ceased immediately and I urge you to recall all PCR testing equipment and demand that any government measures that were applied based on these test statistics be immediately ceased. A proper evaluation needs to be conducted and a thorough investigation must be launched into the misconduct by the government in relation to PCR testing.”
Perhaps Professor Skerritt and his fellow pharma plants on the TGA may be prompted to act as legal action such Serene Teffaha’s class-action lawsuit in Victoria’s Supreme Court on behalf of locked-down high-rise housing estate residents proceeds. Teffaha is also planning a national class action against the range of unlawful and oppressive so-called anti-COVID measures including lockdowns, detentions, mandatory mask wearing and “mandated” vaccinations.
Virus testing by Criss Cross
The CDC program immediately raises two problems: why bother testing for a virus if it isn’t really causing human disease; and what kind of test is being done?
In this article, I’m focusing on the type of test, and whether it’s accurate, even if you assume the coronavirus is causing disease.
Reading through CDC literature (see also here), I believe the two most prevalent US testing methods are: antibody, and PCR.
Antibody tests are notorious for cross-reactions. This means factors in no way relevant to a given virus can make the test read positive. In that case, the patient would be falsely told he “has the coronavirus.” But it gets worse. Traditionally, antibody tests reading positive were taken as a good sign for the patient: his immune system had contacted a germ and defeated it. Then, starting in 1984, the science was turned upside down: a positive test was, astoundingly, taken to mean the patient was ill or would soon become ill.
The PCR test (which requires excellent technicians who will not make any number of possible mistakes) takes a tissue sample from a patient which might contain a tiny virus particle(s) much too small to be observed—and blows it up many times, so it can be seen. However, the test says nothing reliable about HOW MUCH virus is in the patient’s body. Why is that important? Because millions and millions of replicating virus in the body are necessary to even begin talking about actual illness. A positive PCR test, nevertheless, will be taken to mean the patient “has the epidemic disease.” —An even deeper issue: where is the PRIOR PROOF that the PCR is testing for a virus that actually causes disease?