"You're Under A Test"

I am keeping an Annual Paid Subscription to just $30 to keep it affordable for all. All your help toward falsifying Virology with Experimental Science is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Midway through doing the write-up for the latest Control Experiments 2.0 (It is an absolute barn-stormer btw, irrefutable with some serious bombshells) I, as has become customary, stumbled across an interesting avenue of investigation, call it a short side-quest. The reason why this piqued my interest in such a fashion was because I believe it offers a somewhat legal precedent for litigation based on the results of fraudulent tests.

As I have outlined on many occasions on this channel and really good logic and common sense should dictate, the entirety of the Scamdemic and Immunology and soon to be Oncology Industry is based on the results of a single spurious PCR test. It is the Fake Cornerstone of the diagnostic to pHARMaceutical Conveyor belt of sickness for profit. Without the PCR test (Somewhat the LFT, although its results are superseded by the PCR) Scamdemics and hence any type of 2020 scenario is simply not possible.

In plenty of articles we have showed an adequate falsification of the PCR test using mainstream, published data sets, whether that be amplification of Nuclease Free Water in the Negative Control, Non Specific Cross Species Amplification of Positive Control Primers, Negative PCR results after bacterial inoculation or Positive PCR for Bacteria that could not be found in culture. After conducting comprehensive Whole Genome and RNA sequencing on the control cultures we also have watertight experimental proof that the PCR test is not measuring what it claims to be measuring.

In hindsight I am probably not shocked, but it seemingly was news to me to discover that not only are Roadside Breath tests not particularly reliable, not only that there is a raft of common food stuffs, diseases and nutritional regimens that create ‘False Positives” but more than that, there is a hive of successful legal activity for wrongful DUI convictions.

It should come as some sort of surprise as well, alcohol is a real thing, it can be purified into ethanol, seen, smelt and tasted, its effects have 100% predictable outcomes. Without getting too pedantic around molecular chemistry and what exactly is labelled as pure Ethanol , it is safe to say that there is a possibility to make a test for the presence of alcohol of some sorts in your breath/blood stream.

If you look at the claimed more reliable test of Blood Alcohol they use a fairly robust method of Gas Chromatography to analyze the amount of ethanol. Now Gas chromatography when it comes to something like ethanol works on an incredibly basic premise that ethanol/alcohol is volatile so has a lower boiling point than water and other inert liquids in the blood. You take a sample, vaporize it at around the boiling point of ethanol ~75 degrees C and see how much gas is released by volume. Whatever that gas is, its effects are toxifying which is why you get drunk and impaired and why I don’t drink….

On the other hand the roadside Breathalyzers work, and colour me shocked when I tell you this by quantifying charge. They have two Platinum coated electrodes, the ethanol OXIDIZES (again, gob-smacking right!?) water and turns to Acetic Acid which produces a charge, from claimed Hydrogen + IONS.

This test can obviously test for all flavors of alcohol in the blood but seemingly also measures alcohol on the breath which gives “False Positives” with things like Mouth Wash or Sanitizer which contain ethanol. The premise to these being that they literally contain ethanol, however because they are not ingested in any meaningful quantities do not make you intoxicated or raise your blood alcohol level above the norm. It was this type of “False Positive” I was always aware of in the recesses of my mind as a plausibility for these tests being “Inaccurate”.

No, this is not a question of inaccuracy or mouth swilling alcohol containing substances, this is taking substances that categorically do NOT contain alcohol and they still test “Positive” for alcohol in the Breathalyzer. To note ALL of these videos are made by law firms. So we have seen that Energy drinks give a “False Positive” (I prefer the term fail a Control), so what else is there? I mean in peak irony what would you think if I told you that literal NON Alcoholic Beer tested positive for alcohol what would you think?. welllll……:

Rather comically I came across this, seemingly the early years of Youtube Star of the 16.7Million Subscriber Wilderness channel Outdoor Boys presenter Luke Nichols. He was clearly a Lawyer and partner in a law firm called Nichols and Green before he left for internet stardom. But here they test all sorts of food stuffs showing that Honey Buns and even white bread tests positive according to the guidelines of a majority of States in the U.S.

It is also fairly widely known that the nutritional state known as Ketosis when on the Keto diet raises acetone in the blood which is similar in properties to ethanol, i.e it is very volatile with a low boiling point. Therefore it is also, at least fairly well known that you may fail a Roadside Breathalyzer test if in Ketosis or even on the Keto diet.

“False Positive” PCR

Now as we have demonstrated on this channel on many occasions, the PCR test has been falsified. Here in this article on this Peer Reviewed study 1/3rd of the placebo group who received Sterile Water tested positive. This is way worse than any Honey Bun or Monster Energy drink “False positive” and just to clarify I write that in quotes because it is only using their terminology for basic understanding, I don’t like the term when it comes to PCR because it suggests there could be a REAL positive, for which is not possible with this fraudulent test.

No, the PCR can and does test positive with basic water. There are also known substances that produce “false positives” that are just standard food products.

In these listed published, peer reviewed papers they state that common food items and ingredients can and do cause Positives on PCR, being Tumeric, Coca Cola and Cheese.

Conclusion

Here we show that there is a whole legal industry and obviously a very lucrative one for many law firms to bother to put out information and advertisements looking to represent people wrongfully of DUIs. It is obvious that if you can demonstrate that a scientific test or piece of apparatus is indeed NOT highly specific as it claims then the actions carried out based on the assumptions that they are may not only be reversed but seemingly must also be able to be compensated for financially.

Although most would be happy just to have their license reinstated there must be cases where damages for wrongful convictions based on Breathalyzer tests must have been awarded. Maybe a wrongful jailing for an accident said to be caused by intoxication, that wasn’t etc. In any case we may assume that there is enough leeway to make it not only financially viable for all parties involved, but also be a fairly legally watertight case to make it plausible in the first place.

The very first video in this article, the Gentlemen insinuates it wasn’t his first rodeo when it comes to his “Monster Defense”, stating that he has (presumably quite a few times by his language) made an officer take a breathalyzer, test negative, drink the energy drink and test positive afterwards. This is logically correct, if you cannot 100% demonstrate that your test is measuring what it claims to measure, then it is certainly not legally enforceable.

Now let’s apply this to the PCR test: Imagine the sheer scale of the damages owed to people around the world for a Lockdown based on Transmission of a non existent pathogen registered with the fraudulent test. The amount of people that either lost their jobs based on this fraudulent test, forced into taking toxic drugs like vaccines and even hospital protocols like Remdesivir based on the results of this fraudulent test. The opportunity in legal terms is insurmountably higher than simple DUIs.

Why then given that it is readily available knowledge that the PCR has the same type of “False Positive” foibles surrounding different foodstuffs and even worse, mountains of Peer Reviewed and Industrial research data showing these tests sometimes amplify just sterile water. Why is it that seemingly lawyers are not absolutely queuing up to represent people to claim damages based on this. You may have “consented” to take a vaccine or hospital regimen, just as much as you may have “consented” to take a roadside breathalyzer test or blood sample. If you are doing this based on the lie that the tests are correct, then that intrinsic consent is invalid.

It may simply be that it is NOT common knowledge, certainly amongst the legal profession that the PCR test is not what it is purported to be. Seemingly the Innocence Project set up by Barry Scheck who found Forensic DNA profiling only had a 5% accuracy rate must have at least a healthy skepticism of the PCR, right! They literally help people wrongfully convicted of crimes based on a genome sequencing which they demonstrate is actually mostly bullshit.

I will reiterate this point, that not only do we have here at the Virology Control Studies project a mountain of peer reviewed references showing the PCR test to be fraudulent but more than that we have our own absolutely watertight Experimental Proof that the PCR test does not measure what it claims to measure.

I have little doubt that with the right Legallers that want to open up a veritable gold mine of litigation that this can and will be done. This is a call to action for anyone interested or working in the area to find out more information about the fraudulent PCR test and to make those aware that all of the threats and mandates and lockdowns and masks were ALL predicated on it. Again all it takes is information like in the videos raising awareness that the tests might not be all they are cracked up to be and at the very least instill into the minds of those to be wary at all times when presented with the results of these tests.