EXPOSED! Government falsifying 'case' results with cycle threshold at 45

The 'Government of South Australia' has been exposed in falsifying 'cases' in an FOI (Freedom of Information Act) document.

 

From the document it is stated that:

1). "SA Pathology use up to 45 cycles in their in-house PCR testing",

2). The test adheres to "strict National Association of Testing (NATA) testing accreditation requirements."

As of the time of this post, according to the NATA website, there is no 'accreditation' for the PCR test that is being used in Australia, but rather only an explanation of PCT Testing from the 3rd of August 2021.

Please note that on the 7th of September 2021 NATA stated that both Rapid Antigen Tests (RAT) are allegedly accredited for use in Australia.

Australians have been tested via a RT-PCR test that cannot be "fully validated" and that is NOT 'accredited' by NATA, giving rise to false positive 'cases' that led the population to be locked up.

The Government of South Australia, dials up the test 45 to cycles which results in a false positive in order to inflict economic duress and limit the right to freedom of movement of the general population.

See an actual result from a RT-PCR test:

See screenshot from the NATA website:

Even though the World Health Organization recommends the test to be carried out between 25-30 cycles the Government of South Australia carries it out 45.

 

 

Victoria, Australia the new Germany of the 1930's

FORGET 'rules', FORGET CHO 'directions'!

Quite simply put, what lawfully enacted law by the Parliament of Victoria is in circulation that allows for discrimination of a human being or 'person', for the law experts, based on one's medical status?

We invite all readers to point to such an Act of parliament that has been lawfully enacted.

Apparently persons who have not been double jabbed with a trial drug* are not allowed to participate in society, or rather the 'economy', according to Daniel Michael Andrews.

So in essence you must (allegedly) meet a certain medial criteria, before you are allowed to participate in a business transaction.

Once again, what lawfully enacted Act of Parliament states this?

With your complicity in mind, you may say great, and get double jabbed.

But there's a problem with that.

The goal posts have been changed.

You will soon be required (by what lawfully enacted Act?) to have three jabs of a trial drug*, as mentioned by Andrews.

With all this happening: 

- No 'constitutional' legal eagles are seeing alarm bells?

- No 'human rights' laws are being violated?

- No anti-discrimination laws are being thrown under a bus?

An absolute abhorrent state of affairs in this (penal) colony called Australia.

Medical apartheid at its finest.

Will the Australian New World Order puppets ever see Nuremberg?

NEVER!

* Trial drug:

(and you thought this would never happen in 'New Berlin' the world's most livable city?)

How the authorities falsify 'cases'.

We have obtained information from a source that wishes to remain confidential from within the medical industry in Victoria as to the testing of people in order to determine a result referred to as a 'case', that being positive for a particular strain of virus.

In Victoria, the RT-PCR test is used to determine whether or not someone has the virus.

The NSW department of health, publicly stated in a tweet that it uses the PCR test at 40 in their testing of the general population.

This contravenes the direction by the WHO where the recommended cycle threshold is ~25-30.

Prior to submitting to the medical examination, the 'consumer' is asked whether or not a jab (or two) was previously administered.

If the answer is yes, then the test is dialled down, and if the answer is no the cycle threshold is increased to give the result of a false positive.

Consumers are NOT given a paper report of their examination, as they should be, in line with pretty much every other single examination previously done in Australia, as this is a legal document, but rather they are texted a simple message with regards to the end result.

First and foremost this is deception carried out by the testing centres, since you are not given YOUR result in full.

We previously posted a test result from a RT-PCR test which shows its inaccuracy as seen below:

See explanatory notes within the article: 

https://corpau.blogspot.com/2020/07/covid-test-useless-faith-in-quick-test.html

This is one of the greatest cases of fraud in Australia's medical history, where the people are complicit.

The current premier Daniel Michael Andrews, when he was a health minister falsified the 'cases' with regards to the swine flu.

BEFORE submitting to a test, tell them that you require the full result for legal purposes.

Police - Acting Under Dictation

The police are audaciously 'advertising' that they are acting under dictation.

On Victorian freeways, electronic notice boards have the following text on them: 

“POLICE ENFORCING CHO DIRECTIONS”, 

where “CHO” is not a new word but rather a TLA (Three Letter Acronym) meaning Chief Health Officer.

As of the 22nd of October the people of Victoria have been told that Victoria Police are acting under dictation from Brett Sutton, Victoria's current Chief Health Officer.

Acting under dictation is illegal as seen in an excerpt from a 1985 Federal Law Review [Volume 15]

See document at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLawRw/1985/5.pdf

ANY barrister/lawyer worth their mettle, travelling on these tollways, after seeing this should have already launched a class action against ANY 'CoVy' related fine.

After all, they've had 5 days to 'think' about it.

Can you point to any such action being taken?

Victoria Police also have been caught out in a secret video recording that if a (CoVy) fine is challenged in court it will be dismissed, as it's "bullsh!t" i.e. not lawful.

Quite simply put this corruption at the highest level within police, where the whole population is effected, and NOT just motorists, i.e. any 'person' who has received a (CoVy) fine, be it a pedestrian or shop proprietor.

But that's what you get for living in a real life colony.

NOTE: 

We do not recommend paying a CoVy related fine, but rather to 'deal' with it in court, as you are LEGALLY entitled to do so, with this information provided together with some 'legal' assistance.

See recording where police say "Public Health Order is bullsh!t" within the link:

https://corpau.blogspot.com/2021/08/police-caught-on-camera-saying-public.html

THE TRUE POWER BEHIND VICTORIAN STATE OF EMERGENCY DIRECTIONS.

We present the following information to bring better understanding of the very nature and purpose of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, specifically PART 8--MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, MICRO‑ORGANISMS AND MEDICAL CONDITIONS, and PART 10--PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. 

When a Bill is presented to Parliament in Victoria it must have an explanatory memorandum and a Human Rights Compatibility Statement. A statement of compatibility must describe the rights raised by the Bill, whether it is compatible with the Charter and any part of the Bill that may be incompatible. Having this requirement makes Ministers and members of Parliament: consider human rights when it is developing new laws.

In the attached document we have exerts from the Hansard Parliamentary debates of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act, specifically the Compatibility Statement, we have specifically focussed on PART 8 & 10 as referenced above. Part 8 is a source of power to impose testing and vaccination on individuals but only on the following belief found in section 113 ~

 

Chief Health Officer may make examination and testing order relating to infectious disease

(1)     The Chief Health Officer may make an examination and testing order if the Chief Health Officer believes that—

(a)     a person has an infectious disease or has been exposed to an infectious disease in circumstances where a person is likely to contract the disease; and

(b)     if infected with that infectious disease, the person is likely to transmit that disease;

 This can only be done according to the following principals..

PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLBEING ACT 2008 - SECT 111

Principles

The following principles apply to the management and control of infectious diseases—

(a)     the spread of an infectious disease should be prevented or minimised with the minimum restriction on the rights of any person;

(d)     a person who is at risk of contracting, has or suspects he or she may have, an infectious disease is entitled—

(i)     to receive information about the infectious disease and any appropriate available treatment;

(ii)     to have access to any appropriate available treatment.

 

Below is the Explanatory Memorandum given to members of parliament prior to debates, Clause 198, 199 & 200 are all relevant but we focus on Clause 200 (The provision the CHO directions are created under) specifically which appears to only be a source of power to detain and restrict ones freedom of movement in respect of an emergency area.

If one compares this to the compatibility statement found below the memorandum statement below you can clearly see Part 10 only limits Freedom of Movement, whereas Part 8 clearly is a source of power not only limit Freedom of Movement but also reasonably impose on the right not be be subjected medical treatment without his or her full free and informed consent. This is because the individual has or has been exposed to the infectious disease or likely to contract it.

 

PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLBEING BILL 2008

Public Health and Wellbeing Bill 2008

Introduction Print

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

See Public Health and Wellbeing Bill - Statement of compatibility:

Which can be shared from the following link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F8bZkQFz8LQ1Q7r9X5yxeszl7pH_tBk3/view?usp=sharing

Source: https://constitutionwatch.com.au/the-true-power-behind-victorian-state-of-emergency-directions/