For The First Time, A US State Will Require Disclosure Of PCR 'Cycle Threshold' Data In COVID Tests

 From Zero Hedge:

We have detailed the controversy surrounding America's COVID "casedemic" and the misleading results of the PCR test and its amplification procedure in great detail over the past few months.

As a reminder, "cycle thresholds" (Ct) are the level at which widely used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test can detect a sample of the COVID-19 virus. The higher the number of cycles, the lower the amount of viral load in the sample; the lower the cycles, the more prevalent the virus was in the original sample.

Numerous epidemiological experts have argued that cycle thresholds are an important metric by which patients, the public, and policymakers can make more informed decisions about how infectious and/or sick an individual with a positive COVID-19 test might be. However, as JustTheNews reports, health departments across the country are failing to collect that data.

Here are a few headlines from those experts and scientific studies:

1. Experts compiled three datasets with officials from the states of Massachusetts, New York and Nevada that conclude:“Up to 90% of the people who tested positive did not carry a virus."

2. The Wadworth Center, a New York State laboratory, analyzed the results of its July tests at the request of the NYT: 794 positive tests with a Ct of 40: “With a Ct threshold of 35, approximately half of these PCR tests would no longer be considered positive,” said the NYT. “And about 70% would no longer be considered positive with a Ct of 30! “

3. An appeals court in Portugal has ruled that the PCR process is not a reliable test for Sars-Cov-2, and therefore any enforced quarantine based on those test results is unlawful.

4. A new study from the Infectious Diseases Society of America, found that at 25 cycles of amplification, 70% of PCR test "positives" are not "cases" since the virus cannot be cultured, it's dead. And by 35: 97% of the positives are non-clinical.

5. PCR is not testing for disease, it's testing for a specific RNA pattern and this is the key pivot. When you crank it up to 25, 70% of the positive results are not really "positives" in any clinical sense, since it cannot make you or anyone else sick

So, in summary, with regard to our current "casedemic", positive tests as they are counted today do not indicate a “case” of anything. They indicate that viral RNA was found in a nasal swab. It may be enough to make you sick, but according to the New York Times and their experts, probably won’t. And certainly not sufficient replication of the virus to make anyone else sick. But you will be sent home for ten days anyway, even if you never have a sniffle. And this is the number the media breathlessly reports... and is used to fearmonger mask mandates and lockdowns nationwide...

All of which is background for an intriguing decision made by Florida's Department of Health (and signed off on by Florida's Republican Governor Ron deSantis).

For the first time in the history of the pandemic, a state will require that all labs in the state report the critical “cycle threshold” level of every COVID-19 test they perform.

All positive, negative and indeterminate COVID-19 laboratory results must be reported to FDOH via electronic laboratory reporting or by fax immediately. This includes all COVID-19 test types - polymerase chain reaction (PCR), other RNA, antigen and antibody results.

Cycle threshold (CT) values and their reference ranges, as applicable, must be reported by laboratories to FDOH via electronic laboratory reporting or by fax immediately.

Full press release below:

So, why is Florida doing this? There appears to be three options:

1) Pro-Trump - Florida is attempting to pre-empt the Biden Team's plan to slash the Ct used by labs for COVID "case" which will eliminate the false positives and show "cases" plunge "thanks to Biden's mask/lockdown/vaccine-confidence" rules.

2) Pro-Biden - Florida is beginning the 'fake rescue' plan outlined here (and above)

3) Pro-Science - Florida is the first state to actually pay attention to the real 'science' of PCR tests.

We hope, for the sake of Americans' livelihoods it is Option 3 and the 'casedemic' will collapse on itself and allow we, the people to go back to some sense of normality.

Top Scientist Warns Covid-19 Vaccine Road 'To Your Doom'

20 Alleged Election "Facts" That Don't Pass The Smell Test

 Authored by Andrea Widburg via AmericanThinker.com,

Americans have common sense, so they can understand when they’re being played (for example, when politicians place Americans under house arrest and then ignore their own rules to party and travel). And they know that there is no way on God’s green earth that decrepit, demented, corrupt, and terminally stupid Joe Biden fairly won this election. This post assembles various election anomalies that don’t pass the smell test.

J.B. Shurk, who frequently publishes at American Thinker, wrote a knock-out article for The Federalist about Joe Biden’s magical performance in the election. You should read the whole article, but here are four things that don’t pass the smell test:

1. Biden allegedly got 80 million votes, which is more than Obama received at his peak, in 2008 – and Biden did this despite losing minority voters to Donald Trump and trailing Trump in voter enthusiasm.

2. Biden broke 60 years of precedent by winning nationally despite losing prodigiously in bellwether states and counties. The last time this happened was when the mafia got out the vote for John F. Kennedy in 1960.

3. Trump had extraordinary coattails, so much so that even the New York Times admitted that the “Democrats Suffered Crushing Down-Ballot Losses Across America.” Think about that: Biden had no coattails and no enthusiasm, yet he allegedly won a record number of votes. Smells fetid to me.

4. Biden barely made it through the primaries, while Trump soared, with Trump’s performance being a historically sure sign of voter enthusiasm and probable victory – yet Biden, again, allegedly scored an equally historically strong victory.

At The Spectator, Patrick Basham, a professional pollster, also felt that Biden’s alleged win cannot pass the smell test. Again, this is a summary, so you should read the original article:

5. Trump exceeded his original vote count by the largest margin for any incumbent in American history. He got 10 million more votes than before; by contrast, Obama, in 2012, got 3.5 million fewer votes than in 2008.

6. Trump’s support among blacks grew by 50%, while Biden’s fell below the important 90%-mark that Democrat candidates need to secure victory.

7. In the Rust Belt, Biden lost black support everywhere except in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. In those cities, every single black person apparently voted for Biden.

8. While pollsters can and do manipulate polling outcomes, non-polling metrics (historical norms such as the economy, enthusiasm, etc.) have never been wrong – only we’re being told that this year was the exception.

Then there are the indicia of fraud that Dr. Navid Kershavarz-Nia detailed:

9. The fact that Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia simultaneously pretended to halt ballot counting while continuing to count is evidence of election fraud collusion.

10. Optical scanners were set to accept unverified, un-validated ballots.

11. The scanners were almost certainly programmed to fail to keep audit records.

12. In the contested states, the voting machines were alleged to have processed hundreds of thousands of ballots within a short time, which is a physical impossibility.

And here are a few more indications of fraud:

13. In Pennsylvania, statistically impossible numbers of late-arriving mail-in votes went to Biden.

14. Dominion and ES&S voting machines were created to have back doors and specific functions to manipulate votes either at the machine or over the internet.

15. Fox News’s behavior on election night (refusing to call pro-Trump outcomes while prematurely calling Arizona for Biden) was so abnormal that Vegas oddsmakers instantly assumed that the fix was in.

16. The allegedly late-arriving mailed-in ballots increased Biden’s equally alleged lead with statistically impossible perfection and stability.

17. There were anomalies in Virginia that suggested that computers were subtracting votes from Trump and, sometimes, giving them to Biden.

18. One analysis shows that voting machines in Michigan systematically removed votes from Trump and handed them to Biden. I saw a rebuttal (which I cannot locate now) that purported to debunk this but did so by using a different scale on the X-axis, which I found inherently suspicious.

19. Over 100,000 Pennsylvania absentee ballots were returned either a day after they were mailed out, on the day they were mailed out, or on the day before they were mailed out.

20. In all the contested areas, and at Dominion’s website, Democrats have been systematically failing to create or have destroyed all data that could be used to demonstrate fraud. This creates the legal presumption that the data do, in fact, show fraud. 

On behalf of all Trump voters, I say to the Democrats who are trying to gaslight us: Don’t spit in my face and tell me it’s raining.

Detailed summary of election fraud in the 2020 Presidential race

 Authored by Patrick Basham via The Spectator,

Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling

To say out-loud that you find the results of the 2020 presidential election odd is to invite derision. You must be a crank or a conspiracy theorist. Mark me down as a crank, then.

I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling. I also think that the Trump campaign is still well within its rights to contest the tabulations. Something very strange happened in America’s democracy in the early hours of Wednesday November 4 and the days that followed. It’s reasonable for a lot of Americans to want to find out exactly what.

First, consider some facts.

President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking reelection. He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent. By way of comparison, President Obama was comfortably reelected in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he received in 2008.

Trump’s vote increased so much because, according to exit polls, he performed far better with many key demographic groups. Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him. He did extraordinarily well with rural male working-class whites.

He earned the highest share of all minority votes for a Republican since 1960. Trump grew his support among black voters by 50 percent over 2016. Nationally, Joe Biden’s black support fell well below 90 percent, the level below which Democratic presidential candidates usually lose.

Trump increased his share of the national Hispanic vote to 35 percent. With 60 percent or less of the national Hispanic vote, it is arithmetically impossible for a Democratic presidential candidate to win Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. Bellwether states swung further in Trump’s direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio and Iowa each defied America’s media polls with huge wins for Trump. Since 1852, only Richard Nixon has lost the electoral college after winning this trio, and that 1960 defeat to John F. Kennedy is still the subject of great suspicion.

Midwestern states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin always swing in the same direction as Ohio and Iowa, their regional peers. Ohio likewise swings with Florida. Current tallies show that, outside of a few cities, the Rust Belt swung in Trump’s direction. Yet, Biden leads in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because of an apparent avalanche of black votes in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. Biden’s ‘winning’ margin was derived almost entirely from such voters in these cities, as coincidentally his black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor.

We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.

Victorious presidential candidates, especially challengers, usually have down-ballot coattails; Biden did not.

The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained a large number of seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and actually made gains at the state level.

Another anomaly is found in the comparison between the polls and non-polling metrics. The latter include: party registrations trends; the candidates’ respective primary votes; candidate enthusiasm; social media followings; broadcast and digital media ratings; online searches; the number of (especially small) donors; and the number of individuals betting on each candidate.

Despite poor recent performances, media and academic polls have an impressive 80 percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. But, when the polls err, non-polling metrics do not; the latter have a 100 percent record. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s reelection. For Trump to lose this election, the mainstream polls needed to be correct, which they were not. Furthermore, for Trump to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time; not an impossible outcome, but extremely unlikely nonetheless.

Atypical voting patterns married with misses by polling and non-polling metrics should give observers pause for thought. Adding to the mystery is a cascade of information about the bizarre manner in which so many ballots were accumulated and counted.

The following peculiarities also lack compelling explanations:

1. Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots. In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers

2. Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio

3. Late arriving ballots were counted. In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions

4. The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures

5. Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting. Such is Biden’s narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, ‘If the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election’

6. Missing votes. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing

7. Non-resident voters. Matt Braynard’s Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia. Biden’s margin is 12,670 votes

8. Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases, that is, they had not been mailed in envelopes as required by law

9. Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.

If you think that only weirdos have legitimate concerns about these findings and claims, maybe the weirdness lies in you.

How The Election Was Really Stolen, Tucker Carlson Explains

 Authored by Andrea Widburg via AmericanThinker.com,

When Tucker Carlson attacked Sidney Powell, I was unhappy with him. However, I said that I would still watch Tucker because he’s mostly smart, brave, and funny, qualities I like. Some people (politely) disagreed with me. Having seen Tucker’s Monday monologue, though, I am glad that I stuck to my guns by sticking to Tucker. Tucker excoriates the real fraud in the 2020 election, which was the way the media and Big Tech manipulated the system to destroy Trump.

It’s hard to explain to people who came of age during the Trump era how differently the establishment treated his presidency. Even when the media loathed presidents – as they did with Nixon and Reagan – they at least went through the motions of showing respect.

With Trump, the media’s hate-fest is unbounded.

They ignored the usual 100-day honeymoon. Instead, from the moment Trump was elected, media hacks began to exhaust their limited vocabulary of insults: Trump is Hitler. Trump is worse than Hitler. Trump is a Hitlerly copy of something worse than Hitler.

If they’re not making Hitler analogies, you have Anderson Cooper calling the President of the United States an “obese turtle on his back flailing in the hot sun.” Stay classy, Anderson! Where’s that sophisticated guy who got drunk and talked about his mother’s sex life on air?

At the end of the day, what the media have done for the past four years is inane, shallow, vulgar, and mean-spirited to the point of evil, but the steady drumbeat works.

Although it’s hard to remember, before Trump came along, the media would at least occasionally report rather objectively about actual news, both foreign and domestic. Nowadays, the news is blatantly slanted in whatever direction benefits Democrats.

Black Lives Matter riots are racial freedom fests while the people who protest being locked in their homes and losing their livelihoods are white nationalist haters. Nor do the media ever report Trump’s accomplishments. Instead, taking in the media is liking listening to the two meanest girls in high school gossip about someone they hate. Again, it’s inane, shallow, vulgar, and mean-spirited, but effective.

Most significantly, it’s impossible to explain the effect of big technology to young people who, having been raised within its omnipresent ambit, are as unaware of its power as fish are of the water in which they swim. When Google hides search results and Twitter and Facebook de-platform people for being “mean,” that’s normal to the young. To them, that’s the appropriate elevation of “safe” speech – and please, stop nattering about “free” speech, which all these young people know is a secret code for saying “hate speech of the type a Hitlerly Hitler would use.”

Incidentally, it’s also impossible to explain any of pre- and post-internet concepts about journalism and free speech to stalwart leftists. Because the media and Big Tech align perfectly with what our leftist (aka, Democrat or progressive) friends believe, they too view bias, censorship, and manipulated information as a fish does water: They are normal, and only conspiracy theorists would believe that the water is toxic and deadly.

Enter Tucker Carlson’s Monday night monologue, with its bracing dose of reality about the way in which the 2020 election was rigged. We conservatives have every reason to believe in shadow rigging, in the form of cemetery votes, faked ballots, and election machine manipulation. All of that, though, requires investigation and a lot of work to establish.

However, Tucker points out that what the media and Big Tech did in the 2020 election is in our faces, it’s devastating, and it’s very frightening for the future of a free America. No wonder Trump pinned Tucker’s monologue to the top of his Twitter page.

(I’m currently trying to point out with some frequency that Twitter never adds to posts from the Biden team any message that “this claim about an election victory is disputed” – although Biden’s claim is quite obviously disputed.)

The leftists are compliant, the politicians are bought and paid for, and we’re all that remains of an America that remembers the First Amendment. We better figure out what to do about this situation before our tech overlords ensure that we have no options left.

JPMorgan Makes $1 Billion From Gold Trading After Paying $1 Billion Fine For Manipulating Gold Trading

From Zero Hedge:

 This, in a nutshell, is how Wall Street works: just two months after JPMorgan was fined a record $1 billion criminal monetary penalty (to make sure not a single banker would end up going to prison) for rigging the gold and silver markets, Reuters reported that JPM - having clearly "learned" the tools of the gold rigging trade, has earned a record $1 billion in revenue so far in 2020 from trading, storing and financing precious metals, vastly outperforming rival banks.

The math simplified: JPM has spent $1 billion over the lifetime of its precious metals rigging, ensuring it has full indemnity from future manipulation claims, allowing allow it to make $1 billion in revenue in just one year. Truly a remarkable IRR, and proving yet again, that on Wall Street crime not only pays, but has a 1-+year payback period.

While the coronavirus has created a bonanza for investment banks dealing in gold, silver and other precious metals by triggering massive investor purchases and rupturing the normal workings of the market, JPMorgan has dominated, growing its share of the market according to Reuters.

Revenue generated by the largest US commercial bank by mid-November accounts for at least half of the $1.7 billion to $2 billion that consultancy McKinsey estimates the top 10 investment banks combined will make this year from precious metals, mostly gold.

And while Blythe Masters is now long gone (and oddly enough was never even once questioned for her involvement in JPM's massive gold manipulation scandal despite being in charge of JPM commodities during the peak of JPM's market rigging), JPMorgan's commodities division is on track to bring in more than $1.5 billion this year and could challenge Goldman Sachs for the title of top earner.

But surely after having been caught so many times rigging gold, JPMorgan is no longer manipulating the commodity market: after all all the regulators are watching it. Well, you decide: individual investment banks have rarely made more than $1 billion in commodities in recent years, and none has ever before earned more than around $600 million in precious metals in a single year, said George Kuznetsov at McKinsey CIB Insights. Yet for JPMorgan, it was child's play.

Why? Because as some have said, the $1 billion criminal manipulation penalty was really a bribe for the CFTC and SEC to look away next time.

Of course, in addition to manipulating the market, JPM also has unprecedented visibility into its every player. The bank sits at the heart of the global bullion market, and its activities span trading physical bars to derivatives, running vaults and clearing trades in London, the biggest trade hub.

Naturally, to avoid the spotlight, JPM had a ready narrative. As Reuters writes, "driving profit has been the clamour for gold and silver from investors, mainly in Europe and North America, worried the coronavirus pandemic and money-printing by central banks could devalue other assets. These investors pushed gold prices to record highs above $2,000 an ounce earlier this year."

To this add profits earned on the Comex futures exchange in New York, where supply issues earlier this year made it more lucrative for those with access to physical gold to trade precious metals. Gold custodian banks - such as JPMorgan - took advantage of opportunities on Comex and helped clients do the same, in some cases bailing out major ETFs and anecdotally, even one rather prominent central bank.

According to Comex data, show JPMorgan’s clients accounted for one-third of all trade in gold bars registered with the exchange in October, and more than two fifths in June. Like other big banks, JPMorgan was able to get and ship metal cheaply and in large quantities when other, smaller traders could not, sources said.

The revenue windfall will likely fade as trading on Comex reverts to normal patterns, but high gold prices and interest from investors mean this business will remain profitable. “2020 is going to be an outlier year,” said Kuznetsov at McKinsey, who clearly did not consider that the manipulation will only accelerate from here.