UPDATE: Prophecy and "....the tomb seething with worms that is the Bergoglian church" - Viganò

In yesterday's article titled Prophecy and "....the tomb seething with worms that is the Bergoglian church", I mentioned Global Warming/Climate Change.

There's been some new developments.

Trying to live up the the lie that is "Climate Change" by "Going Green" in energy production, governments around the world are in tremendous stress. The government of Sri Lanka seems to have collapsed, and now the prime ministers of Italy and Estonia have just resigned, joining Boris Johnson in the unemployment line. Pity we can't get ride of the Biden Regime so easily!

Another item concerned Covid and the testing for it. A friend told me he had acquired Covid. I wrote him back asking how he knows he has Covid, and he's now responded. He says he experienced classic Covid symptoms – which can come with other sorts of illness, of course – and his regularly-taken antigen test turned positive, then a subsequent PCR test he engaged confirmed it. 

He's rock-solid in believing this, and we are in Placebo/Nocebo territory. If one believes one will recover, he likely will; if one things he cannot (nocebo), he might not. And of course this works for the inbetween state of neither dying nor being healthy, but just being sick.

I don't try to argue. I tried early on, but that didn't work. Some folks have bought into "the narrative" about Covid, and there's no shifting them. There's no "Minority Report" with such folks. So be it.  

Though of course I could argue, if I thought it would do any good. Here are five items to know about if you want to argue against the Covid tests.

1. First of all, whenever you are ill, either from toxins from any source: old-fashioned poisons, EMFs, malnutrition, or stress, kidney or gall stones, whatever, these cause cellular degeneration and produce a lot of exosomes, virus-sized genetic carrying items that clean up cell detritus and communicate one's health status to other parts of the body. All of these things in turn ring alarm bells in these tests: antigen, antibody, PCR, etc. (I have COPD, for example, and more or less chronic kidney stones: any Covid test would scream bloody murder if I was stupid enough to let myself be tested.)
2. Now, you-all know what I think of the PCR. As for the antigen/antibody tests (closely related to each other but still not quite the same): "An antigen is a molecule that stimulates an immune response by activating white blood cells that fight disease. Antigens may be present on invaders, such as bacteria, viruses, parasites, fungi, and transplanted organs, or on abnormal cells, such as cancer cells." Whew. Right there one has an entire HOST of possibilities to juggle. How do you remotely decide among all that to declare, as it were: "I'll take Door Number 3, Bob!" 
3. So an antigen test is a diagnostic test testing for pathogen detection that registers the presence or absence of a particular antigen of an illness-causing pathogen. But what if you have never isolated, or purified, and then characterized, the pathogen in question? With Covid, they've published articles saying they've isolated it. Indeed, that looks good in the paper's title. But read the fine print in the Method section. I proofread a lot of scientific papers in sociology, and while they're generally pretty good, always the most tedious part is the Methods section. Yet it is the most significant section. If you read that section carefully, you'll occasionally find a pretty slipshod "method". A smallish sample might be involved. Restricted criteria. A lot of supposition in drawing conclusions can easily manifest itself. Even guesswork. All that can exist in "hard science" papers too, along with always a lot of Star Trek Next Generation-type "technobabble". See this mainstream news article from 2018 about the failure of scientific papers. But everyone wants to dwell on the Conclusion's section. Yet that is only as good as the Methods section proves itself to be. 
4. For Covid, they used the cell-culture method invented 60 years ago to "characterize" a hodge-podge celluar-biotic mixture drawn – only in part, mind you – from a single middle-aged Wuhan citizen. We are talking about specific molecules here drawn from molecular soup, and the soupier it is, the easier to find the "specific" genetics! How can one test for anything in that context? The PCR itself "tests" for a sequence of DNA drawn from the cell-culture method used on that Wuhan fellow, and it does so by repeated cycles of magnification, and everyone knows the more cycles you run, the more positives you get! But again, how can you test for Covid genetic when you've never isolated and purified Covid? There's no way to know that the bit of material you have is either unique or even originated in the virus you're testing for. And most importantly: remember, the package insert for the PCR and antibody tests say that you may get a false positive if you have one of about 40 conditions!
5. The whole thing is simply nuts. All of these tests trigger positives if you are ill, and being ill means by definition to have a higher concentration of bio-detritus floating about your system. It is a classic case of finding what you're looking for or also 'the effect proves the cause', when in all the history of virology, we've never truly found a virus that causes a disease. (Or even extracted a virus from human body fluid.

Such are my updates. Keep in mind that "science" is now mostly technology. How do you know you have X disease? Mostly because machines tell you so. Physicians don't run the machines, either, but rather techs. (A lot cheaper to employ!) And whereas "science" wants to know, and should be hyper-rigorous in proving any thesis, technology wants to make, period, and make primarily a profit. Always keep that in mind. By itself, it explains a great deal of the whole Covid debacle.

AnP