Important things should often be scrutinized. @Sokolov has, understandably, been highly skepticical of claims of election fraud, in relation to systems and the like. He wants "hard evidence." Though we may disagree as to how available such "hard evidence" is on the various aspects of the 2020 election, this is not a bad stance to have. However, I do believe this has possibly been applied unequally even considering other equally important (and potentially related) matters. So, this is a test, can an equal level of scrutinity be applied to PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) testing being used as a means of diagnosis? Specifically, what is the "hard evidence" that the test is an accurate means of diagnosis? Note that witness testimony (even expert witnesses) and mathematical models do not fall under the umbrella of "hard evidence". So this automatically excludes the digital genetic code supplied by the CCP to define "COVID-19", unless there is "hard evidence" (an independenlty varified isolate from a peer reviewed rigorous paper that followed proper scientific protocals could work) to verify it. Given how much of Governmental policy around the world currently hinges on the accuracy of PCR testing, including the Biden Administrations exhaltation of the CDC above the US Supreme Court (ignoring the USSC ruling that they can't extend eviction moratoriums), and the basis for many other hypothesis about the virus, being able to determine the accuracy of the testing, including how to differentiate false positives, is very important. It is worth noting that the creator of the PCR test, sadly now deceased, had stated that the PCR test should not be used as a means of diagnosis, this may contribute to how and why it hasn't been used like this previously. However, that would fall under "witness testimony" and therefore is anecdotal in and of itself. Likewise, the CDC has stated that they are looking at making a new test that will differentiate between COVID and the common Flu (pretty sure those are two completely different viruses, so I'm not sure why the US CDC would think such a thing necessary considering how much they've relied on the PCR test to supply data so far). This aggain however would be considered anecdotal in and of itself. This should be an easy thing for people to prove. So consider this merely to be a "test." Or a fun little game of fact hunting. Remember, methodology of discovery should be included, or it becomes merely testimony that can't be corroborated by "hard evidence." Happy hunting.