CDC PCR Manual Says: "No Quantified Virus Isolates . Available"

amd

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
864
cnmfgdbhmalifjfm.png


hebadmkbofkigfbo.png
 

cardochav

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Messages
73
According to Kary Mullis it is the interpretation of the results that can be misused with PCR. “With PCR you can find almost anything in anybody if done well.” “It doesn’t tell you that you are sick or the thing that you ended up with will make sick.”
To me it really sounds like the germ theory as applied to viruses is disproven with his and Peter Duesberg’s research. It also sounds like PCR should only be used in research laboratories to understand things like how DNA/RNA or pieces of them can be spread through the population and this should only be done by highly trained and experienced individuals. I believe this is the first time it has been used on such a large scale for diagnosis. Seems rather coincidental that he died at the age of 74 just last august so he couldn’t be around to criticize its widespread use today.
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
OP
A

amd

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
864
External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.

This model was based on the assumption that the novel virus is very similar to SARS-CoV from 2003 as both are beta-coronaviruses.

The PCR test was therefore designed using the genomic sequence of SARS-CoV as a control material for the Sarbeco component; we know this from our personal email-communication with [2] one of the co-authors of the Corman-Drosten paper. This method to model SARS-CoV-2 was described in the Corman-Drosten paper as follows:

“the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation, designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.”

The Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) is an important biomolecular technology to rapidly detect rare RNA fragments, which are known in advance. In the first step, RNA molecules present in the sample are reverse transcribed to yield cDNA. The cDNA is then amplified in the polymerase chain reaction using a specific primer pair and a thermostable DNA polymerase enzyme. The technology is highly sensitive and its detection limit is theoretically 1 molecule of cDNA. The specificity of the PCR is highly influenced by biomolecular design errors.
 

Owen B

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2016
Messages
310
According to Kary Mullis it is the interpretation of the results that can be misused with PCR. “With PCR you can find almost anything in anybody if done well.” “It doesn’t tell you that you are sick or the thing that you ended up with will make sick.”
To me it really sounds like the germ theory as applied to viruses is disproven with his and Peter Duesberg’s research. It also sounds like PCR should only be used in research laboratories to understand things like how DNA/RNA or pieces of them can be spread through the population and this should only be done by highly trained and experienced individuals. I believe this is the first time it has been used on such a large scale for diagnosis. Seems rather coincidental that he died at the age of 74 just last august so he couldn’t be around to criticize its widespread use today.

I agree. Mullis is right. But what he's saying applies to almost every kind of diagnostic test out there today. The underlying theoretical assumption in PC medicine is based on the idea of a structural/organic abnormality revealed by numbers in a chart or on some readout. But not every structural abnormality is evidence of a symptomatic condition. They could be simply "asymptomatic abnormalities".

This is the fraud behind so much of medical treatment today. The patient is sent on a wild goose chase by one "diagnostic" screening test after another. At each turn the MD always finds something that justifies probably an unnecessary treatment or a referral to yet another screening. "Just to be on the safe side" is the guiding assumption as if the MD is speaking from a point of infallible omniscience. But in reality, they have nothing. It's an enormous bluff.
 
Joined
Dec 8, 2018
Messages
893
Location
The Netherlands

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom