boris
Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2019
- Messages
- 2,345
Yeah I saw this today. I was very confused reading it, because I've been telling my friends and family that the single biggest hole in the official narrative is how unreliable the PCR test is. When you pair it with a policy where we count any (false) positive person dying for any reason as a covid death, we end up at our current completely inaccurate death counts.
Why are they publishing this? I know they're corrupt, but they're absolutely correct in this article. It blows not just a hole in the argument, it blows THE hole in the argument. Your theory makes sense about a new test coming down the pipeline that's somehow even worse. Or a few people at the Times grew a conscience. Both are in play. It definitely has to weaken people's trust in the numbers either way, which is a good thing and a possible miscalculation on their end, depending on motives. It's really weird, but I'll take anything I can get at this point that weakens the official narrative. You'd have to be seriously delusional to believe the official narrative at this point if you did any independent reading at all.
This article is a small admission while simultaneously strengthening the lie. The problem of viral load and sensitivity they are adressing is a secondary problem.
First and foremost the test is not specific to “Sars-Cov-2” which is the biggest problem. This is very simply proven by one of the facts which Dr. Wodarg is adressing since the beginning, it detects coronaviruses in cats. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
If it detects other coronaviruses (or new zoonotic transfers/mutations) it is per definition non-specific. So you can’t use it to find the supposed special “Sars-Cov-2” from Wuhan with it.
Last edited: