Groundbreaking article from New York Times on the overly sensitive PCR Tests

[fsufool]

Here you go:

Was the COVID-19 Test Meant to Detect a Virus?

The Corona Simulation Machine: Why the Inventor of The “Corona Test” Would Have Warned Us Not To Use It To Detect A Virus “Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.” –Kar

uncoverdc.com

Thanks for that Interesting article, but he still didn't say anything about Covid. And all this has been covered over the last week in various articles and posts, like the NY Times one I posted. This is actually more comprehensive and clear, once you get past the conspiracy parts, than any others I have read.

Here is the key component from the post:
I asked Crowe what he thought Kary Mullis would say about this explosion of PCR insanity.

“I’m sad that he isn’t here to defend his manufacturing technique,” he said. “Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that.”


The reason I posted the NY Times article is the lack of the conspiracy angle and the fact it is out of character for the NY Times to publish an article that calls into question the whole Covid enterprise that killed so many people in NYC.

 

[fsufool]

Daily death totals also include "because of COVID". This includes deaths such as Alzheimer's patients, and others with similar significant pre-existing conditions, that have passed due to insufficient care because of COVID lockdowns, not because they actually ever had COVID. The CDC acknowledges this.

15% of the deaths had dementia/alzheimer's according to CDC data.

 

[GbrNole]

15% of the deaths had dementia/alzheimer's according to CDC data.

yep. about 27,000 excess deaths. it is the leading cause of excess deaths followed by hypertensive diseases, circulatory diseases, and diabetes.

 

[buckeyenole]

Thanks for that Interesting article, but he still didn't say anything about Covid. And all this has been covered over the last week in various articles and posts, like the NY Times one I posted. This is actually more comprehensive and clear, once you get past the conspiracy parts, than any others I have read.

Here is the key component from the post:
I asked Crowe what he thought Kary Mullis would say about this explosion of PCR insanity.

“I’m sad that he isn’t here to defend his manufacturing technique,” he said. “Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that.”


The reason I posted the NY Times article is the lack of the conspiracy angle and the fact it is out of character for the NY Times to publish an article that calls into question the whole Covid enterprise that killed so many people in NYC.

"We’ve been hijacked by our technologies, but left illiterate about what they actually mean. In this case, I am in the rare position of having known, spent time with, and interviewed the inventor of the method used in the presently available Covid-19 tests, which is called PCR, (Polymerase Chain Reaction.)"
Mullis didn't develop a Covid-specific test. He developed the method which Covid tests are using. And he says it wasn't developed for diagnosis and doesn't work well for diagnosis.

 

[fsufool]

"We’ve been hijacked by our technologies, but left illiterate about what they actually mean. In this case, I am in the rare position of having known, spent time with, and interviewed the inventor of the method used in the presently available Covid-19 tests, which is called PCR, (Polymerase Chain Reaction.)"
Mullis didn't develop a Covid-specific test. He developed the method which Covid tests are using. And he says it wasn't developed for virus detection and doesn't work well for virus detection.

Actually, he said it shouldn't be used for diagnosis, because it says nothing about whether one has the viral load to be infected or is infectious. Going out to 40 cycles, as the CDC wants, amplifies it 1 trillion times. Most think that anything over 30 times means they are not infectious. So, if you were going to use the PCR test, then the labs should be listing how many cycles it took to find it instead of just saying yes or no after 37 or 40 cycles. Then it might be able to be used for trace and isolation because health officials could judge if and how infectious one might be. And that is ignoring the issue of purification, which is technically way over my head, but has something to do with isolating this virus DNA from other viruses. It was designed as a manufacturing process. This all goes back to HIV, and arguments over the HIV test which the CDC used a PCR test. Turns out that the HIV virus, may not be the virus causing AIDS and this PCR test part of the problem. The CDC was leading the band for HIV causing AIDS and using the PCR test, just as it is now. The study talked about in the article demonstrated that 90% of the positives would go away if you only amplified it to 30 cycles instead of 40. Also, could explain why 45%-50% of people are thought to be asymptomatic; they don't have enough viral load to cause infection or to be infectious.

 

[buckeyenole]

Actually, he said it shouldn't be used for diagnosis, because it says nothing about whether one has the viral load to be infected or is infectious. Going out to 40 cycles, as the CDC wants, amplifies it 1 trillion times. Most think that anything over 30 times means they are not infectious. So, if you were going to use the PCR test, then the labs should be listing how many cycles it took to find it instead of just saying yes or no after 37 or 40 cycles. Then it might be able to be used for trace and isolation because health officials could judge if and how infectious one might be. And that is ignoring the issue of purification, which is technically way over my head, but has something to do with isolating this virus DNA from other viruses. It was designed as a manufacturing process. This all goes back to HIV, and arguments over the HIV test which the CDC used a PCR test. Turns out that the HIV virus, may not be the virus causing AIDS and this PCR test part of the problem. The CDC was leading the band for HIV causing AIDS and using the PCR test, just as it is now. The study talked about in the article demonstrated that 90% of the positives would go away if you only amplified it to 30 cycles instead of 40. Also, could explain why 45%-50% of people are thought to be asymptomatic; they don't have enough viral load to cause infection or to be infectious.

You are correct. Load is the issue, not virus presence. I misspoke. The whole point of the arbitrariness of the results is cycle/load cutoff. I'll correct my post.