Covid-19 PCR test is useless--it can find anything in anyone

Tagged:  

PCR (polymerase chain reaction) was invented in the early 1980s as a forensic crime tool. Trace amounts of blood, tissue, saliva, or other bodily materials found at crime scenes could be amplified and a DNA profile could be created with the PCR test. PCR was invented by Dr. Kary Mullis (December 28, 1944 - August 7, 2019), who won the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. The keyword is AMPLIFIED. For example, the test can be used to find feces on money, ATM machines, cash registers, TV remote controls, table surfaces, and even restaurant equipment. The test takes trace amounts (some so small that an electron microscope is needed to see it) of material and amplifies it to find anything and everything.

The inventor of PCR stated that the test should NOT be used as a diagnosis tool for virus, illness, or disease; since you can find anything with PCR if you increase the CT (cycle threshold) and look hard enough. A virus is so small that an electron microscope is required to see it. Feces are dangerous to health, but trace amounts of feces are found on common surfaces and items, yet they pose no health risk since they are invisible to the eyes--so small, that an ELECTRON (not a magnifying microscope), but an electron microscope is required to see it. The virus theory is similar. A virus is so small (about 1 / 10 000 the size of a hair) that an electron microscope is required to see it. Since a virus is so small, it cannot be recorded in transmission outside the body and causing harm. Yet, despite the objection of Dr. Mullis, PCR is being used as a diagnostic tool for HIV (virus that supposedly causes AIDS), Covid-19, and other diseases.

There is no proof that a virus is contagious outside the body.
There is no proof that a virus can transmit from person to person.
There is no proof that a virus can transmit from person to person causing harm.
Everything is based on theories promulgated by crooked scientists funded by the criminal drug companies.

Who is making billions on masks, fake tests, vaccines, covid-19 drugs? The pharmaceutical industry that has been running fake pandemics for over 200 years. They indirectly or directly advertise over $5 billion on newspapers and TVs, and that's why the media keeps promoting these disease scamdemics. If you turned off the TV and stopped reading the newspapers, there would be no evidence of a "pandemic". Do you watch sports and receive constant reminders from the commentators that there's a pandemic? Guess who pays their salaries? Drug companies and other advertisers.

Ontario Civil Liberties Association. January 24 2021

PCR Lab Visit: Great video with science about faulty covid testing.

Dr. Naomi Wolf interviews Bobby Malhotra, who was on the Austrian COVID task force, and Kevin McKernan, who directed a research lab at MIT for many years and has 25 years' experience working with PCR tests.

The entire COVID-19 pandemic policy has been predicated on "COVID Charts" that purport to show waves of "cases", including "spikes" and "hotspots." The entire Western world has been following these charts that allegedly track test results for COVID; policies based on these tests have locked whole nations indoors, isolated elders, kept kids and teenagers out of school, crushed entire sectors and resulted in a massive wealth transfer as distressed assets are bought up by big investors and developers for pennies on the dollar, and as Big Tech and Big Pharma rack up unprecedented profits.

BUT HOW ACCURATE ARE THOSE TESTS? Several courageous scientists have been coming forward to explain exactly why the main form of COVID test, called "the PCR test", is unfit for any kind of use as a diagnostic tool.

Twenty-two scientists signed what's called a "retraction report" to the journal Eurosurveillance, asking for a retraction of the essay by Christian Drosten, advisor to the German government, that initially proposed the use of PCR tests and their protocols worldwide, or the "recipe" to use, to diagnose COVID.

Eurosurveillance had rushed this paper, that went on to form the basis for the whole world using PCR tests, through peer review in A DAY! The average for that same journal is 172 days.

In this interview, which took place at the PCR test lab in Medicinal Genomics in Beverly, MA, where McKernan is Chief Strategy Officer, the two scientists explain exactly why PCR tests are unfit for use in any way in accurately diagnosing COVID infections.

They point out that the test cycles are set at 40-45 often -- a setting that, as the WHO admitted on Jan 13, 2021, ensures false positives at scale.

They also point out that the PCR tests will pick up any one of four Asian cold viruses (a common cold) and report it as a positive for COVID; that a second step of checking that the result is actually COVID, and not a false positive, is not typically done; they note that the line that indicates "human being" is left out of the PCR test protocol recommended by Drosten, which is why people are getting positive test results when they test, for instance, ice cream cones; and they explain that Dr Drosten did not even have a sample of COVID to use in his protocol and so the test protocol he created was based on a computer simulation.

The conclusion they reach? We can't possibly even know that there has been a pandemic, let alone what its scale has been, since the results of PCR tests to date are "garbage" and need to be thrown out and the whole process begun anew with accurate testing protocols.

They also warn that now that the WHO has told labs to release the CT levels that labs are using to health clinics that ask about them, we are likely to see a "drop" in "infections" which will really just be a change from inaccurate to more accurate test conditions. Most importantly, they warn that the PCR allows a "pandemic" to be dialed up or down at will, by simply adjusting the CT levels.

The courageous scientists also warn that we must learn from this crackdown on rights, never to let this happen again since medical fascism can be enacted at will by manipulating medical data. The men explosively reveal that this is what has happened with this global pandemic -- or what may rather be a global crisis that includes an unnecessary secondary disaster in promoting a faulty test that had led to a massive disruption of human community, kids' education, and crushing of small businesses.

Where is the evidence that viruses cause disease?

Lauren Kirckof

I have been asking for almost 12 months now, and no one has been able to provide me a single peer reviewed journal article showing an isolated virus causes disease. This should be so easy to look through the literature and find a study in a couple of minutes, yet no one seems to be able to do such a thing.

Scientists and doctors have already done countless experiments to try and prove germ theory over the course of 120+ years, and all have failed.

So I will ask again, can anyone provide me one such study, showing an isolated viruses causes disease in humans? If so, I will gladly stand corrected and recount everything I have ever said on this matter.

There needs to be a truly scientific and intellectually honest conversation about this. This is the beauty of the scientific method, that we can ask questions, challenge our beliefs, put forward new ideas (that may or may not be correct) and learn new things.

Here are just some of the experiments that have been done on the common cold / flu. Many studies like this have been done in other diseases like measles and chicken pox as well, and they have not been able to prove viral causation or contagion.

In March of 1919 Rosenau & Keegan conducted 9 separate experiments in a group of 49 healthy men, to prove contagion. In all 9 experiments, 0/49 men became sick after being exposed to sick people or the bodily fluids of sick people.
https://jamanetwork.com/jour.../jama/article-abstract/221687

In November 1919, 8 separate experiments were conducted by Rosenau et al. in a group of 62 men trying to prove that influenza is contagious and causes disease. In all 8 experiments, 0/62 men became sick.

Another set of 8 experiments were undertaken in December of 1919 by McCoy et al. in 50 men to try and prove contagion. Once again, all 8 experiments failed to prove people with influenza, or their bodily fluids cause illness. 0/50 men became sick.

In 1919, Wahl et al. conducted 3 separate experiments to infect 6 healthy men with influenza by exposing them to mucous secretions and lung tissue from sick people. 0/6 men contracted influenza in any of the three studies.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30082102?seq=1...

In 1920, Schmidt et al conducted two controlled experiments, exposing healthy people to the bodily fluids of sick people. Of 196 people exposed to the mucous secretions of sick people, 21 (10.7%) developed colds and three developed grippe (1.5%). In the second group, of the 84 healthy people exposed to mucous secretions of sick people, five developed grippe (5.9%) and four colds (4.7%). Of forty-three controls who had been inoculated with sterile physiological salt solutions eight (18.6%) developed colds. A higher percentage of people got sick after being exposed to saline compared to those being exposed to the "virus".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19869857/

https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/102609951

In 1921, Williams et al. tried to experimentally infect 45 healthy men with the common cold and influenza, by exposing them to mucous secretions from sick people. 0/45 became ill.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19869857/

In 1924, Robertson & Groves exposed 100 healthy individuals to the bodily secretions from 16 different people suffering from influenza. The authors concluded that 0/100 became sick as a result of being exposed to the bodily secretions.
https://academic.oup.com/.../article.../34/4/400/832936...

In 1930, Dochez et al. attempted to infect a group of men experimentally with the common cold. The authors stated in their results, something that is nothing short of amazing.

"It was apparent very early that this individual was more or less unreliable and from the start it was possible to keep him in the dark regarding our procedure. He had inconspicuous symptoms after his test injection of sterile broth and no more striking results from the cold filtrate, until an assistant, on the second day after injection, inadvertently referred to this failure to contract a cold.

That evening and night the subject reported severe symptomatology, including sneezing, cough, sore throat and stuffiness in the nose. The next morning he was told that he had been misinformed in regard to the nature of the filtrate and his symptoms subsided within the hour. It is important to note that there was an entire absence of objective pathological changes".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19869798/

In 1937 Burnet & Lush conducted an experiment exposing 200 healthy people to bodily secretions from people infected with influenza. 0/200 became sick.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2065253/

In 1940, Burnet and Foley tried to experimentally infect 15 university students with influenza. The authors concluded their experiment was a failure.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/.../j.1326-5377.1940...
]-written by Daniel Roytas

Share this with your friends