PDX " . . . all they needed was the idea of one to scare the masses."Bah dah bing . . .
I don't think there is a pandemic at all, it's purely a psyopSpot on, the Jew fake media pushing this China did it crap is to push the lie that this scamdemic really exists
how does one virus end up multiplying
I conducted a two-hour interview with David Crowe– Canadian researcher, with a degree in biology and mathematics, host of The Infectious Myth podcast, and President of the think-tank Rethinking AIDS. He broke down the problems with the PCR based Corona test in great detail, revealing a world of unimaginable complexity, as well as trickery.You wrote:
“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary,” he said. “In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative.”
The next part of his explanation is lengthy and detailed, but let’s push through:
“What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.”
“Wow,” I said. “That’s so important. I think people envision it as one of two things: Positive or negative, like a pregnancy test. You “have it” or you don’t.”
“PCR is really a manufacturing technique,” Crowe explained. “You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it. You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength. So, they measure the amount of light that comes back and that’s their surrogate for how much DNA there is. I’m using the word DNA. There’s a step in RT- PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So, the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It’s using DNA, but it’s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it’s the same thing, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there’s a certain number of cycles.”
This is where it gets wild.
“In one paper,” Crowe says, “I found 37 cycles. If you didn’t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered “indeterminate.” And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I’ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it’s quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test. So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.”
I asked him to pause so I could exclaim my astonishment. And yet, it was Déjà vu all over again. Just like in the HIV battle—people were never told that the “HIV test” had different standards in different countries, and within countries, from lab to lab. The highest bar (the greatest number of HIV proteins) was in Australia: five. The Lowest was Africa: 2. In the US it is generally 3-4.
We used to joke that you could rid yourself of an “HIV diagnosis” by flying from either the US or Australia, to Africa. But for many years, “AIDS” in Africa was diagnosed without any tests whatsoever. Just a short list of symptoms that tracked precisely with symptoms of most tropical diseases, such as fever, cough, and shortness of breath.
David, in his quiet Canadian way, dropped a bombshell in his next statement:
“I think if a country said, “You know, we need to end this epidemic,” They could quietly send around a memo saying: “We shouldn’t be having the cutoff at 37. If we put it at 32, the number of positive tests drops dramatically. If it’s still not enough, well, you know, 30 or 28 or something like that. So, you can control the sensitivity.”
Yes, you read that right. Labs can manipulate how many “cases’ of Covid-19 their country has. Is this how the Chinese made their case load vanish all of a sudden?
“Another reason we know this is bogus,” Crowe continued, “is from a remarkable series of graphs published by some people from Singapore in JAMA. These graphs were published in the supplementary information, which is an indication that nobody’s supposed to read them. And I think the authors probably just threw them in because they were interesting graphs, but they didn’t realize what was in them. So, they were 18 graphs of 18 different people. And at this hospital in Singapore, they did daily coronavirus tests and they grasped the number of PCR cycles necessary to detect fluorescence. Or if they couldn’t detect florescence by…37 cycles, they put a dot on the bottom of the graph, signifying a negative.”
“So, in this group of 18 people, the majority of people went from positive, which is normally read as “infected,” to negative, which is normally read as “uninfected” back to positive—infected again. So how do you interpret this? How do you have a test if a test act is actually, you know, 100% positive for detecting infection, then the negative results must’ve been wrong? And so, one way to solve that is to move the point from 37 to say 36 or 38. You can move this, this cycle of numbers. It’s an arbitrary division up or down. But there’s no guarantee that if you did that, you wouldn’t still have the same thing. It would just, instead of going from, from 36 to undetectable and back to 36 or back to 45, it might go from 33 to undetectable to 30 or something like that. Right? So, you can’t solve the problem by changing this arbitrary binary division. And so basically this says that the test is not detecting infection. Because if it was, like if you’re infected, and then you’re uninfected, and you’re in a hospital with the best anti-infective precautions in the world, how did you get re-infected? And if you cured the infection, why didn’t you have antibodies to stop you getting re-infected? So, there’s no explanation within the mainstream that can explain these results. That’s why I think they’re so important.”
Why should I play grab ass with you? I'd bet I have a better understanding of the technical details than you do.So how about you get off your ass and get with it ?
Confucius say, when one play grab ass, fingernails get dirty.RC
Rowan Cocoan Everyone: "Grab Ass"The only kind of "grab ass" I can think of is what Tiny Trudeau must be playing trying find his with both hands, a mirror and a flashlight.
You forgot the magnifying glassDude, I said he was looking for his ass . . .
I err? I'll assume (and make an ass out of myself) that we have sequenced humans, plants, and animals, and microbes, but I don't know that.I guess by now you've discovered we run a pretty ship around here, and some humility gets you on board. Welcome :-) (and please try to keep your foot outta yer mouth)
Oh yeah, and fuck you, too, buddy, by the way.Oh, so you're ill tempered and bad mannered into the bargain of blustering ignorance you've put before us.
we have sequenced humans, plants, and animals, and microbes, but I don't know thatYes, and only some small fraction of purported viral genomes have been sequenced (say 300 out of an estimated 30,000). And that comes from some soup of dead cells from multiple organisms whose sequences are entered into a computer that is told to match them to some other soup of dead cells from multiple organisms.
let's call the whole thing off.I dunno, I thought Willy and Cindy were kinda cute covering that old standard [Link]
We don't want accurate numbers here now do we so why use accurate testing and data?Or as one reputable researcher said, "With enough cycles I can get Covid-whatever out of a dog's ass!"
the PCR primer is not specific to ONLY the SARS-COV-2 "virus"
I see your attempt to coerce obedience.No, you saw me telling you to put up or shut up, your choice . . .
Resistense Hey asshole, what's its catalase status?We have a little fix for around here for guys who behave the way you have been, it's called the "DNR" which means "Do Not Reply", which means you can talk yourself blue in the face in your very own little reverb room and no one will reply for the simple reason that grown ups evince good manners, which you do not.
It's called freedom of speech.No, it's called bad manners.
Nice deep fake goofy ass fotoYou should look as good at 60.
Hey fuckknuckle:While correct I expect, there's no benefit in engaging this "individual"; none, on any level . . .
According to the ruling , the number of verified COVID-19 deaths from January 2020 to April 2021 is only 152, not about 17,000 as claimed by government ministries.Exclusive Interview With Dr. André Dias, At Center Of Portugal FOIA Court Case Confirming Covid Statistical Fraud: “They Replied To All: “We Have Nothing” “Fraud Laid Bare: The Emperor Has No Clothes ; The EU Has Full Totalitarian Reign
All the “others” died for various reasons, although their PCR test was positive.
“ We live in a fraud of unprecedented dimensions,” wrote Dias.
“All those responsible for handling data from ‘cases’ and ‘deaths’ can, thereafter, only be tried for the crime if there is any dignity remaining in the rule of law,” he continued.
“If these figures are of the same order of magnitude for other countries as well, and there is no reason to assume otherwise, then the plague is a deception of unprecedented proportions and crimes committed against humanity on a huge scale have been committed here.”
Of course, as my readers know, I’ve spent a year demonstrating that no one has proved the SARS-CoV-2 virus exists. However, I make many forays into the insane world where people believe the virus is real; and I show that even within that world, the experts contradict themselves and compound their egregious fallacies like rabbits spawning babies.Jon Rappoport, 29/06/2021 [Link]
This latest foray shows the FDA is both criminal and insane.
All of which begs the question, "What did we see that was making people sick ?"The Jew media fear porn psyop, e.g lady dies of covid she was 102
What did we see that was making people sick ?
All of which begs the question, "What did we see that was making people sick ?"IMO, people were getting sick from the same things they've always gotten sick from, but this time everything was being called Covid because of the fraudulent PCR test.
Who did it? This cartoon from 1930 May reveal one institution that did it.I think it's recent, the patina is too put on and no one said "weaponize" in 1930. It's a lot of fun in any case.
In a 1957 interview, the German V2 rocket scientist Wernher von Braun, by then working for the Americans, said that the US’s ballistic missile programme originated with a decision to weaponise an existing army rocket. Other early uses of the word in military discussions spoke of weaponising anthrax (1954: turning a disease into a reliable battlefield weapon), or weaponising a one-man helicopter (1958: developing one that would work reliably).And in the PDF at this [Link] we have some usage graphs.
This looks like f p as dean might say."f p" ? and who's "dean"
And to claim it's from 1930... WowIt isn't, even if they hadn't laid on the "era" a foot thick, no one said "weaponized" in 1930. Someone playing predictive programming games looks like to me any why is anyone's guess. Fun piece of animation in any case.
deanYeh India also got peeved off at the psycho retards and yheir fake media screaming "India variant" "Everyone in India is dying because of India Variant" so the Indian Govt came out and said it was all bullshit so the psycho retards then changed the name to "delta Variant"India Could Sentence WHO Chief Scientist to Death for Misleading Over Ivermectin and Killing Indians [Link]It's good see that someone has, "The Dep't of Seriously Not F*ckin' Around" going on . . .
Yeah India also got peeved off at the psycho retards and their fake media screaming "India variant" "Everyone in India is dying because of India Variant" so the Indian Govt came out and said it was all bullshit so the psycho retards then changed the name to "delta Variant"Good, glad to see some people with some real conjones properly kicking some lame-assed ass . . . 'bout bloody time.
Do you really want to know the kinds of covenants they made with the "devil"?Sure, the dark links are always informative if difficult reads . . .
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.Sun Tzu, Art of War.
This is just one story of a Jesuit occultist slave. I have collected many othersI think I read those earlier. The Jesuits are a special bunch, Rappoport talked about them 15-20 years ago as being the worst of the worst but I never could find much.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.RC
Comment: Here it is on NewsReal's Rumble channel: