Hittade en jättebra artikel om PCR här:
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus
Den skrevs precis i början av fejkpandemin, och handlar om hur PCR fungerar, och hur tekniken har approprierats som woodo-diagnosmetod för HIV och nu på senare tid för covid.
Författaren har intervjuat ett antal kunniga akademiker, inklusive Kari Mullis före hans död. Kan verkligen rekommendera att läsa hela artikeln.
Men det jag tänkte citera är är att artikeln tar upp något så ovanligt som ett praktiskt experiment från verkligheten, som synbarligen av misstag smög sig in i en covid-studie, och som ger ytterligare en fingervisning om hur värdelöst det här sk testet faktiskt är:
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus
Den skrevs precis i början av fejkpandemin, och handlar om hur PCR fungerar, och hur tekniken har approprierats som woodo-diagnosmetod för HIV och nu på senare tid för covid.
Författaren har intervjuat ett antal kunniga akademiker, inklusive Kari Mullis före hans död. Kan verkligen rekommendera att läsa hela artikeln.
Men det jag tänkte citera är är att artikeln tar upp något så ovanligt som ett praktiskt experiment från verkligheten, som synbarligen av misstag smög sig in i en covid-studie, och som ger ytterligare en fingervisning om hur värdelöst det här sk testet faktiskt är:
Citat:
“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.”
[...]
“I've been quoting Alice in Wonderland a lot recently,” David says, “because it’s the only way I can wrap my head around it. Alice said: “Sometimes I can believe six impossible things before breakfast!”
“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.”
[...]
“I've been quoting Alice in Wonderland a lot recently,” David says, “because it’s the only way I can wrap my head around it. Alice said: “Sometimes I can believe six impossible things before breakfast!”
