Replies

From the article:

In the US, we have all but abandoned classical diagnostic medicine in favor of biotech, or lab result medicine. This has been going on for a long time and is a dangerous turning. The “Corona test” is named with characteristic tech-tedium: “CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.” That means it is a needle in a DNA haystack test. A PCR test.

It finds fragments, nucleic acids. From an email from Kary Mullis, to the widow of boxer Tommy Morrison, whose career and life were destroyed by an “HIV test,” and who litigated ferociously for years, against test manufacturers, Dr. Mullis wrote, on May 7, 2013:

“PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment. “

If things were done right, “infection” would be a far cry from a positive PCR test.

“You have to have a whopping amount of any organism to cause symptoms. Huge amounts of it,” Dr. David Rasnick, bio-chemist, protease developer, and former founder of an EM lab called Viral Forensics told me. “You don’t start with testing; you start with listening to the lungs. I’m skeptical that a PRC test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine. 30% of your infected cells have been killed before you show symptoms. By the time you show symptoms…the dead cells are generating the symptoms.”

I asked Dr. Rasnick what advice he has for people who want to be tested for COVID-19.
“Don’t do it, I say, when people ask me,” he replies. “No healthy person should be tested. It means nothing but it can destroy your life, make you absolutely miserable.”
One of the countless head-spinning mysteries of this whole Corona Situation has been the advent of famous people, from Tom Hanks and his wife, to Sophie Trudeau, to Prince Charles announcing they had “tested positive” for COVID-19 and were self-quarantining. In all these famous-powerful people cases, the symptoms were either non-existent or mild. Why, one wondered, did they make such hay about it? The British Royals, especially, seemed to contradict their ethos of secrecy in this case. So what did it mean? It signaled, if anything, that COVID-19 is not all that deadly. That the virus can be present without causing the disease. That host factors matter. And that being “positive” for COVID-19 is neither a PR death sentence nor an actual death sentence. Maybe in their elite and esoteric language, it means some kind of prestige, or sacrament to a Pagan Virus Deity. Who knows? In the case of the Trudeau, Sophie tested positive, and had symptoms, while her husband Justin, the Prime Minister, never got sick, and was never tested. (He didn’t want to appear privileged; Not everybody can get tested in Canada, you must have symptoms.)

We do live now in a world dominated by a Corona virus, as my friend Kevin Corbett, a retired nurse in the UK puts it, “with knobs on it.” Shrek-Green is the color that was chosen. We’re lost in a simulation, seeking to grab hold of “truth” and reality. One way that I do that is to grab hold of words, slow them down, and analyze them. Globalists love to weaponize words and make spells out of them. Hypnotics. To this end, they invent new words, and force you to use them and live them. Words like “Corona Virus,” and “Social Distancing.” “COVID-19.” “Tested Positive.”

“.....What do we mean when we say somebody has ‘tested positive’...

“perhaps some kind FReeper would write down what the answer is.”

There’s a lot of excess verbiage in that article, so if one doesn’t read it all (or doesn’t really much understand it all) it’s easy to miss - but near the end one finds that’s the point of the article: we don’t really know what a positive test is.

I don’t know how much of the article you were able to follow, but here are some of the key things. We don’t really test for the virus per se; we test for segments of genetic material that indicate the presence of segments of proteins (supposedly) unique to the virus.

In order to detect that genetic material, we have to increase the amount present - we do that by a form of (for want of a better word) “molecular Xeroxing” called PCR. Every time you run a cycle in PCR, you double the amount of material present - for another crude analogy, recall the movie “Blow Up” where a guy kept increasing the size of a portion of a photograph until he could detect a particular detail.

For the COVID test, they have to do somewhere between 30 and 40 “doublings” in order to say they’ve detected evidence for the suspect proteins (and hence, presumably, the virus).

Problem #1: it doesn’t seem to be clear how many doublings are a reliable indicator for a positive test, and moreover, whether everybody is using the same standard - what might be a negative result in country A could be a positive result in country B.

Problem #2: it’s not clear why any particular number of doublings should be the threshold for a positive test. Why should no detectable material after 34 doublings be negative, and some detectable material after 35 doublings be positive?

Problem #3: You have to accept that the nucleic acid segments targeted as indicators of COVID-19 proteins really are unique to that virus and that virus only. (I have no idea how reasonable an assumption that is - but they are targeting only a piece of the protein structure, not the entire thing, and lots of these viruses have somewhat related proteins).

Problem #4: unstated in the article, but well-known in the business - PCR is really sensitive to accidental contamination - a little speck on you “original photograph” can become a giant blob if you enlarge it enough times.