Posted on 03/28/2025 1:09:54 AM PDT by ransomnote
https://x.com/TonySeruga/status/1890926738458517785
Tony Seruga
@TonySeruga
·
Feb 15
I warned this was going to happen and they are on track.Labcorp has ramped up FAKE fraudulent Bird Flu tests in the U.S.
Once again, we are literally using PCR process to create pandemics on demand.
PCR is not a diagnostic test, it is a DNA amplification PROCESS. Nothing more.
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Labcorp has ramped up FAKE fraudulent Bird Flu tests in the U.S. | the PCR process is not a diagnostic test, but is used to create pandemics on demand. , Brooklyn Attitude wrote: “PCR is not a diagnostic test, it is a DNA amplification PROCESS. Nothing more.”
Not true. PCR is used as a diagnostic tool because it can detect the presence of DNA specific to a pathogen, therefore if the DNA is present the pathogen (target DNA) is present. That is about as simple as I can explain it. You can also tell how much of the target DNA is present by how many copy cycles it takes to give a detectable signal. If it takes a large number of cycles there was very little of the pathogen. If it only takes a few there a lot of the infectious organism is present. Back when I started doing PCR it was easy to get false positive results, these days it is much easier because there are computer programs to help identify the right primers/temperatures/cycle times etc.aaaaaaaaa
~~~~~
ransomnote: You can inhale pathogens in a car ride to the doctors office, where your throat is swabbed and the swab is tested for pathogens. The fact that there were pathogens on the swab doesn't mean you were actually sick.
Your immune system can fight off an illness without becoming ill - but the PCR would say you had pathogens so you're sick. You could have been exposed weeks ago and the pathogen is still in your body, or you were sick weeks ago and the pathogen is still in your body, giving you a false diagnosis of 'Covid' and all the baggage that comes with it.
The presence of the pathogen CAN mean illness or it can mean exposure of negligible amounts, recovery from illness weeks ago, substantial exposure your immune system defeats. The PCR is not appropriate for diagnostic purposes, according to inventor Kary Mullis.
The powers that be determind that if you had a positive covid 'test' then if you died for any reason in the next 60 days, it was 'Covid.'
We went through a fake pandemic with a fake test they used to control the narrative.
Fauci said anything more than 25 cycles meant only nucleotides were left in the sample. Until the 'vaccine' was released, the CDC was running PCR tests at 40 cycles (they knew it was too high). Then when the vax came out, PCR 'tests' were run at 25 cycles for unvaccinated, and 40 cycles for 'vaccinated'. Make that make sense.
"Then, the PCR assay has limits because if subjected to too many cycles (centrifuge) the samples in question just break down to building blocks of genetic material. There's a clip of Anthony Fauci saying dismissively, "Well, anything over 25 cycles" would just result in building blocks of material, nothing that could be identifiable."
The 'building blocks' are called nucleotides. Genetic material like RNA is made up of strands of individual nucleotides. If cycled at more than 25 cycles, the PCR breaks genetic material down to the point it can't be identified.
During the Plandemic, the PCR 'test' was run at 40 cycles. They knew that was too high to render valid results. All smoke and mirrors.
The presence of only a few pathogens in a sample will either not result in a positive test or will require a very large number of cycles to give a positive. That is why there are guidelines on how many cycles are run for a real infection. Beyond that number the result is considered an artifact and not valid.
The assay eliminates the human response to whatever is present. The human response is either illness or health. Presence doesn’t mean ‘illness’ by any definition. This assay was to identify pathogens present in too few a number to be identified by other means.
The CDC had the PCR test, which was not based on the COvid virus, but on a ‘related corona virus’ run at 40 cycles until the ‘vaccine’ was released, and then it had the C19 PCR test run at 25 cycles for the unvaccinated only. The vaccinated continued to have their PCR’s run at 40 cycles (meaningless results).
A Federal Judge just declared that the PCR tests are valid.
“The assay eliminates the human response to whatever is present. The human response is either illness or health. Presence doesn’t mean ‘illness’ by any definition.”
That’s true, that’s why responsible physicians don’t order PCR tests for people who are not sick or showing symptoms typical of infection with a suspected pathogen. I’m not going to defend the use of PCR for the Covid scamdemic. The guidelines and cycle number the CDC recommended were ridiculous.
In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Labcorp has ramped up FAKE fraudulent Bird Flu tests in the U.S. | the PCR process is not a diagnostic test, but is used to create pandemics on demand. , Brooklyn Attitude wrote: “The assay eliminates the human response to whatever is present. The human response is either illness or health. Presence doesn’t mean ‘illness’ by any definition.”
That’s true, that’s why responsible physicians don’t order PCR tests for people who are not sick or showing symptoms typical of infection with a suspected pathogen. I’m not going to defend the use of PCR for the Covid scamdemic. The guidelines and cycle number the CDC recommended were ridiculous.
That’s true, that’s why responsible physicians don’t order PCR tests for people who are not sick or showing symptoms typical of infection with a suspected pathogen.
The PCR does not indicate cause - it was designed to indicate 'minute existance' in a sample, and if obtained from swabs, it can falsely identify any number of irrelevant pathogens, particularly ones the immune system defeats. Which means it's not a diagnostic tool
When I had 4 months of rib-cracking coughing and went from doctor, to doctor, receiving stronger and stronger prescriptions to the point that the next doctor said I'd gone through all prescriptions below the level of AIDS drugs, and AIDS drugs were next. I could have had a PCR, and a respiratory virus (or two) could have been detected, but whatever viruses an PCR assay could amplify/exaggerate for study, they would not have been the cause of my illness.
I accidentally stumbled upon a pulmonary specialist who told me and didn't need antibiotics, and didn't have an infection. He said my lungs were inflammed and prescribed anti-inflammatory inhalers etc. Problem solved.
So the PCR takes inventory in an exaggerated manner, but does not indicate what caused any collection of symptoms present.
“The PCR does not indicate cause - it was designed to indicate ‘minute existance’ in a sample, and if obtained from swabs, it can falsely identify any number of irrelevant pathogens, particularly ones the immune system defeats.”
By your definition there are no diagnostic tests for microbial infections. The throat is not sterile. There are ALWAYS bacteria there, but when you have an infection the numbers of the pathogen are always MUCH greater than the background. Before PCR, throat swab were used to spread samples onto growth media to see what grew and then identify it and determine what antibiotics (if any) to which it is resistant. PCR does the same thing in a different way, only faster and more definitively. When diagnosing a throat infection the non pathogenic bacteria the “immune system can defeat” are likely low in number and will not be detected in the early cycles like the organism causing the infection. PCR can and is used to amplify minute quantities (generally DNA oligos for cloning), but thats not usually how it’s used in infectious disease diagnostics.
| In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Labcorp has ramped up FAKE fraudulent Bird Flu tests in the U.S. | the PCR process is not a diagnostic test, but is used to create pandemics on demand. , Brooklyn Attitude wrote: |
“The PCR does not indicate cause - it was designed to indicate ‘minute existance’ in a sample, and if obtained from swabs, it can falsely identify any number of irrelevant pathogens, particularly ones the immune system defeats.” By your definition there are no diagnostic tests for microbial infections. The throat is not sterile. There are ALWAYS bacteria there, but when you have an infection the numbers of the pathogen are always MUCH greater than the background. ~~~ ransomnote: Covid used the nasal swab. Maybe 'often greater' than background, with exceptions. Onset and departing viral infections have less than background. I think it should be put forward that the PCR and any other 'guestimate' technology helps doctors guess better if properly trained and paired with symptoms, but that it is not accurate enough to lockdown or deny treatment, or impose Remdesivere or declare a pandemic. It's more a screening tool, not a definitive diagnostic test. Before PCR, throat swab were used to spread samples onto growth media to see what grew and then identify it and determine what antibiotics (if any) to which it is resistant. PCR does the same thing in a different way, only faster and more definitively. ~~~ ransomnote: I would not say 'more definitively' but would agree faster. This assay is best used in low risk situtuations, which could still miss serious contagions, because it's too vague for high stakes. Onset has low presence but can be rationalized as not present 'enough' as can resolution, or simple exposure. When diagnosing a throat infection the non pathogenic bacteria the “immune system can defeat” are likely low in number and will not be detected in the early cycles like the organism causing the infection. PCR can and is used to amplify minute quantities (generally DNA oligos for cloning), but thats not usually how it’s used in infectious disease diagnostics. ~~~ The Pharmas and CDC had time to isolate the Covid virus to perform definitive testing, but they didn't. Instead they pushed the belief that the PCR was a reliable diagnostic tool. The culture and terminology needs to change. PCR should be discussed for use and offered to patients based on its potential to screen but not to diagnose. |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
