Since the creator of the new COVID saliva test, Andrew Brooks, died on Saturday at age 51, I figured this is an appropriate time to talk about the PCR test created by biochemist Kary Mullis [for which he won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993], who died three months before the pandemic started.
NOTE: Mullis was a BIOCHEMIST, who won a Nobel Prize in CHEMISTRY...he was not a MEDICAL DOCTOR, and did not win a Nobel Prize in MEDICINE. I'm not saying that to downplay his contribution to science. What I'm saying is the PCR test was intended to be a tool used in BIOCHEMICAL analyses of microscopic strands of DNA that needed amplification in order to be studied - NOT a tool to be used to diagnose that a person has a significant level of a specific virus or disease. The purpose of the PCR test is merely to amplify the VERY SMALL, in order to make it observable - as outlined below.
This is what Mullis had to say about the PCR test being used to diagnose a person with having a virus - straight from his own mouth:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/zbU7X38zfwsY^ As he directly states, the PCR test does NOT confirm a person is positive with a virus. It merely amplifies the very small, to produce something measurable. It amplifies single molecules upwards of a million or even a billion times larger. Even billions.
This is why we have gone from a pandemic to a "case-demic", with all the talk about asymptotic carriers, as if COVID [which is the same micron length as the normal seasonal influenza] is some magical virus that somehow spreads from people who have no symptoms, to others, making them seriously ill or even causing them to die, while the person who passed COVID to them never had as much as a cough.
Because Covid-19 is some magical virus, unlike any virus in the history of humanity, in its contamination and spread, right?
Now check out this bogus, politically biased "fact check":
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pcr/fact-check-inventor-of-method-used-to-test-for-Covid-19-didnt-say-it-cant-be-used-in-virus-detection-idUSKBN24420XFirst, the title:
Fact check: Inventor of method used to test for COVID-19 didn’t say it can’t be used in virus detection
[well - DUH. He said it shouldn't be RELIED ON for such use. He didn't deny it is TECHNICALLY possible.
]
Now check their "fact checking", rife with fallacies:
The context around the quote shows Lauritsen is not saying PCR tests do not work. Instead, he is clarifying that PCR identifies substances qualitatively not quantitatively, detecting the genetic sequences of viruses, but not the viruses themselves: “PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.”
Even if Mullis had voiced a similar statement before his death in 2019, this quote does not mean the PCR test is unable to detect the presence of SARS-CoV-2 - the virus that causes COVID-19 - rather that it cannot determine whether the individual tested is infectious.
^ Even the biased fact checker is admitting in that last sentence that the test is ultimately yielding positive results for a bunch of people who aren't even infectious!
I'll rephrase EXACTLY the spirit of what that analysis said:
"The PCR test doesn't prove a person has any high QUANTITY of a virus or viral load in their body, but they still MAY be infectious."
No sh*t, LOL. That's EXACTLY what "COVID deniers" or PCR test skeptics, or whatever the name given to those of us who actually think critically on things, have been saying:
The PCR tests for COVID yielding positives do NOT mean that a person has COVID! It merely means they had any number of potential forms of contact with COVID DNA, including to but not limited to:
- Being in the same room as a person who has or had COVID.
- Having COVID antibodies in their body, due to merely breathing the same air as a person who has been in contact with COVID DNA.
- Having a microscopic level of the COVID virus in their body - a viral load their body can beat in a matter of hours or even minutes. Have you ever been in close proximity to someone sick, but not get sick yourself? Your body WOULD have been exposed to that person's sickness, but your immune system would have nipped it in the bud before the sickness got a foothold. The PCR test could produce a positive result in that case, because it can magnify microscopic virus DNA in your body billions of times - showing that you are carrying harmless levels of a virus in your body, but are nevertheless carrying it, making you technically "positive".
- Having DEAD Covid-19 virus DNA in their bodies.
All of which are then amplified by whatever level the PCR test is set up to amplify it by - literally up to BILLIONS Of TIMES AMPLIFICATION, thus yielding "positive" COVID PCR test results in completely asymptotic people who merely have harmless microscopic levels of COVID DNA in their bodies, who are then scared that they are going to die based on a complete misuse of this test!
The most reprehensible example above would be people who contracted Covid-19, beat it, and then test positive at a later date because they have Covid-19 antibodies in their body, or even dead Covid-19 DNA cells.
In this example, thousands - I would actually bet millions - of Covid-19 positive test results are actually nothing more than signs of herd immunity to Covid-19 emerging! So carrying Covid-19 dead virus cells that your body effectively killed, is being politicized to sell the rushed Covid-19 mRNA vaccine, when we should all be reducing our worries over Covid-19, as we are gradually developing herd immunity to this virus.
That's why you have cases of people who tested positive for COVID, then tested negative within a matter of hours, despite being tested in the exact same environment, as Elon Musk stated on Twitter happened to him, as well as many others.
What a disgrace, to misuse a test like this.
And what kind of "fact check" ADMITS the statement in question is "misleading", then ADMITS exactly the same statement - literally what I said in this thread. Reiterated again:
Yes, the PCR test can - and likely will - yield positive Covid-19 results for anyone who is positive. It will also yield, over time, thousands or even MILLIONS of false positives based on people who had Covid-19 months ago, and still have microscopic levels of the virus in their bodies.
Could this be any more of a joke?
RIP Kary Mullis [biochemist, who won the Nobel Prize in 1993 for creating the PCR test].
RIP Andrew Brooks [doctor, who created the saliva-based Covid-19 test].
Reporting those deaths is not to imply a conspiracy. But the timing of the deaths of both men is very convenient. But hey - coincidences happen.
But the use of the PCR test with million to billion times amplification, ultimately yielding masses of false positives, is complete scientific credulity. Scaring thousands of people who literally breathed the same AIR as people who had and BEAT Covid-19. In fact, I'd even say that many people who test "positive" for Covid-19 are simply people who had and beat it, and are simply carriers of dead Covid-19 virus cells.
This proves the concept of an "asymptotic carrier" is largely hysteria solely intended to keep people living in fear of COVID. It also proves that masks covering the faces of healthy people does next to nothing. Locking down healthy people does next to nothing.
Ultimately, if we are SHOWING SYMPTOMS, we should self-isolate until we are recovered. You know...like we should when we are sick with ANYTHING contagious!
I love how now that it's been proven that masks and lock-downs do virtually nothing, that demands to double down on that strategy are being proposed. LMAO, some people just refuse to admit that they were wrong, and don't realize that doubling down on stupidity merely makes them lose whatever credibility they still have left.
