Oct 28, 2022·edited Oct 28, 2022Liked by dawnfrench
I am well familiar with the history of the PCR and all of its problems. I would like to address this:
<< the gold standard of virus isolation is cell culture, according to jeremy hammond. and jeff green (whom we met in part two-b) weighs in as well >>
First, the statement is not true. "Cell culture" is in no way a scientific process, as there are no controls used in any of the published S-C-2 experiments and the experiments are not repeatable; and when controls are used, the same cytopathic effects are seen with or without inoculation of alleged, unpure virus-containing material (such as BALF or a nose swab, which contain endless random cellular debris from a body excreting its own toxins especially if it is symptomatic and even if not).
Second, the use of the term "gold standard" is a misappropriation of a term introduced by the inventor, Kary Mullis, not for the PCR but what would be the gold standard for use of the PCR in a diganostic setting. While Mullis was clear that the PCR "can find anything in anyone," which he felt was evocative of Buddhist philosophy, Mullis used "gold standard" as a specific term of art.
What he meant was that the first element of the "gold standard" is establishing that the thing sought (what the primers graft to) is the thing responsible for the problem. To declare "gold standard" primers, one would need to have found and identified the pathogen and confirmed its actual disease-causing effects. "Cell culture" does none of this and is so messy as to be useless and irrelevant.
There would also need to be studies indicating the pathogenic amount, so that a correct cycle threshold could be set. This has never been done, and so there is no basis to set the Ct of the PCR at any level — especially 35 to 45, which are past the absolute limit of detection (which is one molecule of target at Ct 35).
Green among other writers demonstrates no knowledge of this problem, or willful ignorance, and does not even identify it as a concern — that the thing sought by the PCR has never been shown to come from a virus, match viral genetic code, or cause disease. This is the very essence of PCR and virus fraud.
The "sarscov2" PCR is programmed to look for something that has no properties of the claimed virus. It's merely a strip of genetic code of unknown provenance. What we do know is that cell culture is a broth of many forms of genetic matter crumbled into a puddle, left to rot, and then "assembled" into a theoretical model using megatenomics, with no evidence that the "sequence" constructed by the computer script has anything to do with virus.
That is because there is no known virus to verify against, or to test whether it causes the disease that is claimed to cause.
Proponents of this genetic scrapple are really arguing for the future of genetic medicine as the all-knowing solution; they are claiming that medicine is now "beyond biology" and into the realm of genomics and that is good enough. And the result is that if the PCR latches onto one single mismatched molecule, someone can be said to be a "confirmed case" of covid-19, a set of symptoms that have never been shown to have any relationship to SARS-CoV-2 or any virus, ever.
I am surprised this charade goes on, but there's a sucker born every second these days, and people want to worship the virus like it's Elvis.
I am well familiar with the history of the PCR and all of its problems. I would like to address this:
<< the gold standard of virus isolation is cell culture, according to jeremy hammond. and jeff green (whom we met in part two-b) weighs in as well >>
First, the statement is not true. "Cell culture" is in no way a scientific process, as there are no controls used in any of the published S-C-2 experiments and the experiments are not repeatable; and when controls are used, the same cytopathic effects are seen with or without inoculation of alleged, unpure virus-containing material (such as BALF or a nose swab, which contain endless random cellular debris from a body excreting its own toxins especially if it is symptomatic and even if not).
Second, the use of the term "gold standard" is a misappropriation of a term introduced by the inventor, Kary Mullis, not for the PCR but what would be the gold standard for use of the PCR in a diganostic setting. While Mullis was clear that the PCR "can find anything in anyone," which he felt was evocative of Buddhist philosophy, Mullis used "gold standard" as a specific term of art.
What he meant was that the first element of the "gold standard" is establishing that the thing sought (what the primers graft to) is the thing responsible for the problem. To declare "gold standard" primers, one would need to have found and identified the pathogen and confirmed its actual disease-causing effects. "Cell culture" does none of this and is so messy as to be useless and irrelevant.
There would also need to be studies indicating the pathogenic amount, so that a correct cycle threshold could be set. This has never been done, and so there is no basis to set the Ct of the PCR at any level — especially 35 to 45, which are past the absolute limit of detection (which is one molecule of target at Ct 35).
Green among other writers demonstrates no knowledge of this problem, or willful ignorance, and does not even identify it as a concern — that the thing sought by the PCR has never been shown to come from a virus, match viral genetic code, or cause disease. This is the very essence of PCR and virus fraud.
The "sarscov2" PCR is programmed to look for something that has no properties of the claimed virus. It's merely a strip of genetic code of unknown provenance. What we do know is that cell culture is a broth of many forms of genetic matter crumbled into a puddle, left to rot, and then "assembled" into a theoretical model using megatenomics, with no evidence that the "sequence" constructed by the computer script has anything to do with virus.
That is because there is no known virus to verify against, or to test whether it causes the disease that is claimed to cause.
Proponents of this genetic scrapple are really arguing for the future of genetic medicine as the all-knowing solution; they are claiming that medicine is now "beyond biology" and into the realm of genomics and that is good enough. And the result is that if the PCR latches onto one single mismatched molecule, someone can be said to be a "confirmed case" of covid-19, a set of symptoms that have never been shown to have any relationship to SARS-CoV-2 or any virus, ever.
I am surprised this charade goes on, but there's a sucker born every second these days, and people want to worship the virus like it's Elvis.