I was wandering about the actual testing what it exactly are they testing for because I heard they stick some kind of swab up your nose does that even detect any kind of virus I am just curious seems they are testing for a virus that does not even exist and how do the define it as positive
top of page
bottom of page
This is a great read about the PCR test and how utterly meaningless the results are.
Thanks Mick. Interesting analogy!
by way of analogy this tale may help
A partially sighted man thinks he may have an infestation of bluebottles in his kitchen. He has not heard them buzzing about but Somebody told him he ought to check anyhow.
He knows it is unlikely he will catch any live bluebottles they are much too quick but he thinks he may find some remnants or perhaps a complete specimen on his floor near where a spider lives, if he is lucky.
He takes a dustpan and sweeps the probable corner of his kitchen and tips the debris into a pot.
Of course he cannot see any flies in the pot and he suspects there may be some bits of food mixed in with whatever else is there too.
Despite his poor vision he is optimistic because his friend Kerry has invented a machine which can sort and magnify small particles and make the amount double.
First the machine loads a template that Somebody gave him to identify bluebottles, it then sticks the pieces together to make a whole specimen. The machine now doubles the amount.
The man shines a bright light on the doubled amount but cannot see anything.
He doubles it again and again and at somewhere around 30 to 40 times later (he lost count) he sees the characteristic metallic blue he was looking for.
He may have a problem. There appear to be over 10 billion flies in his kitchen?
No, thinking on this carefully he realises that the test he just conducted was not really a test at all but a manufacturing process!
The result will depend on how many times he magnifies the specimen. It will also depend on the template to start with.
Good job he had a reliable template that Somebody had made from a captured bluebottle.
He concludes that rather than worry about phantom bluebottles it would be better to just open the windows.
It is summer after all and they can just buzz in and out again.
It's what bluebottles do every summer.
I have an interesting 'case' which I'd be interested to hear opinions on. One of my sister's colleagues was recently rushed into hospital with breathing problems. She's been in since Friday and wired up to all sorts of equipment. The suspicious thing is that she's tested negative for the virus but they KEEP testing her. Almost like they WANT a positive result 🤔 It's now believed that she had a massive asthma attack and another colleague observed that she's had a cough for a while. My sister's employer is also now sending out people to spot check if staff are wearing their masks during their (very long) shifts (in retail).🤔...Thoughts?
What a nice coincidence for this plandemic strategy that the inventor of pcr died few months before all of this started.
The inventor of the RTPCR test Kary Mullis died last year. He won a Nobel Prize for the test. It was intended to amplify cancer cells for research purposes. He had been warning it should never be used to diagnose infectious disease. It has been used for previous so called pandemics which turned out to be false pandemics such as H1N1 (swine flu), whooping cough, SARS and also the HIV debacle where so many people were falsely diagnosed with HIV and given dangerous drugs which killed them. At higher immunities can be as much as 90 per cent false positive rate.
The most common test used by the general population is the PCR test (otherwise known as Pillar 2, I think). This is the swab test with the long stick that the testers push up peoples’ noses. Apparently it is a very unsatisfactory method for measuring the virus because the swab sample is magnified more than 30 times, resulting in measurements of tiny traces of dead Coronavirus cells. In other words, someone may have contracted the virus months before but will still test positive with a flawed PCR test today, this is known as a false positive and I would suspect that at least a third of recent ‘new cases’ fall into this category. Proper scientists like Carl Heneghan have pointed out that the testing sites are very haphazard, not reaching laboratory standards, and that the tests are never repeated to double check that the positive result is genuine. Apart from all that, it’s a perfect test!