Template:Thepcrtest: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
{{#ev:youtube|V1Im7jsW9_Y|320|right|The PCR test is only testing for RNA debris. It is not reliable for diagnoses or verification for the presence of a particular virus. We have stated for sometime that viruses are nothing more than exosomes which your body produces and sheds in vast numbers daily. We call foreign exosomes that might produce harmful reactions ''viruses''. If this is true, and it is, you not only can "catch" disease you can "catch" the cure in the form of exosome antibodies. 9:04 min}} | {{#ev:youtube|V1Im7jsW9_Y|320|right|The PCR test is only testing for RNA debris. It is not reliable for diagnoses or verification for the presence of a particular virus. We have stated for sometime that viruses are nothing more than exosomes which your body produces and sheds in vast numbers daily. We call foreign exosomes that might produce harmful reactions ''viruses''. If this is true, and it is, you not only can "catch" disease you can "catch" the cure in the form of exosome antibodies. 9:04 min}} | ||
| Line 14: | Line 13: | ||
Scientists have calculated the false positive rate with the PCR Test<Ref name="pcr"></Ref> for asymptomatic patients at 80%! The data is little more than a guess and the statics tell you nothing since so many people without symptoms or mild cases are never even tested with any test nor counted when estimating death rates. | Scientists have calculated the false positive rate with the PCR Test<Ref name="pcr"></Ref> for asymptomatic patients at 80%! The data is little more than a guess and the statics tell you nothing since so many people without symptoms or mild cases are never even tested with any test nor counted when estimating death rates. | ||
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin-left: 10px;" width="35%" | |||
| <html><iframe align="right" width="320" height="180" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="border: none;"src="https://rumble.com/embed/v94z1b/?pub=jidyb" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></html> | |||
'''Comments''' Dr. Karry Mullis, inventor of the PCR test, says they should not be used for a virus test. | |||
|- | |||
|} | |||
Everyone wants to believe testing settles the issue as to being infected or not. An accurate dependable test that is virus-specific was still in development in the early stages of the pandemic. Without purification and characterization of virus particles of the RNA there is no proof that a virus is present. The common PCR<Ref name="pcr"></Ref> test (polymerase chain reaction) gives many false positives and is not RNA specific. If you're sick stay home, avoid contact, treat as most flu infection or call your health provider. | Everyone wants to believe testing settles the issue as to being infected or not. An accurate dependable test that is virus-specific was still in development in the early stages of the pandemic. Without purification and characterization of virus particles of the RNA there is no proof that a virus is present. The common PCR<Ref name="pcr"></Ref> test (polymerase chain reaction) gives many false positives and is not RNA specific. If you're sick stay home, avoid contact, treat as most flu infection or call your health provider. | ||
Revision as of 20:00, 3 October 2021
The Test
David Crowe, an expert in global infections such as SARS, Ebola, and flu, sees the coronavirus panic as an irrational panic, based on an unproven RNA test called “polymerase chain reaction” (PCR).[1]
The TEST that never was
- "The coronavirus test is based on PCR,[1] a manufacturing technique. When used as a test, it does not produce a positive/negative [actually this would be better described as "presence or absence" of the amplified gene product] result, but simply the number of cycles required to detect genetic material. The division between positive and negative is an arbitrary number of cycles chosen by the testers. If positive means infected and negative means uninfected, then there are cases of people going from infected to uninfected and back to infected again in a couple of days."
- "The world is suffering from a massive delusion based on the belief that a test for RNA is a test for a deadly new virus... but that is not proof that the RNA is from a virus. Without purification and characterization of virus particles, it cannot be accepted that an RNA test is proof that a virus is present."
Scientists have calculated the false positive rate with the PCR Test[1] for asymptomatic patients at 80%! The data is little more than a guess and the statics tell you nothing since so many people without symptoms or mild cases are never even tested with any test nor counted when estimating death rates.
|
Comments Dr. Karry Mullis, inventor of the PCR test, says they should not be used for a virus test. |
Everyone wants to believe testing settles the issue as to being infected or not. An accurate dependable test that is virus-specific was still in development in the early stages of the pandemic. Without purification and characterization of virus particles of the RNA there is no proof that a virus is present. The common PCR[1] test (polymerase chain reaction) gives many false positives and is not RNA specific. If you're sick stay home, avoid contact, treat as most flu infection or call your health provider.
Molecular assays test
The new in-house developed molecular assays test was a new and supposedly improved test but was not that useful either.
Asked how well the new tests work, Mayo Clinic internist and biostatistician Dr. Colin West said: "The most honest answer is, we don't really know."
Most of the 30 or so lab-based rapid-detection tests that detect genetic traces of the virus were validated using 30 “contrived” samples of the novel coronavirus — not a clinical trial. Even less information is available about the tests that look for the presence of antibodies in blood samples. There was little evidence that the tests work well yet decision effecting the well being, including "life, liberty, and the oursuit of happiness" of millions was being decided by politicians.
“Everybody is focused on how many tests will be out there. No one is really focusing on quality. ... We need to have the right data, not just more data.” said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.
In the Blood
The real test that was needed was a serology which tests the Blood for antigens and, more important antibodies. Such tests were developed by early March. By April results were verifying what was well known back in February, that many more people were already exposed and producing antibodies and slowing the progress of the COVID virus. The dire and miscalculated death tolls were being rolled back and herd immunity was a reachable goal long before a vaccine could be developed.
Couple this new data that was becoming more evident day by day and the success of the use HCQ with a mixture of antibiotics, zinc and other vitamins deaths from the virus was decreasing.
But Dr. Fauci continued to resist, delay, and play down what had already proven to be effective in protecting patience and actually in slowing the spread of the virus.