The palace of misdirection

My purpose in writing this is to link to Jon Rappoport, who today is republishing an article called Smoking Gun: Fauci states COVID PCR test gas fatal flaw; confession from the “beloved” expert of experts.

This is important information, but I think that Rappoport is missing a critical element. Anthony Fauci has stated, as cited by Jon,

“…If you get [perform the test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”

Fauci is not lying here. He is misdirecting. He’s admitting here that replication cycles in excess of 35 using the PCR machine destroy the credibility of the results.*** He’s leaving out some critical words: “for its intended purpose.” The PCR machine test is an amazing tool process that can be used to compare strands of DNA and RNA, and tell us if the strands match or not. That’s the limit of its usefulness, but it has dramatically changed our lives, opened wide the field of law enforcement, and many others. It is the basis for “DNA evidence” that is now so widespread and talked about everywhere. This amazing invention can find one grain of sand from all the sand on all of the California beaches.

But the PCR machine test cannot diagnose disease. Just for sake of argument, let’s say that there really is such a thing as the SARS-CoV-2 virus or the “Delta variant.” If such a thing existed, it would easily spread, and would probably turn up in all of us. How can we stop the spread of something so small that we cannot see it? We’d all have to live in isolation tents.

But it would not make us sick. Official virology tells us that to be infected with a viral disease, we need a very large “viral load,” not one or two but millions upon millions of the little fellows to become ill. So finding just one, which is all the PCR (purportedly) can do, means nothing. (PCR is not looking for a virus anyway, but let’s keep this as simple as possible.)

So watch Anthony do his magic. He’s saying that amplification cycles over 35 yield unreliable results. He is IMPLYING that cycles under 35 are accurate. That is professional misdirection. He takes us 80% of the way, and let us finish and close on our own. The PCR machine test as used done is inaccurate at all levels of amplification. All positive tests are false positives, all negative results are false negatives.

The PCR machine test is being misused to tell the a lie – that we having a pandemic. We’re not. But without that misused machine, test they could not have pulled that off.

There’s other lies going on, of course, how they report cases, how they do death certificates, how they blame Covid for everything they can stick it to. There’s no science behind lock downs, masking, or distancing. Viruses, if they even exist (I think not), are not alive, cannot stay infectious for 14 days, cannot be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers. It’s a giant web of lies, a house of cards held together by misuse of Kary Mullis’ amazing invention


***Mullis said, if I recall correctly, that machine results in excess of 25 amplifications become less and less reliable, and others have said that by the time they reach 35 amps, are nothing but noise. A study by Rita Jaafar, et al, published in Oxford Academic, claimed that by the time 35 cycles are reached, results are <3% reliable. This would be for, I assume, the machine’s intended use, and not as used in the fake pandemic.

42 thoughts on “The palace of misdirection

  1. I like Jon in this part of his blogger postings. Nobody has gone deeper into the Covid narrative than him. Thanks for the link…

    “Viruses, if they even exist (I think not)…”

    The name of tiny structures implies they’re poison, which is a bad start for a discussion. If you look at any TEM pictures showing what virologists believe are viruses, you can clearly see some tiny structures there. Like here:

    The presence of these tiny particles can’t be denied, so there’s something going on with the affected cell. Modern virology science got the mechanism or the process completely wrong, but this doesn’t mean cells can’t produce these structures on their own under the right cirumstances.

    I believe Bechamp gave a much better explanation for the tiny particles, saying they are able to morph into another form, if and when the environment is ripe, aka pleomorphism. This scientific idea or theory was taken even further with Enderlein. In essence, they too have discovered presence of tiny structures in diseased, but have shown that they are made inside of cells. So the tiny structures are there, 100%.

    What they’re most certainly not is poisonous. Most likely, they are a sign of our body healing itself FROM various poisons.

    On a philosophical level, I agree 100% – there’re no such things as poisonous structures, able to perform miracles such as moving without legs.

    Like

    1. I am aware of that … what Kaufman called “exosomes” and what Lanka labels as cell debris. I think we agree that there are no tiny particles out to get us. I think Bechamp used the term “microzyma” , and was possibly staring into the origins of life.

      Like

        1. It’s well-written, but I was bothered that he didn’t source most of the information about the microbiome and virome, or provide endnotes. He talks about Bernard and Bechamp, but seems to go way beyond their work without providing the slightest hint how he’s getting there. This may be great information, but anyone in our “conspiracy” group who accepts information like this without questioning where the author gets it as guilty as mainstreamers of gullibility. The fact that the author isn’t sensitive to this obvious issue troubles me.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. As Stephers said, there are some “nuggets” in it. I think the terminology is whacked, use of the word “viruses” confuses everything I’ve read these last 18 months. Bechamp used microzyma, others speak of exosomes, which are produced by cells and are not invaders. At least he spares us the notion that viruses are deadly enemies. The idea that we are threatened by things we cannot see smell touch taste or feel is just classic fear propaganda, which he seems to grasp. We are safe in our skin, no little microbes out to get us, no Andromeda strain.

            Like

            1. I think Stephers has spoiled me. Her essays are packed with primary references that she’s studied closely and she’s still learning, still figuring things out, still admitting errors–which I admire. When an author like this, offering no references, displays absolute certainty about such complex and abstruse information, my alarm bells go off.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. From the article:
              “The average adult human body contains 1 x 1015 viruses. By contrast, in the air enveloping the earth there are 1 x 1031viruses; in the earth’s soil there are 2.5 x 1031 viruses; and in the earth’s oceans there are 1.2 x 1030viruses. To provide some perspective on these awe-inspiring numbers, 1 x 1031is 10 million times greater than the number of known stars in the entire universe.”

              How does David Skripac know this? Because he read some papers by mainstream virologists, as part of his 100 hours of research, it appears. Does he verify these claims, as in how were these trillions++ of viruses identified? What methods were used to prove that these trillion++ “particles” are actually viruses, and not random genetic debris (and this is assuming someone is actually counting something) ?

              This is storytelling, and David appears to embrace this “swimming in a sea of viruses” scenario because it fits nicely the story he wants to tell…and maybe he’s been talking to Zach Bush. Zach is also smitten with the viral sea all about us.

              David sounds one warning note in this feel-good story:
              “Our relationship with particular viruses can change as a consequence of our harmful actions toward nature. Whenever humans poison and pollute the air, soil, and water, they create an imbalance between humanity and the virome—an imbalance that can cause us to come into disequilibrium with a particular virus.”

              I was naturally curious how this “disequilibrium” would be expressed here on planet earth, but no good answer seems to be forthcoming from David. He does give us this:

              “For an answer to that question, we need to look at the terrain where viruses reside and stay in balance with the human body. (By “terrain” I mean a geographic area with its associated ecosystem. I am not referring here to the aforementioned Bernard/Béchamp terrain theory.) When a terrain is disrupted by anything unnatural to it—for example, poisoning of the environment by irresponsible human behaviour—the viruses become overexpressed and the body’s balance with the virome is lost.”

              This story uses mainstream virology as its basis, evident in numerous instances in the article, and builds on that to create a narrative that is a combination of fantasy and wishful, conjectural “science”. At least it’s a “better” story than the one we’re used to.

              @ScottRC- I’ve shared this paper with Mark before (co-authored by Bobby Gallo, of HIV fame): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4995926/

              Read at least the abstract and the following paragraph. It’s rather well expressed here that these guys do not know what they are seeing when looking at genetic material. Cellular debris, EV’s, cellular dust, viruses, retroviruses….they just call it what they want when it suits them to do so….I bring this up here to parallel the “zillions” of viruses claimed to be identified by virologists and by Skripac.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. Great analysis, thank you…I was taken in by a Zach Bush vid (after skool woo-woo) a few months back about how health has degraded rapidly since gmo; some good nuggets, but mired in a sea of “unquestionable” science.
                Speaking of after-skool, that recent mind virus vid…I rewatched the first minutes again. The clash between the images and words is impressive, NLP-pro level. The driving aspect of the first doom quotes (Jung, mostly) is “man” being inhuman to “man”, without pointing out which men are cruel to the rest of humanity. But, yeah, we’re all evil, so whaddyagonnado?
                They even show the eye of Sauron, ffs.

                Like

      1. Ok i know you are not a fan but it relates to misdirection. So, recently in past few years many people were sending up weather balloons with video cameras that reached an altitude of about 100k feet and then posted the video of the balloon view on youtube The videos showed earth looking like a flat horizon. All of a sudden , next thing you know , Niel Degrasse Tyson the bafoon, is on television talking about the Felix Baumgartner red bull jump and how “no you cannot see curvature at 120,000 ft high, that shit looks flat!” (He says it’s because your still to close to earth)

        Funny thing is on multiple occasions I have seen pilots on television including Mythbusters when they flew in a Sr 71? At 100,000 feet say they could see earths curvature, mig fighter pilots said it too lol, including regular airline passengers and pilots even though commercial aircraft fly at about 60k ft max.

        So when Neil degrasse tyson goofball started saying you can’t see earths curve at 120k feet and that it looks flat I was like “why is he saying this?” Finally one of my subscribers said to me he started saying you can’t see earths curve from that high because they had to run damage control cause to many people were showing a flat earth at that 100k ft!!!

        Last , so how many freaking times have you heard a pilot, or a passenger in a plane, or a skydiver say they could see earths curve from a regular plane, everybody says that. So are they all deluded? Or is Neil degrasse tyson wrong? There are MULTIPLE videos of neil saying that too now on yiutube.

        Like

        1. Well it seems easy to settle.. If airline passengers claim to see it. Unless it’s so subtle that people can just “see” whatever they’re biased to see.

          I was talking w someone abt Unreal’s take on flat earth, and they brought this very thing up – they’ve seen curvature while flying. Personally I’m so untraveled I’ve never even flown so, no comment.

          As far as filming it from balloons though, lenses do funny things. Not sure about that as any absolute evidence either way. Sans interpretation. Likewise the lens of the human eye, I suppose. And atmospheric or optical effects involving light diffraction, perspective, etc. Though possibly all of that has minimal effect, and “what you see is what you get.”

          Like

      2. Exosomes are produced and replicated by cells to communicate with other cells. An exosome is nothing more than a packet of protein containing a piece of DNA or RNA. The content and function of exosomes depends on the original cell and the conditions under which they are produced.

        According to the virus theory, viruses are so similar to exosomes that the cell mistakes them for exosomes and begins to reproduce the “virus” for that reason. Therefore, Kaufman believes that what we have learned to call viruses are actually exosomes.

        If a cell believes a so-called “virus” to be an exosome I think you can be reasonably sure that’s what it is.

        Like

      3. Hi Mark, Lanka defined 7 Points how to debunk the virologists. If you find the original paper with the picture above you’ll read that it shows artifacts created in the lab and not found in a sick body, that they never analyzed the DNA of this particles and never demonstrated that it contains the genome of a virus, etc. It probably simply are spores or phages created by dying cells. As soon as they take something out of a living organism it begins to degenerate. They have to feed it with what they call fetal calf serum (voodoo in its cruelest form) just to keep it alive for a few days. And as soon as they start to analyze it, they can’t feeding it anymore and it starts to die and build this spores or phages. In the lab they can only study dying processes.

        Like

    2. The idea that a non-living particle can change shape puzzles me a bit. How can something that is as dead as a doornail be pleomorphic?

      Virus theory is a bold lie, but all other theories are just that: theory. It is a subject that has no experts.

      I believe Bechamp was on the right track, but also only at the foot of a mountain.

      Like

      1. “How can something that is as dead as a doornail be pleomorphic?”

        Dead by our perception or definition, yes. But then again, we know so little of life in general. How did it all begin? Answering this question will answer the first one too.

        If you care for details and processes of pleomorphic theory, look into Enderlein’s work. Some of his books were translated into English.

        After years of observation under ordinary high-res microscope, watching living cells and blood (darkfield microscopy), Enderlein proved that blood is not sterile, and that a microorganism can appear in various developmental stages and in diverse forms, without the loss of its specific characteristics. He also proved blood is not sterile.

        Enderlein interpreted a healthy host as filled with primitive life forms, which he called – Colloids of Life or Protits. These reside in the red cells, white cells, in plasma and all other body fluids and tissues, are 0.01 micron in radius and the larger forms of these can be seen under any microscope’s high power, oil immersion lens, as tiny dots, rolling, always moving. They are seen best with a dark-field microscope as tiny shining, moving points. They are visible because they move.

        He also found that when the tiniest, mobile living forms of bacteria, which he called “spermits”, exchanged genetic material with higher developmental organisms, the highly developed organisms became suddenly invisible, having been broken down to their primitive avirulent forms.

        Anyway, check it out for more details, I’ve probably forgotten the most fascinating details by now.

        Like

  2. 6 Billions of years (or so) on this Earth…

    We should ALL be dead due to “contageon” and “interspecies viruses”, let alone race mixing.

    Like

  3. A PCR test is not a machine but a method or process and it doesn’t compare DNA or RNA strands to see if they match. It’s a method of producing large quantities of specific DNA or RNA fragments from a very small sample. When searching for RNA, a DNA copy of the RNA is first made

    What Kary Mullis invented was a method, not a machine to make DNA strands duplicate itself.

    He did this by heating up a sample in which he suspected he would find a certain DNA strand so that the two strands of DNA melted loose, then cooling it down again and adding a synthetic primer of the DNA he was looking for.

    At low temperature, the sample DNA gets a short time to hybridize with the rapidly mobile primers in the solution. It does not get enough time to undo the detachment.

    Then the sample is warmed up again and the polymerase starts and the single-stranded DNA is complemented to double-stranded DNA from the bound primers at a medium high temperature.

    So the two half-strands of DNA that have been melted apart build themselves back up into a complete DNA. This is how one strand becomes two. If you repeat this often enough, you reach an amount of DNA that is enough to prove that the DNA you are looking for is in the sample. If you repeat these cycles too often the result becomes unreliable.

    Kary Mullis did this all by hand, not with a machine and to this day there is no such thing as a PCR machine. Presumably you think his book is about the invention of a machine because you read it under the assumption that a PCR test is a machine. It’s not, it’s a method or process.

    The only machine used today for doing a PCR test is a thermal cycler which is sometimes erroneously referred to as a PCR machine.

    We have been over this before. It mystifies me why you are so hung up on the idea of a PCR test being a machine. It’s not….

    Like

    1. There is only a certain amount I can absorb, and I don’t appreciate your professorial tone. Did you by chance have a blog that never took off, where you stopped writing in January? Your tone is more assholorial than professorial.

      I usually stop when I feel I have a grasp of a situation, The PCR test is a real process where strands of DNA are compared. Do I need to know how? How much detail? I’ve seen it work twice in my life, once when an innocent man was set free after 14 years imprisonment, receiving $3.5 million for malicious prosecution, and then again when the real criminal was identified. The PCR process said that that man, and no other on the planet, committed that crime. After he was identified, I was able to assemble circumstantial evidence to back this up.

      Whatever it is, in real science it is amazing and accurate, but as used by the pandemic hoaxers is massively criminal, used to simulate a pandemic that is not real. I’ve been immersed in this shit for many months and it just keeps coming. I do my best to keep my head above water. It is all I can do. Do you notice I don’t go near graphene and mRNA and Kaufman and Cowen? It is all a swamp. I cannot keep up and worry I’m being led down a garden path. So back off.

      Like

      1. I did not mean to sound assholorial or professorial. I just tried for the second time to explain to you what a PCR test really is and I am not the only one who has tried. I did not mean to offend you and should have considered this is a sensitive subject so please accept my apologies.

        What remains is that a PCR test does not compare DNA but multiplies a specific piece of DNA depending on the primer used. It takes a certain amount of DNA to proof it is in the sample.

        I think it’s important for a blog like this to be accurate. It’s hard enough convincing people of things that are generally accepted conclusions for most visitors here. That leaves little room for inaccuracies.

        I’m in there in the swamp with you like most people here. I really try to ad something of value and I think it has value to grasp what a PCR test is. Once you understand that it becomes clear why it cannot be used to look for a virus infection, even if that was a real thing.

        Like

        1. You are correct that I overreacted, and I offer my apology. I also do not understand how the internal combustion engine works, but I can change spark plugs, once put on a new starter, etc. It’s just functional knowledge without the deep understanding that you apparently have.

          Like

          1. they actually build PCR machines as black boxes, where people put the probes and get results and they believe it’s PCR inside and the results are real. That’s how even third world countries can make PCR tests. There also are DNA sequencing machines working the same way. Or machines analyzing the particulate matter, or think Radon tests made in basements. PCR machines cannot use PCR of course because the method requires specific laboratory protocols which cannot be automated in a machine. Once there is a machine for something people tend to blindly believe what this machine shows them. Think digital thermometers. They show a float number and people believe the decimal places are right and don’t think, that the error of the sensor is in the range of an entire grade. Or think double numbers in a database. Everything after say 10-th decimal place is just digital noise.

            some OT questions:
            You think Kamala will use the 25-th on Biden?
            Will she become the first madame president?
            What about the fake 9011 airplane in Afganistan?

            Amazing times we are living in, no?
            regards
            BM

            Like

  4. This guy explains how the plandemic is just a cover for the introduction of the central bank digital currency. The vaccine passports are the way to implement the process to the public. So yes it is a mark of the beast type system. There were a few POM comments in the past about the Aug and Sept 2019 financial collapse, then the Covid hoax hit in February. The 4 plus trillion dollars of debt was added on after that and some of it was used to prop up the the equity markets starting the first weeks of June 2020. You can look at the charts for the week of June 8th 2020 to see the huge spikes across the board in all industries. Then another propping of the markets again starting at the beginning of this year. With the events of the AMC, Gamestop, and other meme stocks spiking then being blamed in the mainstream news media on wall street bets and Robinhood retail traders with their 10-20 share buys, sitting at home spending their unemployment money.

    Like

    1. The introduction of the central bank’s digital currency and its link to a blockchain containing detailed personal information is just one of the goals. Social reformation, depopulation and cramming us into cities and inventorying and controlling all natural resources are also items high on the agenda.

      Total control is the end goal. There are now even trash cans with cameras that monitor what you throw in.

      In China, there are trash cans on the streets in which waste must be separated that use facial recognition. If you throw something in the wrong garbage can, your social score suffers, which in turn affects your income.

      Like

      1. It’s all controlled demolition in “the West,” and being relocated to China, lock, stock and barrel. The U.S. is being “taken down” the same way Germany was in WWI and II. Same game, as always, by Crown lovelies.

        Like

  5. I note with interest that the mainstream has now responded to charges about cycle counts and PCR. Witness this exchange in the NakedCapitalism comments – sounds a bit sophistic to me, but judge for yourself (hope you don’t mind the lengthy quote):

    Tina
    August 22, 2021 at 8:33 pm

    I’m a high school math teacher in Mesa County District 51, central to this article. It should be noted that the State directs tests be run to Ct of 40 for anyone “unvaccinated” and 28 for “vaccinated” so we are back to the high number of questionable positive tests in these kids. The situation on the ground is not dire when you look for kids or even adults showing real symptoms there aren’t many. Lots of positive tests being called cases. Now there IS a legitimate worry amongst grounded pediatricians with a few RSV positive kids lately. More than you’d expect in a population of our size (about 65,000) I surmise.
    Reply ↓

    Yves Smith
    August 22, 2021 at 8:43 pm
    
    A Canadian scientist at McGill, their top university, who runs PCR tests all the time as part of his job debunked your claims:
    
        The danger when seeing high Ct values (e.g. 38-40) is that the signal you are eventually getting may not be specific: to go back to Mr. Holmes, it could be amplifying a somewhat similar sentence from a different story. This is the kernel of truth that COVID contrarians have jumped on. But the reality of PCR technology is much more complicated: we can’t simply set a universal Ct value beyond which we declare all tests to be negative. The Ct value is, in a way, relative.
    
        Different laboratories have set up different PCR tests to look for the coronavirus, using different probe-and-primer combinations to look for different genes in the coronavirus’ genome on different PCR machines. Unsurprisingly, when 26 Ontario laboratories that test for the coronavirus participated in a proficiency test, they saw a variability of Ct values of up to eight cycles across them when testing the same specimen. Samples that are known to be positive and negative for the coronavirus are run alongside the unknown samples, and their behaviour during the run also affects interpretation of the results. This is why reporting the Ct value is not recommended in Canada: on its own, it does not mean much.
    
        In a way, it’s not unlike chicken soup. Many families have their own recipe. As long as it’s been internally validated, meaning that it looks like chicken soup and tastes like chicken soup and the people eating it are happy with it, it’s a perfectly functional chicken soup. PCR tests come in many different flavours, but as long as they are validated (by using a known quantity of virus, diluting it many times and running these samples to see what Ct values they generate), they are reliable. They are not perfect, because no test is perfect, but they are absolutely not the futile garbage some folks on the Internet would have you believe.
    
        The pandemic saw a rise in armchair experts, people who had never stepped foot in a laboratory suddenly learning about PCR and thinking, as in true crime dramas, that they had cracked the case wide open. But the interpretation of PCR tests for the coronavirus relies on a lot more than a single Ct value: it depends on all of the above “chicken soup” variability, plus the type of specimen collected, whether or not samples are pooled in a single well to save on reagents (with positive pools being tested individually afterwards), and on pre-test probability, meaning whether or not the person being tested has symptoms and whether or not they were potentially exposed to the virus. The blind reliance on Ct values unfortunately shows a misunderstanding of the complexities of molecular diagnostics. Ct values are not elementary; they require expertise to interpret.
    
    https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking/covid-19-pcr-test-reliable-despite-commotion-about-ct-values
    
    On top of that, you are assuming all the tests run are PCR tests. For many if not most purposes, the much faster antigen test is acceptable for establishing a positive or negative Covid status. There’s an argument in favor of a faster test, since finding Covid cases faster leads to faster isolation and reduces contagion.
    
    See more: https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/06/how-does-covid-19-antigen-test-work
    

    Like

  6. Sorry… that didn’t format well. I’ll try a revised version:

    Tina
    August 22, 2021 at 8:33 pm

    I’m a high school math teacher in Mesa County District 51, central to this article. It should be noted that the State directs tests be run to Ct of 40 for anyone “unvaccinated” and 28 for “vaccinated” so we are back to the high number of questionable positive tests in these kids. The situation on the ground is not dire when you look for kids or even adults showing real symptoms there aren’t many. Lots of positive tests being called cases. Now there IS a legitimate worry amongst grounded pediatricians with a few RSV positive kids lately. More than you’d expect in a population of our size (about 65,000) I surmise.
    Reply ↓

    Yves Smith
    August 22, 2021 at 8:43 pm

    A Canadian scientist at McGill, their top university, who runs PCR tests all the time as part of his job debunked your claims:

        The danger when seeing high Ct values (e.g. 38-40) is that the signal you are eventually getting may not be specific: to go back to Mr. Holmes, it could be amplifying a somewhat similar sentence from a different story. This is the kernel of truth that COVID contrarians have jumped on. But the reality of PCR technology is much more complicated: we can’t simply set a universal Ct value beyond which we declare all tests to be negative. The Ct value is, in a way, relative.
    
        Different laboratories have set up different PCR tests to look for the coronavirus, using different probe-and-primer combinations to look for different genes in the coronavirus’ genome on different PCR machines. Unsurprisingly, when 26 Ontario laboratories that test for the coronavirus participated in a proficiency test, they saw a variability of Ct values of up to eight cycles across them when testing the same specimen. Samples that are known to be positive and negative for the coronavirus are run alongside the unknown samples, and their behaviour during the run also affects interpretation of the results. This is why reporting the Ct value is not recommended in Canada: on its own, it does not mean much.
    
        In a way, it’s not unlike chicken soup. Many families have their own recipe. As long as it’s been internally validated, meaning that it looks like chicken soup and tastes like chicken soup and the people eating it are happy with it, it’s a perfectly functional chicken soup. PCR tests come in many different flavours, but as long as they are validated (by using a known quantity of virus, diluting it many times and running these samples to see what Ct values they generate), they are reliable. They are not perfect, because no test is perfect, but they are absolutely not the futile garbage some folks on the Internet would have you believe.
    
        The pandemic saw a rise in armchair experts, people who had never stepped foot in a laboratory suddenly learning about PCR and thinking, as in true crime dramas, that they had cracked the case wide open. But the interpretation of PCR tests for the coronavirus relies on a lot more than a single Ct value: it depends on all of the above “chicken soup” variability, plus the type of specimen collected, whether or not samples are pooled in a single well to save on reagents (with positive pools being tested individually afterwards), and on pre-test probability, meaning whether or not the person being tested has symptoms and whether or not they were potentially exposed to the virus. The blind reliance on Ct values unfortunately shows a misunderstanding of the complexities of molecular diagnostics. Ct values are not elementary; they require expertise to interpret.
    

    https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking/covid-19-pcr-test-reliable-despite-commotion-about-ct-values

    On top of that, you are assuming all the tests run are PCR tests. For many if not most purposes, the much faster antigen test is acceptable for establishing a positive or negative Covid status. There’s an argument in favor of a faster test, since finding Covid cases faster leads to faster isolation and reduces contagion.

    See more: https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/06/how-does-covid-19-antigen-test-work
    

    Like

    1. The link works fine. Thanks for the article. A clear description of what a PCR test is.

      Where it goes off the rails is that finding a piece of DNA does not automaticly mean it came from a virus. The author even goes from talking about viral DNA to talking about viruses present in the sample, in a subtle way very misleading.

      Even if there were such a thing as a virus, that doesn’t mean finding viral DNA says anything about a current infection.

      Kary Mullis himself was clear enough that the number of cycles you can run is limited before the result starts to become unreliable.

      Like

      1. Yes, this is the exact reason why they’ve used Karry’s findings to get HIV off the ground with it, a trial run of the PCR scam. The cycle count can be manipulated to show anything if true stupids are running the process. How did they determin 36-38 cycles to be the proper count? Arbitrarily, not scientifically – repetition count was set only according to the results, so the process was able to churn out false positives. They needed false positives badly in order to make pan(dem)ic appear real without to many people questioning it. If anyone challanged the count, they’ve tagged him/her as a kook or an uneducated non-specialist.

        Btw, I was always suspicious about Karry’s timely death, just before the start of the covid campaign. Why? I’m suspicious of EVERY single Nobel prize winner – the number of jewish/phoeney winners and nominees is waaaay too improportional to the real jew count of this world. They even admit it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates , saying it’s roughly 20%. But this percentage is bollocks for anybody familiar with true peerage genealogy. I’ve never researched Mullis, though, so I won’t jump to conclusions.

        Like

        1. What I suspect is that the awarding of a Nobel Prize for inventing a PCR test also partly lies in the preconceived plan to misuse it which ultimately amounts to misusing Kary Mullis himself.

          Like

    2. Hi Tim, thanks for the posting this. That site is hypnotic in a sad way. I saved these comments I read a few weeks back, waiting for an excuse to post about it to give folks here an idea of the Rona-IQ over at NakCap, enjoy as Yves almost has a cardiac…shut it down!

      Gedeon
      August 11, 2021 at 2:36 pm

      CFR is a terrible stat because you have two variables, one which is very fluid, as opposed to one fuzzy variable with excess deaths. PCR testing was a fraudulent test, so we have no possible way to ascertain even a rough estimate of true infections. That the CARES act and ensuing grift incentivized counting covid cases for medical professionals and institutions made sure of this outcome.
      Reply ↓

      Raymond Sim
      August 11, 2021 at 8:37 pm
      
          “PCR testing was a fraudulent test, so we have no possible way to ascertain even a rough estimate of true infections.”
      
      PCR is fraudulent? What the actual blucking familyfoggery?
      Reply ↓
      

      Yves Smith
      August 11, 2021 at 9:07 pm

      You are going into moderation for your claim re PCR tests. They are not “fraudulent”. Our site Policies clearly state that agnotology (“Making Shit Up”) is grounds for blacklisting.
      
      Yes, they have issues with accuracy, as do quite a few medical tests. For starters, they are better than mammograms. I am sure I can come up with plenty of other examples.
      

      THE IRONY OVERWHELMS! DOESN’T “NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE” = “MAKING SHIT UP’? Is NakCap not a site that critiques capitalism? Or just when it comes to finance, not pHarma? (Rhetorical question) To her credit, she does throw shade on other med tests…but…

      Like

      1. Sorry, Baja, to hear you’ve fallen into the NakedCap vortex of morbid fascination, as well..! Yes, exactly, it’s hypnotizing. “Yves” (real name Susan Webber) puts on such a good show of being a critical thinker, an investigator willing to go wherever the facts lead. Like much controlled op (which I have to assume she is), she benefits from being willing to take on so many mainstream sacred cows/ figures/ institutions. Leading her highly educated (including professionals, but also inquisitive autodidacts) and wary audience to let down their guard, and form a strong attachment to her as a fearless truth-teller.

        But there are still third rails. Eventually I think, SOME of her audience starts to notice this, and you can detect that it shakes the faith of a few. But I guess she can sacrifice a few to keep the rest of the herd corralled.

        Her “skepticism” vis a vis covid seems to be that the corruption is on the side of elites trying to downplay it… Much of her audience has an anti-corporate worldview (fair enough) and think that the PTB are focused on profits exclusively, even if it means sacrificing the health of the riff-raff. In this view, the PTB have access to gold-plated healthcare or something, and work from home and whatnot, insulated from covid.

        IF the elites implement lockdowns or something anti-profit, what it means (continuing in the NC worldview) is that covid is SO bad, not even they can paper it over and pretend otherwise. “Reality” has intruded on their actual goals and desires.

        Thus do our worldviews (and of course I suffer from it too) filter how we interpret everything. But it’s fascinating to see it in action, in people whose worldviews include “skepticism” in a different direction than mine.

        Yves the persona is quite amazing to me. She often writes these flip little intros to pieces, in which she tosses off snarky asides and biting little comments – drops little casual thought grenades in an offhanded way. Makes these brazen yet innocuous assertions – eg, she’ll say something as if it’s a given the reader accepts it, “of course we all know…” But does it in such an artful way. It’s like that popular girl in class who leads a clique, laying down the law to her followers in such a blithe and slick way, they’re left blinking like deer in headlights and can’t think of contradicting it.

        And she’s vicious in the comments, will just bite the head off people without mercy – they write some earnest, lengthy comment, and she doesn’t give an inch to “respectful disagreement.” Just lays into them. Loves the silly “agnotology” business. And ramps the temperature up with language (“Making Shit Up”) so it’s like they’re under the Eye of Sauron. And anyway bans them, or threatens to, not really a fair fight…

        Like

        1. LOL, Tim, that is an excellent analysis, the elites with their extra-special healthcare. Classic boss girl.

          Re: profits, it should be obvious to any “skeptic” that profits ain’t the thing, to wit, sportsball teams playing in empty/near-empty stadiums to “save” fans from the plague. (I can still see my mother saying at the end of last season, “It’s lucky no players died.” I said, “They are top-level athletes in the prime of life, why would they die? Of concussions, eventually yes, but rona, no.” Lucky…playing that old rona roulette, sometimes you get lucky. Good thing the guys on the bench are muzzled, cause that protects the players on the field!

          Seems record numbers are not watching games, olympics, or movies/TV shows, so where is the profit? When you are in the printing-money club, it don’t matter if the stadium is full or if less than a million are watching on the tube, you’re still getting paid. But don’t tell “Yves” it’s all made up, she gets pissed.

          Like

  7. Just an additional piece of mystery. My daughter just tested “detected” for COVID and at the same time tested + for Flu B. Yes, she had fever, sore throat, headache, and cough that led to testing. How are they both positive? Since finding this out, apparently ALOT of people are testing positive for BOTH when given both tests? What is the statistical probability that she would have both at the same time…with very mild symptoms I might add. The hospital said that they would automatically consider the rest of us as “having it” because Delta is so contagious…but that we could have our own testing if we needed documentation to return to school/work. So without proof, the rest of us have already been classified as positive.

    Like

    1. Yeah, it’s a load of crap. The issue is this: Medical personnel are taught during their education brainwashing that each disease has but one cause, usually a germ, often a virus. What your daughter has are symptoms that could be many, many things, usually related to toxins in our environment. She is in a process of cleansing, and there are tiny particles that do this sort of work, capturing and expelling toxins via nostrils, sweat glands, etc.. We are in the dark ages of medicine. I do not go near doctors, fearing loss of freedom. I’ve never had a PCR test, only rarely wore a mask, practiced non-distancing, and am yet to stand on one of these “STAND HERE” signs on the floor.

      The “Delta Variant” is hogwash, as I see it, just doubling down on an existing lie called SARS-CoV-2. Another writer here, Stephers, and I hope I am not putting words in her mouth, thinks that there are diseases about, but that they are the result of graphene and other deliberately delivered poisons and toxins. I tend to think that the vaccine makes people ill, which they then blame on Covid and Delta. Like I said, a load of crap.

      Like

  8. On misdirection . . . Many in the alternative media are INCORRECTLY reporting that “all vaccines are on hold in Germany” (one source here: https://brandnewtube.com/watch/all-vaccines-on-hold-germany_kAE2KQqxzNTyLhz.html). This is FALSE reporting (https://www.techarp.com/science/germany-covid-vaccines-on-hold/) based on a SIMULATED event called “basiscamp.live” (https://www.facebook.com/scabasisde2021eng/). It should be noted that Reiner Fuellmich was a role player in this “pandemic exit exercise” https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=4291809517561954. These live exercise participants are acting – just something to keep in mind when you see any of these individuals outside of this particular simulated event (being passed off by many as real). From the BasisCamp FB page, here are the “cast members”(and their respective character roles) who performed in the simulation event:
    Cast includes:
    ➥ Franz #Ruppert, Federal President (zoom only)
    ➥ Reiner #Fuellmich, Federal Chancellor
    ➥ Viviane Fischer, Minister of the Interior
    ➥ Wolfgang #Wodarg, Minister of Health (zoom only)
    ➥ Adelheid von Stösser, State Secretary in the Ministry of Health
    ➥ Stephan Kohn, Director of the RKI
    ➥ Alkje Fontes, Minister of Labor & Social Affairs
    ➥ Harald #Walach, State Secretary at the Ministry of Labor & Social Affairs
    ➥ Matthias #Burchardt, Minister for Education and Research
    ➥ Uli Masuth, Artist
    ➥ Michael #Esfeld, State Secretary, Ministry of Education and Research
    ➥ Werner Bergholz, Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy

    Like

    1. I instantly gave up on Reiner Fuellmich, even faster than I did on Barack Obama. Why spend all that time and energy when the power that shut down the world is far more powerful than any court, anywhere. I thought him either stupid and naive, or CO.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Mark, not to go down the facial comparison rabbit-hole (again), but Reiner looks too much like Jair Bolsonaro (the Tropical Trump) for my taste. Spidey-sense activated!

        BTW, Jair got gut-stabbed some weeks before the 2018 election by a (gasp!) crazed member of the opposition PT (“worker’s” party), yet was up and about days later. A miracle! The miracle was how many people who previously hated him, felt bad for him…a play for humanizing sympathy via knife attack. The videos of the assault are laughable.

        However, last month he went in hospital for an obstruction in his intestine, a “complication” from the attack 3 years prior, but seems fine now. The stabby one was acquitted for being crazy. Nice.

        Like

Leave a Reply to Anita Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s