PCR Tests for Covid 19

by sheeple Thu Apr 01, 2021 7:39 am

‘In their ruling, judges Margarida Ramos de Almeida and Ana Paramés referred to several scientific studies. Most notably this study by Jaafar et al., which found that – when running PCR tests with 35 cycles or more – the accuracy dropped to three per cent, meaning up to 97 per cent of positive results could be false positives.’

This groundbreaking ruling from a European appeals court should have been proof enough that the PCR test was far from being the ‘gold standard’ in testing for SARS-Cov-2 and essentially ‘not fit for purpose.’

Shockingly, the UK mainstream media did not pick up on this story, begging the question: Why was PCR testing not ever properly scrutinised under the UK’s judicial system, given the test’s proven capacity for producing false positives when running 35 cycles or more?

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-many-scandals-of-the-pcr-test-part-2/

by Brutus Wed Apr 14, 2021 2:18 am

Actually no. For what I understand of the study there is a basic misunderstanding on how PCR works.
When PCR amplifies genetic material it enormously amplify all that it is given.
Of the tremendous amount of nucleic acid produced, suitable filters need to be applied to try and select a specific group or groups of the mass.
The more amplification cycles are present the more of even tiny original amounts are revealed (that is they become accountable when using "filters" applied.
After a certain amount of cycles, imperfection in the amplification process, contaminants and the mosaic of small marginal assemblages of the nucleic molecules, make the process unreliable.
In principle a little like enlarging this writing until all type of colours, pixels shapes and form are created by the enlarging algorithms and the meaning of the writing (or whatever information we wanted to extract) is utterly lost.
The balance in CRT is made empirically, by trial and error until a statistical certifiable consistence in the results is achieved.
Being a statistical result means that there will always been a margin of error.
In case of viruses like the one that causes COVID-19 there is also the added uncertainty of what a statistical result on the amount of viral material present in the sample actually means in the clinical meaning of infectiousness.
No method is prefect and in medicine any type of analysis is doubly uncertain.
Still is the best available and the proof that it works is in the fact that "cures" are achieved.
I have not delved in the legal aspect of what has been decided by the courts, but by the rule of thumb, medicine matter should be preferentially left in the hands of doctors and medical researchers.

by sheeple Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:28 am

Ten Fatal Errors: Scientists Attack Paper That Established Global PCR Driven Lockdown

By Celia Farber, December 3, 2020

War has broken out in the scientific literature that strikes at the existential core of Covid-19 and its proposed causative virus.
At the heart of the controversy lies the fact that the creators of the most commonly used test, the RT-PCR, published instructions for how to test for SARS-CoV-2 “without having virus material available,” in their own words, relying instead on the Chinese scientists’ genetic sequence published on the internet.

Kevin Corbett: “Every scientific rationale for the development of that test has been totally destroyed by this paper. It’s like Hiroshima/Nagasaki to the Covid test,” he said. “When Drosten developed the test, China hadn’t given them a viral isolate. They developed the test from a sequence in a gene bank. Do you see? China gave them a genetic sequence with no corresponding viral isolate. They had a code, but no body for the code. No viral morphology.”

German lawyer Reiner Fuellmich who is central to a growing group of lawyers, scientists, politicians, and even secret pharmaceutical whistleblowers, said in an interview:

“We believe that in order to make this house of cards collapse, we have to attack the PCR test. The fact is, there are no asymptomatic infections.”

https://uncoverdc.com/2020/12/03/ten-fatal-errors-scientists-attack-paper-that-established-global-pcr-driven-lockdown/

There are many videos of interviews with Reiner Fuellmich online, and one is posted here under Law "Reiner Fuellmich on suing the WHO".

by sheeple Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:33 am

German journalist Samuel Eckert is offering a reward of 1 million euros for those who provide irrefutable proof of the existence of Covid-19. By proof, he means the isolation of the virus according to Koch's postulates. To date, no one has been able to win Eckert's challenge.
Truth fund - in German and English on this page, rest in German.

"We award:
1million € for scientific proof of the existence of a corona virus, including documented control attempts of all steps taken in the proof."

https://www.samueleckert.net/isolat-truth-fund/

by Brutus Mon Apr 26, 2021 10:05 pm

Assuming that is all a joke or conspiracy is not a logical proposition.
Just a very quick look at the scientific literature makes it clear that ( statistical validity of a RT-PCR test or other is not the point here) the amount of research on this topic has been truly gigantic, with some of humanity best mind involved and the genomic of the organism decoded many times.
The "Eckert's challenge" reminds me of something similar done by flat earthers about providing the "proof" of the globe. To remain unchallenged one just need not accept evidence...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1684118220300827
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15609507/

by Sponsored content

PCR Tests for Covid 19

PCR Tests for Covid 19

Re: PCR Tests for Covid 19

Re: PCR Tests for Covid 19

Re: PCR Tests for Covid 19

Re: PCR Tests for Covid 19

Re: PCR Tests for Covid 19