Red pill me on covid PCR tests

Red pill me on covid PCR tests.

Attached: 1655917582797.jpg (236x312, 16.04K)

Other urls found in this thread:

bitchute.com/video/E3JOUC-70LY/
youtu.be/P7NwGbfP__Q?t=11967
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=pcr covid test reliability
off-guardian.org/2021/09/22/30-facts-you-need-to-know-your-covid-cribsheet/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Made in China

The swab one put nanomachines directly to your brain

You are a dumb nigger for getting nose fucked in order to be tested for a virus which does not exist.

PCR tests were not designed to diagnose illness. The Reverse-Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) test is described in the media as the “gold standard” for Covid diagnosis. But the Nobel Prize-winning inventor of the process never intended it to be used as a diagnostic tool, and said so publicly:

PCR is just a process that allows you to make a whole lot of something out of something. It doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.”

Attached: 1622200042749.jpg (640x765, 77.22K)

Look up the name Karry Mullis, who he is and his opinion on his creation, the PCR Test

Garbage in, garbage out.
Simple as.

PCR Tests have a history of being inaccurate and unreliable. The “gold standard” PCR tests for Covid are known to produce a lot of false-positive results, by reacting to DNA material that is not specific to Sars-Cov-2.

A Chinese study found the same patient could get two different results from the same test on the same day. In Germany, tests are known to have reacted to common cold viruses. A 2006 study found PCR tests for one virus responded to other viruses too. In 2007, a reliance on PCR tests resulted in an “outbreak” of Whooping Cough that never actually existed. Some tests in the US even reacted to the negative control sample.

The late President of Tanzania, John Magufuli, submitted samples goat, pawpaw and motor oil for PCR testing, all came back positive for the virus.

As early as February of 2020 experts were admitting the test was unreliable. Dr Wang Cheng, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences told Chinese state television “The accuracy of the tests is only 30-50%”. The Australian government’s own website claimed “There is limited evidence available to assess the accuracy and clinical utility of available COVID-19 tests.” And a Portuguese court ruled that PCR tests were “unreliable” and should not be used for diagnosis.

Attached: 1622201284757.jpg (1200x1500, 134.85K)

If the test is run more than 35 cycles it gives 100% positives. Western governments were running the tests at a minimum of 40 cycles.
The fact is, the PCR test is not designed to be used as a diagnostic tool as it cannot distinguish between inactive viruses and “live” or reproductive ones. Furthermore, many scientists have noted that cycling the test over 35 cycles is scientifically indefensible. A Sept. 28, 2020, study in Clinical Infectious Diseases revealed that when you run a PCR test at a CT of 35 or higher, the accuracy drops to three per cent, resulting in a 97 per cent false positive rate.

Article content
Public Health Ontario admits on its website under “COVID-19 PCR testing and Cycle Thresholds” that it runs the PCR test with a cycle threshold of up to 40, far beyond the number 24 at which live virus can be found and far beyond the number 35 that could yield reliable results. And this is where things get even crazier.

Public Health Ontario states on its website that if it believes to be virus fragments detected between 38 and 40 cycles, it reports this as a positive case.

“All inconclusive results are considered probable (likely) cases for public health reporting.”

On April 8, 2021, the World Health Organisation (WHO) pronounced PCR tests for COVID-19 as flawed, and all positive tests in the past 14 months “invalid” if a cycle threshold of 35 or above has been used. A positive test with a high Ct value may indicate a test from someone who had a very small amount of detectable viral RNA on their initial swab, and may not be infectious or have ongoing active infection.

The CT values of the PCR tests are too high. PCR tests are run in cycles, the number of cycles you use to get your result is known as your “cycle threshold” or CT value. Kary Mullis said: “If you have to go more than 40 cycles[…]there is something seriously wrong with your PCR.”

The MIQE PCR guidelines agree, stating: “[CT] values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported,” Dr Fauci himself even admitted anything over 35 cycles is almost never culturable.

Dr Juliet Morrison, virologist at the University of California, Riverside, told the New York Times: Any test with a cycle threshold above 35 is too sensitive…I’m shocked that people would think that 40 [cycles] could represent a positive…A more reasonable cutoff would be 30 to 35″.

In the same article Dr Michael Mina, of the Harvard School of Public Health, said the limit should be 30, and the author goes on to point out that reducing the CT from 40 to 30 would have reduced “covid cases” in some states by as much as 90%.

The CDC’s own data suggests no sample over 33 cycles could be cultured, and Germany’s Robert Koch Institute says nothing over 30 cycles is likely to be infectious.

Despite this, it is known almost all the labs in the US are running their tests at least 37 cycles and sometimes as high as 45. The NHS “standard operating procedure” for PCR tests rules set the limit at 40 cycles.

Based on what we know about the CT values, the majority of PCR test results are at best questionable.

Attached: mask_this.jpg (768x955, 99.26K)