reSee.it - Related Video Feed

This video discusses the PCR test used for COVID-19 and raises concerns about its accuracy and potential misuse. It explains that the test amplifies a small amount of DNA to detect the virus, but if amplified too much, it can result in false positives. The inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, stated that it was not meant for diagnosing viruses. The video suggests that the high cycle thresholds used in testing lead to inflated case numbers and a false sense of a pandemic. It also mentions the potential dangers of the test, such as the use of sterilizing solutions and the possibility of containing the vaccine. The video encourages critical thinking and research to understand the true nature of the situation.

We need to be careful not to have too many false positives due to extensive testing. Tests are not 100% accurate and have a small margin of error. If the overall infection rate decreases and testing is expanded to millions, there will be more false positives than actual positives. These are the challenges we face and the insights we gain. Therefore, it still makes sense to offer more testing, but not just randomly every day, rather with a specific goal in mind.

This video discusses the PCR test used to diagnose COVID-19 and raises concerns about its accuracy and potential misuse. The test amplifies a small amount of DNA to detect the virus, but when run for too many cycles, it can produce false positives. The inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, stated that it was not meant for diagnostic purposes. The CDC itself acknowledges the limitations of the PCR test and will be changing its method in 2022. The video also explores claims about the test containing sterilizing solutions, storing DNA, and even acting as a vaccine. It urges viewers to question the information presented and seek out alternative sources.

The PCR test, commonly used for COVID-19, involves a nasal swab. According to Kary Mullis, the Nobel Prize-winning scientist who created the test, it can detect almost anything if amplified enough. However, Mullis himself stated that the PCR test should not be used to diagnose diseases, as it only detects fragments of illness. Many laboratories worldwide run the test at high amplification levels, leading to a high rate of false positives. Even Anthony Fauci acknowledged that results beyond 33 cycles are likely not infectious material. The New York Times reported that 90% of PCR tests were not indicative of active illness. Lowering the amplification cycles resulted in significant reductions in case numbers. In the past, PCR tests have caused false positives, such as in a whooping cough pseudoepidemic. Some criticize Fauci for misleading the public.

The widely used PCR tests for COVID-19 are too sensitive, meaning they can detect not only live virus but also dead virus and other materials. The problem is that the results sent to doctors and patients don't specify whether the virus is live or dead. Recent data from Massachusetts, New York, and Nevada showed that 90% of positive cases carried very little virus. If this trend applies nationwide, only a small fraction of positive cases would actually need to isolate and undergo contact tracing. To prevent unnecessary disruptions, it's important to test in a smarter way, focusing on the contagiousness of individuals. This approach would help schools reopen faster and make more sense overall.

Speaker 0: They use them for to amplify fear, to boost compliance, and, of course, push those vaccines. Well, joining me now is primary care physician and author of unavoidably unsafe childhood Reconsidered. Doctor Jeff Barky is with us. Doc, it's great to have you back on. Speaker 1: Hey, Grant. Thanks for having me. Great to be with you. Speaker 0: Alright. I know this comes as no surprise, this number, that only fourteen percent of the PCR positive turned out to be COVID in Germany. I would imagine it translates to The United States. But your reaction and now seeing this done by real scientists, real doctors in a real journal of medicine. Speaker 1: Well, there's no surprise by this study. We knew it all along. The PCR test was never designed to detect infection. What it detects is miniscule particles of the RNA virus, and then they would crank up the cycle threshold. They would amplify the test to create positivity. And so the problem is that you could test the side of a table and get a positive result, let alone that we were actually going to treat based on a test result. I was always taught in medical school, we don't treat test results, we treat patients. And that's what I tried to do. And then the government went out of its way to suppress effective repurposed medication, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. This was a money game. This was a scam. This was all based on fear. No surprise out of Germany. Speaker 0: You know, I I believe it. And let's not forget because we always talk about the money and the vaccines and big pharma and their ties to government, and I know that was a lot. But let's not forget too. This was weaponized to keep people home so they wouldn't vote for president Trump during during that twenty twenty election. It was all part of the big steal. Speaker 1: These positives, they wanted lots of positives. They didn't want negatives. They wanted positives. Didn't they, doc? Speaker 0: They absolutely did for a variety of reasons. The more you can keep people in fear, the more likely it is they're gonna follow your directive. We've never seen anything like this before. The government imposing its will upon free citizens. They closed churches. They closed mom and pop stores. They forced healthy people to stay indoors, and they closed down hospitals and told sick people to stay away. I've never seen anything like that happen before. The sad part here, Grant, is I'm not clear that the American people learned their lesson. And when the government comes around and does this again, I just hope enough of us will stand up this time and say, hell no. Well

A Chinese study published in Nature conducted 10 million PCR tests in Wuhan and found that out of the 300 asymptomatic cases, none produced a live virus in the lab setting. This suggests that high cycling of PCR was generating false positives. PCR detects nucleic acid, not disease, and is typically followed up with confirmatory tests. The study did not confirm the presence of infectious viral particles through culture-based methods. False positives occur when healthy individuals with residual viral DNA are magnified due to high cycling. PCR can detect viral RNA long after the disappearance of the infectious virus.

The existence of the virus is questioned due to the initial PCR test methodology being based on a computer model virus, not a purified isolate from real patients. China did not have a pure isolate, so they used elements of a genetic code to create a computer model sequence. This sequence became the basis for the PCR test. The WHO document states that the diagnosis of SARS CoV-2 should not rely on isolating the virus. The virus has never been purified, and the disease is based on generic symptoms that could be anything.

The PCR test, used to determine COVID-19 cases, amplifies RNA fragments to detect the virus. However, the high amplification can also detect traces of dead virus or remnants from other coronaviruses. Scientists recommend not testing over 30 cycle thresholds to avoid false positives. When labs reduced the cycles, case numbers significantly decreased. False positives can occur almost half the time, especially in populations with low COVID-19 prevalence. In the past, PCR tests have caused false epidemics. The test requires skilled technicians and careful handling, but it is currently being conducted on a large scale with hastily trained personnel. Therefore, it is important to question the accuracy of reported case numbers.

Misusing PCR isn't quite accurate; it's more about how results are interpreted. PCR can detect almost anything in a sample, leading to the belief that everything is present in the body. While PCR amplifies a single molecule for measurement, the implications of finding something like HIV are less straightforward. The measurement for HIV isn't precise, unlike measuring tangible items like apples. Tests for HIV rely on invisible components, making results inferred rather than definitive. PCR itself is a method for amplification and doesn't indicate illness or the potential harm of what is detected.

The measurement for HIV is not exact like it is for apples. HIV tests are based on invisible things and the results are inferred. PCR is a process used to make a lot of something out of something. It doesn't indicate if you're sick or if the thing you have will harm you.

This video discusses the PCR test used to diagnose COVID-19 and raises concerns about its accuracy and potential misuse. The test amplifies a small amount of DNA to detect the virus, but if it is amplified too much, it can result in false positives. The inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, stated that it was not meant for diagnostic purposes. The video also questions the use of the PCR test for diagnosing COVID-19 when the CDC itself states that it should not be used for this purpose. Additionally, there are claims that the PCR test contains sterilizing solutions and may even contain the vaccine. The video encourages critical thinking and further research.

The speaker discusses the issue of cycle thresholds in PCR testing. They explain that the original protocol used a cycle threshold of 45, which amplifies the results by 10. This means that even unlikely findings, such as particles from Mars, could be detected. The speaker suggests that by using a high cycle threshold, it is possible to create a pandemic by testing healthy individuals and spreading the myth of asymptomatic spread. This is how cases are created, according to the speaker.

In this video, the speaker discusses how certain strains of influenza are not included in PCR tests, such as the BSL 4 strain, h7n9, and h5n1. They question the effectiveness of testing millions of people without being able to detect these specific strains. The speaker also mentions Kristin Drosten and refers to this situation as an "evil genius" move.

This video discusses the PCR test used to diagnose COVID-19 and raises concerns about its accuracy and potential misuse. It explains that the test amplifies DNA to detect the virus, but when amplified too much, it can result in false positives. The inventor of the PCR test, Kary Mullis, stated that it was not designed for diagnostic purposes. The video also questions the use of the PCR test for diagnosing COVID-19 when the CDC itself states that it should not be used for this purpose. It suggests that the high cycle thresholds used in testing contribute to false positives and that the test may contain harmful substances. The video encourages critical thinking and research to uncover the truth.

It is important to prioritize PCR tests, but our capacity is not sufficient. Vienna can conduct more PCR tests in a day than all the labs in Germany combined. We lack equipment and personnel, and the German healthcare policy prioritizes the number of tests per person less than Vienna. Currently, rapid tests are essential, but their quality varies, especially regarding the Omicron variant. Authorities, including politicians, should ensure that high-quality rapid tests are used in testing centers, schools, and care homes. We pay a lot for these tests, and we rely on them. However, even the best rapid test is useless if not administered properly. Some test centers have questionable methods, and authorities need to increase supervision.

Do you have an open mind? Consider that we live in a toxic world, where our cells respond to poisons by packaging and releasing damaged genetic material, called exosomes. This contrasts with the established theory of viruses, which are seen as non-living entities that can cause illness. The coronavirus emerged when a respiratory illness was linked to a new RNA fragment found in patients. Testing methods, like PCR, amplify genetic material, but their arbitrary cutoff points can lead to misleading results. Cases like the Diamond Princess cruise ship show conflicting test results among close contacts, challenging the infectious virus theory. Many who test positive remain asymptomatic, and some fluctuate between positive and negative results. This raises questions about the reliability of PCR tests and whether exosomes could be misidentified as viruses. Ultimately, how confident are you in these tests? Would you choose to be tested?

There have been reports of patients shedding viral RNA for weeks, but it doesn't seem to be infectious. The question is whether we can use a cutoff of viral load determined by PCR to determine if a patient is no longer infectious. If the cycle threshold is 35 or more, the chances of it being replication competent are very low. It's frustrating for both patients and physicians when the PCR results show a high cycle threshold, like 37, because it's unlikely to culture virus from that. So if someone has a cycle threshold of 37, 38, or even 36, it's just dead nucleotides.

The speaker asks if a PCR test can be used to determine if a patient is no longer infectious. The other speaker explains that if the cycle threshold is 35 or higher, the chances of the virus being able to replicate are very low. They mention that it is frustrating for both patients and physicians when the cycle threshold is high, but it is unlikely to culture the virus. They conclude that if the cycle threshold is 37, 38, or even 36, it is just dead nucleotides.

The speakers discuss the misuse of PCR in estimating viral RNA. They explain that PCR can detect almost anything in the body, making it easy to find even rare viruses like HIV. However, they argue that testing for HIV specifically is unnecessary because individuals with HIV are likely to have other viruses as well. They emphasize that PCR is a quantitative tool that provides measurable information, but it does not determine sickness or the potential harm of a virus. The speakers also mention that PCR cannot differentiate between virus particles and active live viruses. Overall, they highlight the limitations and misinterpretations of PCR testing.

The speaker asks if a PCR test can be used to determine if a patient is no longer infectious. They mention that if the cycle threshold is 35 or higher, the chances of the virus being contagious are very low. They also mention that even if a patient has a cycle threshold of 37 or higher, it is unlikely that the virus can be cultured. Therefore, they conclude that a cycle threshold of 37 or higher indicates that the virus is no longer viable.

PCR is a process that can amplify molecules in the body, making it possible to find almost anything in anyone. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that the presence of a molecule indicates illness or harm. The measurement for HIV, for example, is not exact and is based on invisible factors. PCR itself is just a method to create more of something. It doesn't determine sickness or potential harm.

The PCR test, used to detect the presence of the SARS CoV-2 virus, has come under scrutiny for its reliability and potential for false positives. The test amplifies RNA fragments to identify the virus, but it can also detect traces of dead virus or remnants from other coronaviruses. Testing at high cycle thresholds can result in false positives, especially in populations with low COVID-19 prevalence. Scientists recommend not testing over 30 cycle thresholds to reduce false positives. Lowering the cycle thresholds has led to significant reductions in reported cases. The misuse and misinterpretation of the PCR test has contributed to inflated case numbers and unnecessary panic.

If a PCR test has a cycle threshold (CT) of 35 or higher, the chances of it being replication competent are very low. So, if someone's PCR test has a CT of 37 or higher, it's unlikely that the virus can be cultured from it. In fact, even a CT of 36 may indicate that it's just dead nucleotides.

PCR is not misused, but its interpretation can be. PCR can find almost anything in anybody by amplifying a single molecule. Testing for HIV and claiming it has special meaning is the problem, because someone with HIV likely has other viruses. PCR is quantitative and makes minuscule amounts measurable, but this can lead to misinterpretations. HIV measurements are not exact. HIV tests are based on invisible things and inferred results. PCR makes a lot of something out of something, but it doesn't indicate sickness or harm. Even if you believe in HIV, PCR can't differentiate between virus particles or active live virus.