4 Comments
author

I agree. A.I is involved. This is almost Colossus..

Expand full comment

These guys don't understand human consciousness. It doesn't even occur to them. And yet what they're doing is going to destroy it.

Expand full comment
author

The PCR is one more vehicle for harm. In fact, the scientists “create” the virus by PCR: They take artificial and entirely hypothetical primers (previously existing genetic sequences available in genetic banks) and put them in touch with the supernatant of the pharyngeal or broncho-alveolar fluid of the patient, that is with tens of billions of RNA and DNA molecules; and if, as it is likely, the primers attach to something in that broth, they conclude that whatever attached to the primers, then forming a DNA molecule with the help of the enzyme reverse transcriptase, it is the new and unknown SARS-CoV-19  As if that weren’t enough, the primers used are just an infinitesimal fragment of the alleged genome of the virus; they are in fact made up of only 18 to 24 bases (nucleotides) each; while the SARS-CoV-2 virus is assumed to consist of 30,000 bases, that is to say the primers represent only 0.07 percent of the virus genome. How is it possible to select the specific virus you are looking for with such a minute sequence..."  Source: Virus Mania-Book. Before one logically looks at the RT-PCR test for its characteristics for things like reliability, efficacy and appropriateness of use, one  should first take a look at the medium being used to collect the nasopharyngeal samples from an unsuspecting public. This discussion is not an all encompassing research study in and of itself; it is written to shed light on one version of the swab-its creation, the nature of some of its ingredients and its potential (not empirically proven or disclosed) for involvement in technologies/procedures that a reasonable individual receiving the swab would want to be advised about by a medical professional before receipt of said swab (The writer of this article is not a medical doctor and this is not medical advice. Please consult your medical doctor concerning any medical care directed towards a human being).

And that leads us to examine ‘Ultra-absorptive Nanofiber Swabs for Improved Collection and Test Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 and other Biological Specimens(https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c04956/suppl_file/nl0c04956_si_001.pdf -1/5/22 this link is no longer operative-you can find this info at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c04956 -Stan Szymanski 1/5/22)’. This work was co-authored by researchers from various schools of the University of Nebraska and The National Strategic Research Institute. When you read what follows please ask the question: ‘What does the National Strategic Research Institute, a DoD- designated University Affiliated Research Center sponsored by U.S. Strategic Command have to do with the research and development of the use of Nanofiber swabs that are being used on tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans’?

Some might naively think that the swab used in the RT-PCR test is just a long cotton swab, like some sort of specialized ‘Q-Tip’®️ designed for a nasopharyngeal application. When I read the research article mentioned above about the swab (and did some homework) it appears that nothing could be further from the truth.

The PCR test was never designed to detect pathogens and is 100% inaccurate at 35 cycles...

All PCR tests monitored by the CDC are set at 37 to 45 cycles.

The CDC acknowledges that tests over 28 cycles are not allowed for a positive reliable result.

This invalidates over 90% of the alleged Covid cases/"infections" detected by the use of this incorrect test.

https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html

Expand full comment