When the inventor of the PCR test says the following about his test that should automatically end the use of the PCR test for diagnosing disease by any sane primary care physician.
In a 1993 interview, Mullis said: “PCR test, if you do it well, you can find almost anything.” (Source: [1])
In another interview, he emphasized that PCR was intended for research purposes, not diagnostics: “It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you that the thing you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.” (Source: [2])
In a 2020 interview, Mullis’ statements were referenced, stating that PCR testing was “not designed to diagnose a SARS-CoV-2 infection” and that the tests were “never designed to diagnose a specific disease.” (Source: [3])
Additionally, Mullis’ patent abstract explicitly stated that PCR was a process for amplifying and detecting any target nucleic acid sequence, not specifically designed for diagnosing pathogens. (Source: [4])
Thank you Dr Coleman for your courage and integrity.
They knew better. Their trusted source - their most trusted source - New York Times even told them/us the tests were bad in the summer of 2020. This NYT piece was published several months after those of us doing the research already knew and had been saying the same thing (deemed mis/disinformation and censored/shadow banned):
Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.
The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.
"In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said. Other experts informed of these numbers were stunned. “I’m really shocked that it could be that high — the proportion of people with high C.T. value results,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. “Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing.”"
They knew. And did it anyways. I remember even sharing the NYT piece with state and local elected officials, media, health authorities. Private messages and public forums. They NEVER responded to the information from their own trusted sources to change course, to stop using the PCR tests as if they were diagnostic. Which makes them guilty of willfully disregarding the information. It's not that they didn't know. They knew. And did it anyways. Elevating the crime from ignorance to malice of forethought. Criminal intent. The legally recognized difference between negligent homicide and first degree murder.
And this is just about the PCR cycle threshold issue, enough in and of itself to convict. Not even getting into how even a PCR test at a lower threshold isn't capable of being a diagnostic tool. Presence alone of a genetic marker isn't sufficient to diagnose infection or infectious. Not even getting into the "such thing as a virus" debate, which has its own credibility discernment associated with it.
Don’t forget... the PCR “test” was approved by the second (2nd, dos, first loser) week in February 2020. At the time, not one American death had been attributed to COVID when the PCR was designated.
Take a look at the assays being used... 18 of the 20 genomes “picked” lineup with human genomes. Now, throw in a strand of DNA, you will have a perfect match to humans.
When the inventor of the PCR test says the following about his test that should automatically end the use of the PCR test for diagnosing disease by any sane primary care physician.
In a 1993 interview, Mullis said: “PCR test, if you do it well, you can find almost anything.” (Source: [1])
In another interview, he emphasized that PCR was intended for research purposes, not diagnostics: “It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick and it doesn’t tell you that the thing you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.” (Source: [2])
In a 2020 interview, Mullis’ statements were referenced, stating that PCR testing was “not designed to diagnose a SARS-CoV-2 infection” and that the tests were “never designed to diagnose a specific disease.” (Source: [3])
Additionally, Mullis’ patent abstract explicitly stated that PCR was a process for amplifying and detecting any target nucleic acid sequence, not specifically designed for diagnosing pathogens. (Source: [4])
Thank you Dr Coleman for your courage and integrity.
It is why I bring his comments to sub stack, since he’s the most censored Doc in the world (or one of them).
Thanks for the restack, Jonathan.
They knew better. Their trusted source - their most trusted source - New York Times even told them/us the tests were bad in the summer of 2020. This NYT piece was published several months after those of us doing the research already knew and had been saying the same thing (deemed mis/disinformation and censored/shadow banned):
Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.
The usual diagnostic tests may simply be too sensitive and too slow to contain the spread of the virus.
New York Times, August 29, 2020 https://web.archive.org/web/20200829094039/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html
"In Massachusetts, from 85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” he said. Other experts informed of these numbers were stunned. “I’m really shocked that it could be that high — the proportion of people with high C.T. value results,” said Dr. Ashish Jha, director of the Harvard Global Health Institute. “Boy, does it really change the way we need to be thinking about testing.”"
They knew. And did it anyways. I remember even sharing the NYT piece with state and local elected officials, media, health authorities. Private messages and public forums. They NEVER responded to the information from their own trusted sources to change course, to stop using the PCR tests as if they were diagnostic. Which makes them guilty of willfully disregarding the information. It's not that they didn't know. They knew. And did it anyways. Elevating the crime from ignorance to malice of forethought. Criminal intent. The legally recognized difference between negligent homicide and first degree murder.
And this is just about the PCR cycle threshold issue, enough in and of itself to convict. Not even getting into how even a PCR test at a lower threshold isn't capable of being a diagnostic tool. Presence alone of a genetic marker isn't sufficient to diagnose infection or infectious. Not even getting into the "such thing as a virus" debate, which has its own credibility discernment associated with it.
Ahmed, thanks for the restack.
Thank you Kenn, for the restack.
Greg, thanks for the restack.
Thanks Arturo, for the restack.
Bullseye 🎯
Don’t forget... the PCR “test” was approved by the second (2nd, dos, first loser) week in February 2020. At the time, not one American death had been attributed to COVID when the PCR was designated.
That’s what had me suspicious of it, and some tests being contaminated with SARS-CoV-2, how does that happen?
Take a look at the assays being used... 18 of the 20 genomes “picked” lineup with human genomes. Now, throw in a strand of DNA, you will have a perfect match to humans.
Its not the disease, its the test.
The Actuaries Inc article by the 2nd Smartest Guy in the World sheds further light on this scam….
William, thanks for the restack.
Mushin, thanks for the restack.
Susan, MayBella, thanks for the restacks.
Chantelle, Edward, Judith, thanks for the restacks.
Maybella, thanks for the stack.
Edward, thanks for the restack.