Conspiracy theory?
- Thread starter Kev45
- Start date
In Australia, the medical authorities want to force those who refuse the experimental injection to be psychologically evaluated and medicated if necessary. The truth, of course, is that anyone receiving the experimental injection at this point needs to have their head examined.
Informed consent is the law. But for reasons already known, they won't tell you what's in the syringe. How can there be informed consent?
Wouldn't it be fun to sit in a room with a psychiatrist who stupidly believes everything he's been told about the pandemic without researching even one thing? Think of the fun when you back him or her into a corner with the actual facts of the matter.
Doctor: Have you given any thought to the question I put to you at the end of our last session, Tim?
Tim: Yes.
Doctor: So, tell me why you believe that your distrust in the world's foremost medical authorities is justified. Tell me what sets you apart from other conspiracy theorists, Tim.
Tim: I've caught them in many lies.
Doctor: Of course you know that that's the claim of all conspiracy theorists, Tim. They all say that they know the truth and that they have identified the liars. So, what are these lies you believe you've caught them in, and who have you caught? Start at the beginning, Tim. What was the first lie, and who told it?
Tim: The pandemic was predicated on the number of cases. Correct?
Doctor: I believe that was the criteria they used.
Tim: And the number of cases was predicated on the results of the PCR-test. Correct?
Doctor: I'm not familiar with the workings of the PCR-test, but yes, that is the test they used.
Tim: Did you know that the PCR-test did not include clinical presentation of the infected?
Doctor: There was a pandemic, Tim. There was no time for established medical protocol. Speed was of the essence.
Tim: But the PCR-test doesn't distinguish between Covid and influenza or other pathogens. It also doesn't tell you whether a virus is dead or alive, or whether or not someone is sick, or how sick they are. But that's the test they decided to use. So, why did they use it, doctor?
Doctor: First, do you have any proof of these claims you've just made about the PCR-test?
Tim: Yes, from numerous sources.
Doctor: Name one of these sources, and tell me what they've said.
Tim: Do you have a computer I can use?
Doctor: Certainly.
______________________________________________
After about a minute of punching keys and scrolling:
______________________________________________
Tim: Right here:
“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.” — The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.
And here:
“PCR does not distinguish between infectious virus and non-infectious nucleic acid” — Barry Atkinson: National Collection of Pathogenic Viruses (NCPV) Eskild Petersen: infectious disease specialist.
___________________________________________
The doctor studied the quotes for a minute or so.
___________________________________________
Doctor: My specialty is psychiatry, Tim. I'm not trained in the physical sciences. It would be unethical of me to interpret or evaluate those quotes without first knowing the correct context in which they were spoken.
Tim: There is no context that needs to be discovered here. They're telling you point-blank that the test results will not tell you whether or not you have Covid, or whether or not you are sick; that's in plain English, doctor, unless you believe that the quote I've shown you is actually some kind of technical medical-speak telling you that the test does detect Covid, and that it does indicate illness? Is that what you're telling me, doctor?
Doctor: As I've said, Tim, I'm not prepared to make uninformed statements on something I know nothing about.
Tim: Oh but you do know about it, doctor. You've seen what the CDC themselves claim the test will not do. I would suggest that your bias is causing you to suddenly and inexplicably question your own reading and comprehension skills.
____________________
The doctor goes silent.
____________________
Tim: Taking a test that doesn't actually detect what it's being used to detect makes no more sense than taking a "vaccine" that doesn't prevent infection or transmission So, why would I take a test that doesn't tell me what I need to know?
And what about Fauci's explanation of the PRC-test's cycle threshold? Are you going to also claim that you're ignorant when it comes to what Fauci clearly said about it?
Doctor: I've already told you, Tim, that I am not going to comment on something beyond the scope of my expertise.
Tim: Well here's what Tony said about the PCR-test.
“…If you get [perform the PCR test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”
Doctor: Okay. Your point being?
Tim: The FDA recommended a cycle-threshold of 40. What do you imagine the reason was for them to do such a stupid thing? And why didn't Fauci speak up and tell them how stupid it was? So, in light of what Fauci knew, why didn't he speak up when the FDA recommended a ridiculous cycle-threshold of 40?
Last edited:
