PCR-test Cycle Threshold Issue

Brass

UKChat Initiate
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
295
Reaction score
54
The PCR test that was used to detect coronavirus was set at a 40-cycle threshold of amplification/replication as per the FDA's recommendation. However, even infectious disease "expert" tony himself is on record stating that an amplification/replication cycle above 35 is going to spit out almost all false-positives; others say anything above 30 cycles is meaningless. There was even a New York Times article stating that the PCR test has spit out 90% false-positives due to this "glitch" in the thinking of "experts". It takes almost zero critical thinking skills to draw the obvious conclusion. Ninety percent false positives means no pandemic.

So, why did the FDA recommend a cycle-threshold of 40? That's a rhetorical question; they obviously wanted to create the illusion of a pandemic. Also, why didn't Tony bother to speak up concerning what can only be described as a deliberate and gross misapplication of a test? We'll never know because, thanks to a complicit media, Mr. Fauci is not required to publicly answer even one challenge to his dire predictions which are based on 90% false positive returns from a PCR test that was knowingly set too high.

Unfortunately, unless some talking head comes on tv and tells people it's okay to apply their own critical thinking skills to those factual numbers, they won't do it. They think they need permission to make the obvious inference and then respond to the falsehood they've been fed. And the real kicker is that the only ones they'll accept permission from are the same ones who neglected to inform them of the reason for all the false positives in the first place.

So, given what we now know about the PCR-test, and how it was set too high despite all of the "experts" involved, how should we respond to a 90% false positive rate?
 
Last edited:

Brass

UKChat Initiate
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
295
Reaction score
54
Tony: “…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…”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Anyone disagree with him?

No?

Good, cuz he's telling the truth.

What could it mean?

Anyone?

No one?

Good boys . . .
 
Last edited:

Brass

UKChat Initiate
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
295
Reaction score
54
What is unfolding is the “fraudulent marketing” of an “unapproved” vaccine.

In a historic US Department of Justice decision in September 2009, Pfizer Inc. pleaded guilty to criminal charges. It was “The Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History” according to the DoJ:

American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company Inc. … have agreed to pay $2.3 billion, the largest health care fraud settlement in the history of the Department of Justice, to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, the Justice Department announced today. …

Pharmacia [Pfizer] & Upjohn Company has agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act …. Pharmacia & Upjohn will also forfeit $105 million, for a total criminal resolution of $1.3 billion.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky
_______________________________________________________________________________

Johnson & Johnson has a way longer rap-sheet than Pfizer.

Yep. you can trust the "good people" at Pfizer with your wellbeing.

I'm going to research polyethylene glycol. I've heard things about that issue, too.
 
Last edited:

Brass

UKChat Initiate
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
295
Reaction score
54
And remember, in 2017 the chief medical officer at Moderna said “We are actually hacking the software of life.” So, just a heads-up on that.
 

Brass

UKChat Initiate
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
295
Reaction score
54
I apologize for neglecting to mention the name of Moderna's chief medical officer. His name is Dr. Tal Zaks.

And Dr. Zaks says:

“Imagine if instead of giving [the patient] the protein of a virus, we gave them the instructions on how to make the protein, how the body can (is forced to) make its own vaccine."

Zaks said it took decades to sequence the human genome, which was accomplished in 2003, “And now we can do it in a week.”

He also said:

“So if you could change that, if you could introduce a line of code, or change a line of code, it turns out, that has profound implications for everything, from the flu to cancer.”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Anybody wanna still call it a vaccine?

Good!
 
Last edited:

Brass

UKChat Initiate
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
295
Reaction score
54
"Experts" claim that the "vaccine" will provide herd immunity.

"Experts" claim that the "vaccine" does not prevent infection or transmission.

Experts are either extremely confused, or they're trying their hand at gaslighting, and it's working very, very well. When your established authority figures make two diametrically opposed statements of fact like the ones above, and you wait around for someone to tell you which one is true, you should instead make the determination that such opposing facts necessarily come from very confused minds.

Instead of realizing that, the general population obediently assumes that there's something wrong with them and not the ones who are feeding them the contradictory information while thumbing their nose at their own life-saving advice. Just how confused do these "experts" have to show themselves to be before you'll even begin to question their sincerity?
 
Last edited:

Brass

UKChat Initiate
Joined
Mar 13, 2021
Messages
295
Reaction score
54
In order to understand how it is that people will accept two conflicting statements at a time, like the ones below, consider the McGurk effect. In the case of the "vaccine," they can tell you that it will provide herd immunity while at the same time telling you that it hasn't been shown to prevent infection or transmission. Both can't be true, so, which one will you believe? Obviously, a product that was never designed to prevent infection or transmission will not provide herd immunity.

However, your brain has been tricked into believing one of the statements over the other based on your faith in the media darling tony who doesn't even follow his own recommendations. If you've elevated tony to the position of all-knowing virus fighter, you won't hear anything except that which validates what you think you know about him.
.

"Experts" claim that the "vaccine" does not prevent infection or transmission.

"Experts" claim that the "vaccine" will provide herd immunity.


If your neighbor offered you the same kind of ass-backwards thinking, you'd have no problem straightening them out. But not tony . . .
 
Back
Top