Tonight, I have two different experts on the PCR method, from opposite directions: one who is saying it's useful as a diagnostic tool, and another who describes how false positives impact people.
The mendacity on display in Kevin M.'s claim that the "no-virus-people" are being unfair in requiring full 100% purity in the "isolation" technique -- rather than being happy with the apparently minisculely smaller level attainable with current technology -- would be breathtaking...if it weren't so de rigueur. Kevin C. touched on this in y'alls' debrief, but didn't take it in the direction I would have.
Namely, the putative particle is not only not isolated to a very-high-but-not-quite-100% level of purity, it's severely *adulterated*, including with chemicals *known to be toxic to the kidney cells being used to "culture" the "virus"*. In other words, the *opposite* of isolation -- *not* a technologically-impossible-to-achieve-even-despite-best-efforts attempt at isolation. Moreover, he completely ignores that if it *were* possible to attain the degree of purity he claims, then there still wouldn't be any need of "culturing" the "virus", as it would be present in massive abundance in the fluid of the infected individual. In such abundance, in fact -- given the disparity in size between the particle and the cell, and the supposed means by which "infection" occurs -- that the viral mass could be seen under a light microscope, even if individual particles could not.
But even were he not dissembling w/r/t the above, it would still leave open the question of why controls are not performed. Even if we say it's impossible to fully isolate the particle -- hell, even if we perform the technique as-is (i.e., without even attempting isolation) -- then a control could be performed without a sample from the patient, and then if no CPE were observed in the control, it at least would be known that *something* in the patient sample could be blamed. But we know from Stefan Lanka's control experiments that this is not the case: That the exact same CPE is observed in the controls; and that, therefore, the "isolation" *technique* is to blame.
So how can a sample return a positive PCR result if the particle does not exist? First, as Kary Mullis warned, *any* molecule can be found in *any* sample given enough amplification cycles are run. Second, the sequences being used for the primers can be found in the dozens in the BLAST database -- so they're in no way, shape, or form unique to a specific genome.
And, okay, if Kevin M. is truly ignorant of these facts, then I would offer a back-handed apology for accusing him of prevarication. (Back-handed because there's no excuse for someone in his position to be ignorant of the facts.) But I find it almost impossible to believe that he is ignorant of these facts. I think he's a fucking liar. And I kinda wish you'd called him on it. That said, thanks much for giving him enough of a pranging to impel him to expose himself in this manner.
Culshaw wrote the best book on the HIV fraud in 2007 called "Science Sold Out." The book nowadays is sold out because it received a glowing review in RFK Jr's "Real Anthony Fauci."
Here's a mainstream doctor arguing about the misuse of PCR in Hepatitis C treatments:
The mendacity on display in Kevin M.'s claim that the "no-virus-people" are being unfair in requiring full 100% purity in the "isolation" technique -- rather than being happy with the apparently minisculely smaller level attainable with current technology -- would be breathtaking...if it weren't so de rigueur. Kevin C. touched on this in y'alls' debrief, but didn't take it in the direction I would have.
Namely, the putative particle is not only not isolated to a very-high-but-not-quite-100% level of purity, it's severely *adulterated*, including with chemicals *known to be toxic to the kidney cells being used to "culture" the "virus"*. In other words, the *opposite* of isolation -- *not* a technologically-impossible-to-achieve-even-despite-best-efforts attempt at isolation. Moreover, he completely ignores that if it *were* possible to attain the degree of purity he claims, then there still wouldn't be any need of "culturing" the "virus", as it would be present in massive abundance in the fluid of the infected individual. In such abundance, in fact -- given the disparity in size between the particle and the cell, and the supposed means by which "infection" occurs -- that the viral mass could be seen under a light microscope, even if individual particles could not.
But even were he not dissembling w/r/t the above, it would still leave open the question of why controls are not performed. Even if we say it's impossible to fully isolate the particle -- hell, even if we perform the technique as-is (i.e., without even attempting isolation) -- then a control could be performed without a sample from the patient, and then if no CPE were observed in the control, it at least would be known that *something* in the patient sample could be blamed. But we know from Stefan Lanka's control experiments that this is not the case: That the exact same CPE is observed in the controls; and that, therefore, the "isolation" *technique* is to blame.
So how can a sample return a positive PCR result if the particle does not exist? First, as Kary Mullis warned, *any* molecule can be found in *any* sample given enough amplification cycles are run. Second, the sequences being used for the primers can be found in the dozens in the BLAST database -- so they're in no way, shape, or form unique to a specific genome.
And, okay, if Kevin M. is truly ignorant of these facts, then I would offer a back-handed apology for accusing him of prevarication. (Back-handed because there's no excuse for someone in his position to be ignorant of the facts.) But I find it almost impossible to believe that he is ignorant of these facts. I think he's a fucking liar. And I kinda wish you'd called him on it. That said, thanks much for giving him enough of a pranging to impel him to expose himself in this manner.
Excellent show! Thank you 💜
Here's Rebecca Culshaw's Substack on PCR:
https://rebeccaculshawsmith.substack.com/p/false-positive-viral-loads-aka-pcr
Culshaw wrote the best book on the HIV fraud in 2007 called "Science Sold Out." The book nowadays is sold out because it received a glowing review in RFK Jr's "Real Anthony Fauci."
Here's a mainstream doctor arguing about the misuse of PCR in Hepatitis C treatments:
https://www.healio.com/news/hepatology/20160413/expert-svr-does-not-equate-to-a-cure-in-hcv