Because of their sophistication and complexity, scientific tests are accepted without question. But what happens when they don’t work and are nothing but professional gibberish?
One such test is the PCR (polymerase chain reaction), when it is used to measure the amount of a particular virus present in the human body and, therefore, the presence of disease.
The PCR is used all over the world as a gold standard of disease diagnosis.
PCR starts with what is presumed to be a tiny, tiny, tiny piece of a virus from a patient. This piece is far too small to be seen directly. The test amplifies the supposed viral fragment many times. Think of a whisper of a sound in a far-off forest turning into a full orchestra three feet away from you. It’s that level of amplification.
The result? According to the pros, they can then observe the virus and identify it. And they can also tell how much of it is in the patient’s body.
“Well, Mr. Jones, you have virus X24. So you have disease X24.”
Except for a few issues.
First, in order to say a person has a disease, you would have seen lot and lots and lots of virus in his body. Millions. A few little critters aren’t going to make any impact on the person’s health.
So why is the PCR test necessary in the first place?
If all you can find is a tiny, tiny fragment of what might be a virus, you already know you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Without the PCR, you should be able to establish that millions of a particular virus have invaded the patient’s body.
If you can’t, why bother using the PCR?
And second, the claim that the PCR can be used to say there ARE millions of a particular virus in the body is unverified. It could be verified or rejected, if more direct tests were done, but I don’t see that happening.
For example, you do a PCR on a patient, and you conclude he has a huge load of virus X in his body. Well, then, use a different test and confirm this is true. It should be easy. With filters and a centrifuge, for example, show that you can extract a concentrated pellet consisting of millions of virus X particles.
The PCR test itself is a remarkable procedure. But its use in disease diagnosis is way off the mark. Fake.
What are the implications? All over the world, every day, patients are tested with the PCR. The results say nothing about disease, yet that’s exactly how and why the test is deployed.
False disease diagnoses are made, and toxic drugs are prescribed.
“Well, we did a PCR test on Mr. Jones, and we found he has virus X, so he has disease X.”
“You didn’t find out anything. If Mr. Jones has disease X, he would have millions and millions of virus X in his body. You could find that out by using other direct tests. But when you do those other tests, you can’t find large quantities of virus X.”
“That’s ridiculous. I’m too busy to talk to you. I have to get to the lab.”
In 1996, journalist John Lauritsen wrote, “Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in Science for inventing the PCR…has stated: ‘Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron’.”
Translation: the PCR test can’t be used to say how much virus is in a person’s body.
Using PCR to measure the number of viruses in the human body (quantitative) is contradictory to the way the test works. The test isn’t designed to spout those numbers. Therefore, using it to diagnose active disease in a person is absurd.