Great answer! Kirsh assumes the PCR test is telling us the truth about something, when in fact the inventor of the PCR staunchly denied it was capable of diagnosing a viral infection.
Great answer! Kirsh assumes the PCR test is telling us the truth about something, when in fact the inventor of the PCR staunchly denied it was capable of diagnosing a viral infection.
Hi Andy! Thank you for the likes! And thank you for providing this link. It's a really interesting document. However, unfortunately, it is not what Kirsch is looking for in his comment above yours to which you replied. What Steve has asked for in his comment above does NOT exist! Steve is asking for a "reference" SPECIFICALLY to *KARY MULLIS* "saying (PCR) is incapable of diagnosing a viral infection". It IS true that such a reference and such a quote do NOT exist! For more information, please review the comments of mine that you have liked.
We now know for a fact that Kirsch is capable of acknowledging when something does NOT exist! LOL! Kirsch should broaden this ability to include acknowledging -and finally CONCEDING- that phantom viruses like SARS-COV2 do not exist! However, Kirsch is PROTECTING the pharma/biotech/vaccine industries, and, as such, his MASTERS in those industries will not allow him to do that!
PCR cannot diagnose anything. It can only find if your sequence is in the specimen (with such and such certainty). It does not look for viruses. Only short nucleic acid chains. And it is not a quantitative test either.
Okay, so now you've resorted to adding me to the "no virus exists" camp, (which I NEVER stated) in order to avoid my REAL argument, which is that I'm still waiting for any hard evidence that these particular particles "sequences", or DNA fragments, standing ALONE are the ACTUAL root/underlying CAUSE of disease.
I do not CARE what people choose to call these particles. When I challenged you to a debate, I stated that I would concede that these particles "exist" as the foundation, so that we could proceed to the REAL issue, which is whether or not we have hard evidence that these particular particles, (currently being identified with the PCR test) standing alone, are in fact the CAUSE OF DISEASE.
It is an outright LIE to claim that I have stated I "don't believe" that these particles "exist" at all. People choose to call them "viruses" and I won't ever argue that point, because I don't CARE what the particle is, or what anyone calls it. I only care whether or not I can see hard evidence that the particle (or substance) is in fact the CAUSE of disease.
Lying about what I have stated is a VERY POOR method of attempting to win a debate. I believe the issue of the "existence" of a particle/DNA fragment, or "virus" etc., is actually IRRELEVANT and nothing more than a red herring. If you're going to outright lie about my statements then there's nowhere to go from here.
Are you merely responding to someone else and got me confused with them?
These should enlighten you. The PCR was ABUSED to make the argument that we needed vaccines to protect us from "viruses."
PCR is a technique for producing millions of copies of any tiny fragment of genetic information from billions of building blocks. So basically, you can build whatever the hell you want to, (any "sequence") once you give it the INSTRUCTIONS for building it, SO THAT you can say someone is "infected" with a virus/particle that you'd like to say they're infected with.
JOY! STOP INVOKING MULLIS! He was one of THEM (the establishment)!! Once again, I was actually THERE at that Q & A seminar!! LISTEN TO ME! You are NOT helping your arguments at ALL by citing MULLIS!!! STOP IT!! PCR is DEFINITELY B.S., but STOP RELYING ON MULLIS to show that fact!!
What are you on about? Don't you think its odd that he was the most outspoken individual against Faucci and the use of PCR to dectect disease.... and he "died" a few months before Covid. Would not have looked good as him in one of the disinformaiton dozen. The actual inventor of the machine used to scam us all saying it cant be sued for that.
I am not "invoking him" (I think you mean edifying). Also, I gave the link to the Q & A and also a lengthy interview were he tells even more of the truth about what his invention ACTUALLY does and how it does it. He says he was shocked to find out the FDA was claiming the PCR could be used to diagnose an infection.
It is upon the reliability of the PCR test that Kirsch relies to bolster his argument that a virus called "CV-19" is what made people sick and dead.
WTF are you so afraid of this guy's name? Some of what he says makes sense and he does know what he's talking about on the PCR subject, even if some of the other stuff he says doesn't make sense. He admits that the PCR just rebuilds copies from a bit of genetic code using BILLIONS of other "building blocks" sourced from OTHER genetic materials (tissues). Does that sound like a reliable way to find out what the hell is going on with anything?
He also explains that the whole "HIV" scam was just that, a scam to get people to take deadly drugs. He claims this "HIV" particle was never even shown to be the cause of AIDS.
People are so fully hung up on nomenclature (what a particle is being called) that they completely lose sight of the real issue, which is simply "show me evidence that this particular particle IS in fact the cause disease." Kirsch turns to the reliability of the PCR test as his evidence that a particular particle is the cause of disease.
Everyone seems to be engaged in the WRONG argument. Particles exist. Sequences exist. And the "no virus" camp is claiming there are no particles or sequences, which is the WRONG argument. And the other side of the argument is that the very existence of the particles and the sequences is evidence that "viruses" exist. I don't CARE about any of that. What I care about is the LIE that these particular particles are the actual cause of disease.
You want to argue that no particles exist, and that THIS means there are no "viruses" and it's an irrelevant position. What is causing disease, or NOT causing it, is MY argument, and I do NOT need to join a religion, or ascribe to the theory that particles don't exist at all, to make it. The argument that these particles (or pieces of genetic code) do not exist at all, just sounds silly to me.
I've seen these dozens of time. Ever time, I can't find the part where he says "PCR cannot be used to find the presence of a virus." Where exactly does he say that? I keep missing it.
DISEASE is NOT virus. A PCR machine cannot find disease. Absolutely agree. He says that.
I understand your position Steve. And I also understand why you're frustrated with people who claim there is no bit of genetic material/particle (which people choose to call "virus")d and no sequence. However, I am not interested in whether or not such things "exist" - only whether or not it's been proven that these particular particles are in fact the cause of disease.
One of the interesting points Kary Mullis makes, (I believe in the 2nd link I gave you) is that he was involved in the "HIV" scam in the early days, and has first-hand personal knowledge of the fact that this bit of genetic code named "HIV" was NOT actually the cause of "AIDS."
And he does state that his PCR technology relies upon genetic code of the chosen particle to be used as an instruction to rebuild itself using building blocks gleaned from billions of other materials. Rebuilding copies of a bit of genetic code is NOT evidence that it causes disease.
So if 90% of the population ALREADY has this same bit of code, (already obtained it, one way or another) and it's a code that gets expressed more fully when a person suffers malnutrition and/or some type of toxic assault, or even just chronic stress, we should test these people for this bit of genetic code to find out if they're sick? If someone IS sick, or is NOT sick, do we really need to see what type of genetic codes they're carrying to understand WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE SICK?
We've been testing perfectly healthy people to see if they're sick. And if they happen to carry a particular fragment of genetic code, we will say they are sick/infected, in order to STRIP THEM OF THEIR RIGHTS, isolate them from family, drug them into oblivion, and ultimately murder them in hospitals. Did you know that 75% of vaccinated kids are now testing "positive" for an active "covid infection?" It's weird. Many questions in there.
Turns out a great many people who are sick have a "load" of MANY genetic codes that are never tested for. But we believe a particular one (chosen one) must be the CAUSE of their illness? Locating a particular code is NOT evidence that this particular strand of code cause their illness.
I know of far too many people who arrived at the hospital WITHOUT "covid" symptoms, but who urgently needed help with other issues, and who were tested and got a positive with the PCR. They ended up TRAPPED, isolated, (from witnesses) and "treated" with Fauci's deadly protocols, which turned out to be the CAUSE of their deaths. We already knew that Remdisivir killed close to 50% of those exposed to it BEFORE that murdering scum pushed it for covid. And of course, once someone tested positive for covid, their deaths were called covid deaths.
Remember, association is not causation. Just because a fungus shows up on a dead log, doesn't mean the fungus killed the tree. Just because vultures are circling, doesn't mean that they later caused that person's death, even though we DID witness the vulture violently ripping their tissues apart and eating them.
So even if the PCR test can correctly identify the presence of a bit of genetic code, (and rebuild copies of it from other materials so that they can claim a large enough "load" is there to constitute an "infection") this is still not evidence that this fragment is the actual CAUSE of disease.
We all fell for the lie that "cholesterol" was the enemy too. It just happens to show up when tissue has been injured. Without it, we would die MUCH sooner, as our arteries are taking a great deal of pressure, and when the tissues are breaking down (due to toxins and poor diet) cholesterol is there to HELP us, by reinforcing the tissues. We now have a growing body of evidence that heart disease can be REVERSED with a high cholesterol carnivore diet.
So finding cholesterol "at the scene of the crime" and deciding that it caused the injuries, is the same as saying cops are responsible for all of the crime "cuz I keep seeing them at crime scenes."
It seems NEITHER side of this "virus" debate even understands what matters here. What matters to me, is whether we actually understand the underlying CAUSE of disease, not whether a particular genetic sequence can be identified and proven to "exist."
i think you are misstating the "no virus" position. people like cowan, kaufman, bailey are saying there is no scientific evidence for a so called virus particle which by the virologist definition is an obligate disease causing intracellular self replicating parasite. this is the same position as yours.
I am not stating what others believe. I am stating what I believe. I believe DNA fragments and sequences "exist." I just haven't seen any convincing evidence that these particles are the cause of disease. The reason I stated what I did, was to encourage Steve to "debate" on the only issue that matters, (whether it's been proven to cause disease) rather than on the issue of whether a particle "exists."
Many people on the "no virus" side of this, only want to argue that these particles do not exist at all, when the answer to that question is irrelevant. Even assuming "existence" there's not evidence they cause disease. So yes, it would be wrong to call them a "virus" if your definition of a virus requires that, standing alone, it can cause disease. But the nomenclature is all messed up here. People have different definitions of what constitutes a "virus."
Was that meant for me? I am not arguing for, or against, the "existence" of DNA fragments which people choose to refer to as a "virus." I am simply arguing that there is no hard evidence that these particular particles (standing alone) are the actual cause of disease. It appears to me that it's irrelevant whether or not a particle can be isolated or identified, or whether or not a "sequence" from a DNA fragment can actually be copied. What matters to me is CAUSE. And I have yet to see any hard evidence that these particular particles (whether or not they "exist") are actually the root/underlying cause of any disease.
I am not arguing one way or the other as to the "existence" of any particular particles, DNA-fragments, or anything related to "viruses."
I am WAY past this. My ONLY argument is that no matter WHAT people are calling these things, and whether or not they've actually been "isolated" it makes ZERO difference to me. My argument is as follows:
Even IF these particles "exist" then where is the evidence that these particular particles, standing alone, are IN FACT the actual CAUSE of disease?
I'm NOT joining the argument that the proving the existence of a DNA fragment supplies evidence that it causes disease. And I'm also not joining the argument that DNA fragments do not "exist" at all. Neither argument makes ANY sense to me, because neither argument is relevant to the question.
Exactly. And the fact is, the WHO once published a measles study in Africa which proved that it was instantly remedied with Vitamin A.
Sounds like a vitamin A deficiency to me, rather than a "virus."
Sadly, the WHO refuses to to supply starving children with either vitamin A or foods that might remedy this deficiency. Instead, they use the allegation that a particular DNA fragment/particle, (which appears to express more fully when one is deficient in vitamin A) is the ONLY possible cause of measles. Nevermind that there could be 400 million OTHER DNA fragments present at the same time that someone appears to have measles.
Of course, the WHO is more than happy to spend 1,000 times the amount of $$ injecting African kids with vaccines, than they already know it would've cost to just make sure they're getting enough vitamin A.
I concur. The PCR test cannot tell us what CAUSES disease, i.e., it cannot tell us whether or not someone is sick, or will get sick, or will "spread" anything that's dangerous to anyone else.
It's just a copy machine for genetic codes. And we all know what happens when you print something out, and then make a copy of a copy of a copy;-) Your first word in your comment summed it up perfectly. "irrelevant." The PCR is completely irrelevant. Even that Mullis guy said it cannot be used to diagnose disease, only the presence of a fragment of code. He also stated that the presence of the code was not evidence that it caused any disease anyway. He stated that he was a part of the whole "HIV" scam, and that he never saw evidence that this particle called HIV was actually the cause of "AIDS." Quite the contrary. He claimed it was the deadly "ant-viral" drugs that were destroying people's immune systems and creating the "symptoms" of AIDS.
This is not accurate! Dr. Kary Mullis' EXACT words were: "It (PCR) doesn't tell you that you're sick, and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was gonna hurt you, or anything like that"...!! I was THERE when Mullis uttered these words back in 1997. I helped to produce the seminar where Mullis said this! Mullis BELIEVED in viruses, and he DEFINITELY believed that his PCR could INDEED detect viruses. Mullis was PART of the PROBLEM! Please see:
I just know that the PCR is NOT capable of identifying whether someone is actually infected OR contagious, let alone that they will ever get sick. So this defeats any arguments that the PCR can be used to prove the existence of a virus -within the definition that these particles are the ACTUAL cause of disease.
This person's ability to use a test to identify a particle has nothing to do with proving that the identified particle is the cause of disease.
If an identified particle doesn't make you sick, and if MANY people end up with the symptoms of the sickness associated with the particle but test NEGATIVE for that particle, where is the hard evidence that this particular particle is actually what caused sickness?
Again, it keeps coming back to one side trying to make those who question all of this seem like lunatics for denying the existence of the particles, when in fact, what's being denied, is that there is any hard and direct evidence to prove that these particular particles are IN FACT what's causing disease.
So if your definition of a "virus" says that it is not necessarily proven to be the cause of disease, well this would be different than what the "there's no virus" camp is saying. Their definition is the traditional one (which was changed just a few years ago) to now NOT include that it must have been proven to actually be the CAUSE of disease. Remember, association is not causation.
Maggots and even vultures are frequently seen where there is death. This is NOT evidence that they maggots or the vultures are the CAUSE of death. Vultures are also seen circling BEFORE death. Still doesn't prove the vultures caused it. With a 97% rate of false positives, I am discouraged you would support the use of PCR testing to tell us what's going on here.
I don't disagree with your latest post, Joy! READ MY LINKS in my previous post! I'm a FREAKIN' DISSIDENT myself!! However, you need to STOP INVOKING KARY MULLIS!! He BELIEVED IN VIRUSES! He was WRONG about that and OTHER THINGS! Mullis was NOT a hero to our old "AIDS" dissident movement!! Far from it! So, just STOP THE HERO WORSHIP OF MULLIS PLEASE!!
You need to STOP falsely accusing me of "worshipping" him. I am simply pointing to the fact he is very clear that his PCR test if NOT the way to determine the CAUSE of any disease in a human. And this matters because Steve's entire argument for the "existence" of the virus, relies upon the reliability of the PCR. Mullis may have "proof" that a DNA fragment (particle) "exists" and both he, and others, may choose to call it a "virus" but this is IRRELEVANT to whether or not a DNA fragment STANDING ALONE is the cause of disease in anyone.
It is very strange to me that you would prefer to argue a point that's irrelevant to the only question that matters, i.e., where is the evidence that these "particles" are IN FACT causing the diseases we're told they cause?
In court, it's MUCH easier to explain to a judge why you're right, EVEN if the other side's point is correct. For example, the other side keeps screaming that the law says you cannot do something the way you did it. But YOUR LAWYERS explains that even if they're correct about what the law says, it STILL doesn't matter because the court they brought you into has no jurisdiction over his client, (or to enforce that particular law, etc.)
Sometimes, it's best to go directly to the foundational issue, rather than argue (in a toxic and abusive manner) over details that are irrelevant. It's best to just say, "Even if that's true, so what? It doesn't address the REAL issue that matters here." Do you honestly believe that the ONLY way to frame the argument is to claim that DNA fragments (which they call viruses) don't exist at all? Do you honestly believe that if they can prove these things exist, it's the SAME as if they've proven these particles are actually causing disease?
Calling me a "silly woman" for posing the REAL question, (which cannot be answered by the pro-virus camp) is not useful or productive. It's just an insult and nothing more. You're more concerned about being "right" on an irrelevant point, than you are about winning the actual war. Sad.
I am quite certain that anyone who's made $$ off of the "virus as cause of disease" (to sell vaccines) program is a piece of crap. You seem to be missing my entire point. I am NOT arguing either for, or against, the existence of a DNA fragment, (which people call virus).
What I AM saying, is that EVEN IF these things "exist" THIS DOES NOT PROVE THAT THEY ARE CAUSING THE ILLNESSES WE ARE TOLD THEY ARE CAUSING.
So it is not necessary to disprove their existence, since there is no hard evidence to prove that these "things" (viruses, sequences, DNA fragments, whatever) standing alone, are the actual CAUSE of the diseases we are told they cause.
STOP making the false claim that I support the inventor of the PCR test. I do not . But I am glad he told at least SOME of the truth about the FACT that the PCR test is incapable of determining whether someone actually has an "infectious" virus that's capable of making them (or anyone else) sick. He states that his test can detect DNA fragments and that's it, and that's all.
Unless YOU are hooked on the idea that the existence of a DNA fragment MUST mean that it's an "infectious" disease that hurts you, then you DON'T have to argue about whether it "exists." Sometimes, when you "lose" you actually win. I'm not addicted to defending ANYTHING other than the FACT nobody has provided me with definitive evidence that these things they're calling "viruses" are actually what's making people sick.
I'll just point out to any OTHER readers that yes, OF COURSE the existence of "viruses" IS ABSOLUTELY VITAL! The history of our dear old, now-deceased "AIDS" dissident movement stands as PROOF of THAT fact! Failing to address the existence issue means FAILURE! This played a HUGE role in the FAILURE of our "AIDS" dissident movement! With Kary Mullis among the "leadership" in our old "AIDS" dissident movement, our movement turned into a colossal, catastrophic FAILURE! Again, I KNOW this because I WAS FREAKIN' THERE!! If you don't care about the science or you are unable to understand the science, then at least LEARN FROM HISTORY!!
You are correct that he believed in viruses and that PCR could detect viruses. People refuse to believe it. They believe what they want to believe even when there is no evidence to support that believe which is what is happening here.
Anyone claiming viruses do not exist should be the one's proving their case. Not the other way round. By demanding Steve prove them wrong when they have not provided any tangible evidence to support their claims is guilty of what I call 'Sciencism' which is not about science but who can yell and wail the loudest and link to the most youtube video's and wikipedia trash. Sciencism is what those muppets who forced the vaccines on everyone practice, it aint science.
Proving something does not exist is not a valid scientific method. The burden is on the ones who aim to prove it does exist. They have failed to do that. A virus is inferred, but has never been seen.
This fallacy originates from the Latin phrase "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat"). The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions) the claim. The fallacy of the Burden of Proof occurs when someone who is making a claim, puts the burden of proof on another party to disprove what they are claiming."
Do not bother me with your scientism cult nonsense. I am only interested in demonstrable and verifiable reality.
Great answer! Kirsh assumes the PCR test is telling us the truth about something, when in fact the inventor of the PCR staunchly denied it was capable of diagnosing a viral infection.
Can you provide a reference to him saying it is incapable of diagnosing a viral infection? I missed it. Just put the link here. Thanks!
Here you are, Kary Mullis on PCR and itтАЩs misuse:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPs86XB1OjE
"RT-PCR is not able to distinguish whether infectious virus is present."
Page 6 "under standing PCR a guide for healthcare professionals" from HMG.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/926410/Understanding_Cycle_Threshold__Ct__in_SARS-CoV-2_RT-PCR_.pdf#:~:text=Cycle%20threshold%20%28Ct%29%20is%20a%20semi-quantitative%20value%20that,much%20viral%20genetic%20material%20is%20in%20the%20sample.
Hi Andy! Thank you for the likes! And thank you for providing this link. It's a really interesting document. However, unfortunately, it is not what Kirsch is looking for in his comment above yours to which you replied. What Steve has asked for in his comment above does NOT exist! Steve is asking for a "reference" SPECIFICALLY to *KARY MULLIS* "saying (PCR) is incapable of diagnosing a viral infection". It IS true that such a reference and such a quote do NOT exist! For more information, please review the comments of mine that you have liked.
We now know for a fact that Kirsch is capable of acknowledging when something does NOT exist! LOL! Kirsch should broaden this ability to include acknowledging -and finally CONCEDING- that phantom viruses like SARS-COV2 do not exist! However, Kirsch is PROTECTING the pharma/biotech/vaccine industries, and, as such, his MASTERS in those industries will not allow him to do that!
www.bitchute.com/video/gabkfjJA6tjY
PCR cannot diagnose anything. It can only find if your sequence is in the specimen (with such and such certainty). It does not look for viruses. Only short nucleic acid chains. And it is not a quantitative test either.
Are you claiming that existence of nucleotides is proven?
Okay, so now you've resorted to adding me to the "no virus exists" camp, (which I NEVER stated) in order to avoid my REAL argument, which is that I'm still waiting for any hard evidence that these particular particles "sequences", or DNA fragments, standing ALONE are the ACTUAL root/underlying CAUSE of disease.
I do not CARE what people choose to call these particles. When I challenged you to a debate, I stated that I would concede that these particles "exist" as the foundation, so that we could proceed to the REAL issue, which is whether or not we have hard evidence that these particular particles, (currently being identified with the PCR test) standing alone, are in fact the CAUSE OF DISEASE.
It is an outright LIE to claim that I have stated I "don't believe" that these particles "exist" at all. People choose to call them "viruses" and I won't ever argue that point, because I don't CARE what the particle is, or what anyone calls it. I only care whether or not I can see hard evidence that the particle (or substance) is in fact the CAUSE of disease.
Lying about what I have stated is a VERY POOR method of attempting to win a debate. I believe the issue of the "existence" of a particle/DNA fragment, or "virus" etc., is actually IRRELEVANT and nothing more than a red herring. If you're going to outright lie about my statements then there's nowhere to go from here.
Are you merely responding to someone else and got me confused with them?
Here's a Q & A with Kary Mullis: https://rumble.com/v3bnr9s-kary-mullis-inventor-of-the-pcr-test-you-can-find-anything-in-anybody.html
This one is even more enlightening:
https://rumble.com/ve85kz-covid-19-nobel-prize-winner-pcr-test-inventor-kary-mullis-exposes-myth-of-a.html
These should enlighten you. The PCR was ABUSED to make the argument that we needed vaccines to protect us from "viruses."
PCR is a technique for producing millions of copies of any tiny fragment of genetic information from billions of building blocks. So basically, you can build whatever the hell you want to, (any "sequence") once you give it the INSTRUCTIONS for building it, SO THAT you can say someone is "infected" with a virus/particle that you'd like to say they're infected with.
JOY! STOP INVOKING MULLIS! He was one of THEM (the establishment)!! Once again, I was actually THERE at that Q & A seminar!! LISTEN TO ME! You are NOT helping your arguments at ALL by citing MULLIS!!! STOP IT!! PCR is DEFINITELY B.S., but STOP RELYING ON MULLIS to show that fact!!
What are you on about? Don't you think its odd that he was the most outspoken individual against Faucci and the use of PCR to dectect disease.... and he "died" a few months before Covid. Would not have looked good as him in one of the disinformaiton dozen. The actual inventor of the machine used to scam us all saying it cant be sued for that.
Used for that?
I am not "invoking him" (I think you mean edifying). Also, I gave the link to the Q & A and also a lengthy interview were he tells even more of the truth about what his invention ACTUALLY does and how it does it. He says he was shocked to find out the FDA was claiming the PCR could be used to diagnose an infection.
It is upon the reliability of the PCR test that Kirsch relies to bolster his argument that a virus called "CV-19" is what made people sick and dead.
WTF are you so afraid of this guy's name? Some of what he says makes sense and he does know what he's talking about on the PCR subject, even if some of the other stuff he says doesn't make sense. He admits that the PCR just rebuilds copies from a bit of genetic code using BILLIONS of other "building blocks" sourced from OTHER genetic materials (tissues). Does that sound like a reliable way to find out what the hell is going on with anything?
He also explains that the whole "HIV" scam was just that, a scam to get people to take deadly drugs. He claims this "HIV" particle was never even shown to be the cause of AIDS.
People are so fully hung up on nomenclature (what a particle is being called) that they completely lose sight of the real issue, which is simply "show me evidence that this particular particle IS in fact the cause disease." Kirsch turns to the reliability of the PCR test as his evidence that a particular particle is the cause of disease.
Everyone seems to be engaged in the WRONG argument. Particles exist. Sequences exist. And the "no virus" camp is claiming there are no particles or sequences, which is the WRONG argument. And the other side of the argument is that the very existence of the particles and the sequences is evidence that "viruses" exist. I don't CARE about any of that. What I care about is the LIE that these particular particles are the actual cause of disease.
You want to argue that no particles exist, and that THIS means there are no "viruses" and it's an irrelevant position. What is causing disease, or NOT causing it, is MY argument, and I do NOT need to join a religion, or ascribe to the theory that particles don't exist at all, to make it. The argument that these particles (or pieces of genetic code) do not exist at all, just sounds silly to me.
You really should stop jumping up and down and YELLING to make your point. Get some manners.
I've seen these dozens of time. Ever time, I can't find the part where he says "PCR cannot be used to find the presence of a virus." Where exactly does he say that? I keep missing it.
DISEASE is NOT virus. A PCR machine cannot find disease. Absolutely agree. He says that.
NOWHERE does he say it cannot detect a virus.
I understand your position Steve. And I also understand why you're frustrated with people who claim there is no bit of genetic material/particle (which people choose to call "virus")d and no sequence. However, I am not interested in whether or not such things "exist" - only whether or not it's been proven that these particular particles are in fact the cause of disease.
One of the interesting points Kary Mullis makes, (I believe in the 2nd link I gave you) is that he was involved in the "HIV" scam in the early days, and has first-hand personal knowledge of the fact that this bit of genetic code named "HIV" was NOT actually the cause of "AIDS."
And he does state that his PCR technology relies upon genetic code of the chosen particle to be used as an instruction to rebuild itself using building blocks gleaned from billions of other materials. Rebuilding copies of a bit of genetic code is NOT evidence that it causes disease.
So if 90% of the population ALREADY has this same bit of code, (already obtained it, one way or another) and it's a code that gets expressed more fully when a person suffers malnutrition and/or some type of toxic assault, or even just chronic stress, we should test these people for this bit of genetic code to find out if they're sick? If someone IS sick, or is NOT sick, do we really need to see what type of genetic codes they're carrying to understand WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE SICK?
We've been testing perfectly healthy people to see if they're sick. And if they happen to carry a particular fragment of genetic code, we will say they are sick/infected, in order to STRIP THEM OF THEIR RIGHTS, isolate them from family, drug them into oblivion, and ultimately murder them in hospitals. Did you know that 75% of vaccinated kids are now testing "positive" for an active "covid infection?" It's weird. Many questions in there.
Turns out a great many people who are sick have a "load" of MANY genetic codes that are never tested for. But we believe a particular one (chosen one) must be the CAUSE of their illness? Locating a particular code is NOT evidence that this particular strand of code cause their illness.
I know of far too many people who arrived at the hospital WITHOUT "covid" symptoms, but who urgently needed help with other issues, and who were tested and got a positive with the PCR. They ended up TRAPPED, isolated, (from witnesses) and "treated" with Fauci's deadly protocols, which turned out to be the CAUSE of their deaths. We already knew that Remdisivir killed close to 50% of those exposed to it BEFORE that murdering scum pushed it for covid. And of course, once someone tested positive for covid, their deaths were called covid deaths.
Remember, association is not causation. Just because a fungus shows up on a dead log, doesn't mean the fungus killed the tree. Just because vultures are circling, doesn't mean that they later caused that person's death, even though we DID witness the vulture violently ripping their tissues apart and eating them.
So even if the PCR test can correctly identify the presence of a bit of genetic code, (and rebuild copies of it from other materials so that they can claim a large enough "load" is there to constitute an "infection") this is still not evidence that this fragment is the actual CAUSE of disease.
We all fell for the lie that "cholesterol" was the enemy too. It just happens to show up when tissue has been injured. Without it, we would die MUCH sooner, as our arteries are taking a great deal of pressure, and when the tissues are breaking down (due to toxins and poor diet) cholesterol is there to HELP us, by reinforcing the tissues. We now have a growing body of evidence that heart disease can be REVERSED with a high cholesterol carnivore diet.
So finding cholesterol "at the scene of the crime" and deciding that it caused the injuries, is the same as saying cops are responsible for all of the crime "cuz I keep seeing them at crime scenes."
It seems NEITHER side of this "virus" debate even understands what matters here. What matters to me, is whether we actually understand the underlying CAUSE of disease, not whether a particular genetic sequence can be identified and proven to "exist."
i think you are misstating the "no virus" position. people like cowan, kaufman, bailey are saying there is no scientific evidence for a so called virus particle which by the virologist definition is an obligate disease causing intracellular self replicating parasite. this is the same position as yours.
I am not stating what others believe. I am stating what I believe. I believe DNA fragments and sequences "exist." I just haven't seen any convincing evidence that these particles are the cause of disease. The reason I stated what I did, was to encourage Steve to "debate" on the only issue that matters, (whether it's been proven to cause disease) rather than on the issue of whether a particle "exists."
Many people on the "no virus" side of this, only want to argue that these particles do not exist at all, when the answer to that question is irrelevant. Even assuming "existence" there's not evidence they cause disease. So yes, it would be wrong to call them a "virus" if your definition of a virus requires that, standing alone, it can cause disease. But the nomenclature is all messed up here. People have different definitions of what constitutes a "virus."
Please provide irrefutable evidence of alleged nucleotides.
Just no BS. Only valid evidence.
Was that meant for me? I am not arguing for, or against, the "existence" of DNA fragments which people choose to refer to as a "virus." I am simply arguing that there is no hard evidence that these particular particles (standing alone) are the actual cause of disease. It appears to me that it's irrelevant whether or not a particle can be isolated or identified, or whether or not a "sequence" from a DNA fragment can actually be copied. What matters to me is CAUSE. And I have yet to see any hard evidence that these particular particles (whether or not they "exist") are actually the root/underlying cause of any disease.
What particles?
Are you claiming that there are such particles as nucleotides or things made of nucleotides?
FYI
There is no valid evidence of existence of any nucleotide or virus.
Yes, you should look for a cause. And if you can't find it, you should admit that you do not know instead of making up stories.
I am not arguing one way or the other as to the "existence" of any particular particles, DNA-fragments, or anything related to "viruses."
I am WAY past this. My ONLY argument is that no matter WHAT people are calling these things, and whether or not they've actually been "isolated" it makes ZERO difference to me. My argument is as follows:
Even IF these particles "exist" then where is the evidence that these particular particles, standing alone, are IN FACT the actual CAUSE of disease?
I'm NOT joining the argument that the proving the existence of a DNA fragment supplies evidence that it causes disease. And I'm also not joining the argument that DNA fragments do not "exist" at all. Neither argument makes ANY sense to me, because neither argument is relevant to the question.
All of us want to know what causes specific symptoms. This way we can know what to avoid or what to do if we get them.
Exactly. And the fact is, the WHO once published a measles study in Africa which proved that it was instantly remedied with Vitamin A.
Sounds like a vitamin A deficiency to me, rather than a "virus."
Sadly, the WHO refuses to to supply starving children with either vitamin A or foods that might remedy this deficiency. Instead, they use the allegation that a particular DNA fragment/particle, (which appears to express more fully when one is deficient in vitamin A) is the ONLY possible cause of measles. Nevermind that there could be 400 million OTHER DNA fragments present at the same time that someone appears to have measles.
Of course, the WHO is more than happy to spend 1,000 times the amount of $$ injecting African kids with vaccines, than they already know it would've cost to just make sure they're getting enough vitamin A.
Irrelevant. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
Nucleotides are not proven. The same with viruses.
Thus there is no gold standard for PCR. Therefore PCR is not a valid method.
I concur. The PCR test cannot tell us what CAUSES disease, i.e., it cannot tell us whether or not someone is sick, or will get sick, or will "spread" anything that's dangerous to anyone else.
It's just a copy machine for genetic codes. And we all know what happens when you print something out, and then make a copy of a copy of a copy;-) Your first word in your comment summed it up perfectly. "irrelevant." The PCR is completely irrelevant. Even that Mullis guy said it cannot be used to diagnose disease, only the presence of a fragment of code. He also stated that the presence of the code was not evidence that it caused any disease anyway. He stated that he was a part of the whole "HIV" scam, and that he never saw evidence that this particle called HIV was actually the cause of "AIDS." Quite the contrary. He claimed it was the deadly "ant-viral" drugs that were destroying people's immune systems and creating the "symptoms" of AIDS.
Let us be clear here.
Are you claiming that PCR copies nucleotides?
If yes, how do you know this?
This is not accurate! Dr. Kary Mullis' EXACT words were: "It (PCR) doesn't tell you that you're sick, and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was gonna hurt you, or anything like that"...!! I was THERE when Mullis uttered these words back in 1997. I helped to produce the seminar where Mullis said this! Mullis BELIEVED in viruses, and he DEFINITELY believed that his PCR could INDEED detect viruses. Mullis was PART of the PROBLEM! Please see:
1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbpYott1Mdw_BuuiE6_rjO_7Xr5Z_PdoxtK3fNZI9Gc
2. https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/the-mullis-mirage
3. https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/was-mullis-more-machiavellian-than
I just know that the PCR is NOT capable of identifying whether someone is actually infected OR contagious, let alone that they will ever get sick. So this defeats any arguments that the PCR can be used to prove the existence of a virus -within the definition that these particles are the ACTUAL cause of disease.
This person's ability to use a test to identify a particle has nothing to do with proving that the identified particle is the cause of disease.
PCR *IS* capable of detecting a virus, even though you think they don't exist.
Shot yourself in the foot there Kirsch, here's a quote & its source;
"RT-PCR is not able to distinguish whether infectious virus is present."
Page 6 "under standing PCR a guide for healthcare professionals" from HMG. link below
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/926410/Understanding_Cycle_Threshold__Ct__in_SARS-CoV-2_RT-PCR_.pdf#:~:text=Cycle%20threshold%20%28Ct%29%20is%20a%20semi-quantitative%20value%20that,much%20viral%20genetic%20material%20is%20in%20the%20sample.
No, it isn't.
PCR only synthesizes a chain according to the sequence you provide. It does not 'detect' anything.
And the whole genome of a virus would be too long for this purpose.
They only use relatively short sequences to try to find them in the specimen.
But what sequences are made of?
Prove it.
If an identified particle doesn't make you sick, and if MANY people end up with the symptoms of the sickness associated with the particle but test NEGATIVE for that particle, where is the hard evidence that this particular particle is actually what caused sickness?
Again, it keeps coming back to one side trying to make those who question all of this seem like lunatics for denying the existence of the particles, when in fact, what's being denied, is that there is any hard and direct evidence to prove that these particular particles are IN FACT what's causing disease.
So if your definition of a "virus" says that it is not necessarily proven to be the cause of disease, well this would be different than what the "there's no virus" camp is saying. Their definition is the traditional one (which was changed just a few years ago) to now NOT include that it must have been proven to actually be the CAUSE of disease. Remember, association is not causation.
Maggots and even vultures are frequently seen where there is death. This is NOT evidence that they maggots or the vultures are the CAUSE of death. Vultures are also seen circling BEFORE death. Still doesn't prove the vultures caused it. With a 97% rate of false positives, I am discouraged you would support the use of PCR testing to tell us what's going on here.
I don't disagree with your latest post, Joy! READ MY LINKS in my previous post! I'm a FREAKIN' DISSIDENT myself!! However, you need to STOP INVOKING KARY MULLIS!! He BELIEVED IN VIRUSES! He was WRONG about that and OTHER THINGS! Mullis was NOT a hero to our old "AIDS" dissident movement!! Far from it! So, just STOP THE HERO WORSHIP OF MULLIS PLEASE!!
You need to STOP falsely accusing me of "worshipping" him. I am simply pointing to the fact he is very clear that his PCR test if NOT the way to determine the CAUSE of any disease in a human. And this matters because Steve's entire argument for the "existence" of the virus, relies upon the reliability of the PCR. Mullis may have "proof" that a DNA fragment (particle) "exists" and both he, and others, may choose to call it a "virus" but this is IRRELEVANT to whether or not a DNA fragment STANDING ALONE is the cause of disease in anyone.
It is very strange to me that you would prefer to argue a point that's irrelevant to the only question that matters, i.e., where is the evidence that these "particles" are IN FACT causing the diseases we're told they cause?
In court, it's MUCH easier to explain to a judge why you're right, EVEN if the other side's point is correct. For example, the other side keeps screaming that the law says you cannot do something the way you did it. But YOUR LAWYERS explains that even if they're correct about what the law says, it STILL doesn't matter because the court they brought you into has no jurisdiction over his client, (or to enforce that particular law, etc.)
Sometimes, it's best to go directly to the foundational issue, rather than argue (in a toxic and abusive manner) over details that are irrelevant. It's best to just say, "Even if that's true, so what? It doesn't address the REAL issue that matters here." Do you honestly believe that the ONLY way to frame the argument is to claim that DNA fragments (which they call viruses) don't exist at all? Do you honestly believe that if they can prove these things exist, it's the SAME as if they've proven these particles are actually causing disease?
Calling me a "silly woman" for posing the REAL question, (which cannot be answered by the pro-virus camp) is not useful or productive. It's just an insult and nothing more. You're more concerned about being "right" on an irrelevant point, than you are about winning the actual war. Sad.
Joy...I am actually trying to HELP YOU FFS!! You clearly have not read ANYTHING that I tried to show you in those links I provided ( 1. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbpYott1Mdw_BuuiE6_rjO_7Xr5Z_PdoxtK3fNZI9Gc and 2. https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/the-mullis-mirage and 3. https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/was-mullis-more-machiavellian-than ) Once again, you are WRONG ABOUT MULLIS! Specifically, you are WRONG about what you THINK Mullis said and what he actually MEANT!! If you cannot realize this rather simple fact which SHOULD be obvious than you will continue to lessen your CREDIBILITY in these discussions!!
Yes, of COURSE PCR is BOGUS (see: https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2022/05/08/pcr-and-real-time-rt-pcr-under-critical-review/ ) but so is DNA ITSELF (see https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/ ). Whether you realize it or not, Mullis NEVER conceded EITHER of these two facts! THIS is WHY Mullis, too, was BOGUS! THIS is why Mullis did what he did and said what he said in our old "AIDS" dissident movement in which, as I have tried to assure you, I was most definitely an active participant!! Mullis said those things to DEFEND PCR and to DEFEND GENETICS!!!
I am quite certain that anyone who's made $$ off of the "virus as cause of disease" (to sell vaccines) program is a piece of crap. You seem to be missing my entire point. I am NOT arguing either for, or against, the existence of a DNA fragment, (which people call virus).
What I AM saying, is that EVEN IF these things "exist" THIS DOES NOT PROVE THAT THEY ARE CAUSING THE ILLNESSES WE ARE TOLD THEY ARE CAUSING.
So it is not necessary to disprove their existence, since there is no hard evidence to prove that these "things" (viruses, sequences, DNA fragments, whatever) standing alone, are the actual CAUSE of the diseases we are told they cause.
STOP making the false claim that I support the inventor of the PCR test. I do not . But I am glad he told at least SOME of the truth about the FACT that the PCR test is incapable of determining whether someone actually has an "infectious" virus that's capable of making them (or anyone else) sick. He states that his test can detect DNA fragments and that's it, and that's all.
Unless YOU are hooked on the idea that the existence of a DNA fragment MUST mean that it's an "infectious" disease that hurts you, then you DON'T have to argue about whether it "exists." Sometimes, when you "lose" you actually win. I'm not addicted to defending ANYTHING other than the FACT nobody has provided me with definitive evidence that these things they're calling "viruses" are actually what's making people sick.
....sigh....
(banging my head against the wall)
I'll just point out to any OTHER readers that yes, OF COURSE the existence of "viruses" IS ABSOLUTELY VITAL! The history of our dear old, now-deceased "AIDS" dissident movement stands as PROOF of THAT fact! Failing to address the existence issue means FAILURE! This played a HUGE role in the FAILURE of our "AIDS" dissident movement! With Kary Mullis among the "leadership" in our old "AIDS" dissident movement, our movement turned into a colossal, catastrophic FAILURE! Again, I KNOW this because I WAS FREAKIN' THERE!! If you don't care about the science or you are unable to understand the science, then at least LEARN FROM HISTORY!!
...or you are DOOMED to repeat it!
You are correct that he believed in viruses and that PCR could detect viruses. People refuse to believe it. They believe what they want to believe even when there is no evidence to support that believe which is what is happening here.
Prove that PCR could detect viruses.
Start from proving any bio virus first.
Anyone claiming viruses do not exist should be the one's proving their case. Not the other way round. By demanding Steve prove them wrong when they have not provided any tangible evidence to support their claims is guilty of what I call 'Sciencism' which is not about science but who can yell and wail the loudest and link to the most youtube video's and wikipedia trash. Sciencism is what those muppets who forced the vaccines on everyone practice, it aint science.
Proving something does not exist is not a valid scientific method. The burden is on the ones who aim to prove it does exist. They have failed to do that. A virus is inferred, but has never been seen.
You lost your argument, kiddo.
"Burden of Proof
Informal
This fallacy originates from the Latin phrase "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat"). The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions) the claim. The fallacy of the Burden of Proof occurs when someone who is making a claim, puts the burden of proof on another party to disprove what they are claiming."
Do not bother me with your scientism cult nonsense. I am only interested in demonstrable and verifiable reality.