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 BELI…
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.
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.