It's worse than that - how could they test for a virus using PCR which is not a test in any way whatsoever? THere is a video on Yoo Toob (or was several months ago) of Karey Mullis, inventor of PCR process addressing an audience shortly before covid came out. Someone asks him a question about the PCR "test". He looks very perplexed and e…
It's worse than that - how could they test for a virus using PCR which is not a test in any way whatsoever? THere is a video on Yoo Toob (or was several months ago) of Karey Mullis, inventor of PCR process addressing an audience shortly before covid came out. Someone asks him a question about the PCR "test". He looks very perplexed and explains that it was never meant to be a test, it's a process used to obtain more info on DNA strands. That is all. They use it on things like dinosaur bones to obtain more info about their DNA. It's called paleobiology which one could say Mr. Mullis created that new field. Anyway, he also says if you try to use it as a test, you can make anything look like a positive result so it should never be used for a test. The video is about 4 min. long. Mullis own the Nobel prize in 1993 IIRC for creating the PCR process. Sadly, Mullis died just a few months before covid came out. Hmm...
The antibody tests have never gotten enough attention imo. I think they can be manipulated as well and probably were to conceal evidence of early spread. But if someone does test positive for antibodies, they almost certainly did have Covid at an earlier date. The naysayers of my early spread hypothesis say that all the early positives on antibody tests were "false positives." To which I say: ALL of them? Even those people who got multiple positive tests from different assays? Did the tests suddenly get better? If the tests produce "false positives" do they also produce "false negatives" from time to time? If they do, that 2.03 prevalence result from the Red Cross antibody study might be the lowest possible percentage. If there were more false negatives than positives, there were MORE than 2.03 percent of people who had been infected by November 2019.
I would like to know, whose decision was it to stick that dangerous, demeaning swab so far up the nose? How did that become the required way to administer the test? The answer is, I think, very important and gets to the heart of the conspiracy. I think it was a test to see just how far the sheep would let them go in violating their bodily autonomy.
BINGO!!! Exactly - because from what I've read there is ethylene oxide in it, which causes cancer. Also, shoving a swab so far up the nose can damage the blood brain barrier. If E.O. is able to breach the blood brain barrier - can you say brain cancer? Here is why E.O. is not good to put up the nose close to your brain, from the OSHA website:
Back in Aug. 2020, my husband was rushed to hospital and was very, very ill. They tested him at least several times for covid, several of which were swabs. My husband has always had a very sharp brain, remembers EVERYTHING and had a head full of knowledge gained from 55 yrs research into virology/immunology and other branches of biological sciences. When he came home, he was a changed man and his brain has been going downhill ever since. I don't know if it's from the swab or maybe had had some kind of stroke and we may never know the answer to that. But he never consented to the swabs because he knew the PCR "test" is not any kind of test, it's a process to gather knowledge about DNA strands/sequences. It is used on dinosaur bones for example to gather info on their DNA to learn more about them. There is a video on Yoo Toob of Kerry Mullis, inventor of PCR process saying it should never be used as a test because it doesn't test for anything. He did also say that you can get a false positive result for anything if used as a test. My point is this - how much brain damage might the ethylene oxide on those swabs have caused to untold numbers of people?
They speculate/proclaim that the tests are picking up cousins of the novel coronavirus. So someone who tests positive is "cross-reactive." It was another virus that made them sick. That's the other thing they don't talk about. These people not only tested positive for Covid antibodies, they also had all the Covid symptoms months before their tests. And they hadn't been sick after that. They also disparage antibody results that are producing high numbers of positives as being "junk" tests - not reliable. Personally, I trust the "junk" tests more than the tests the government uses and authorizes. I saw you just subscribed. You can read my stories on "How they Conceal Early Spread" and "Antibody Evidence of Early Spread in One Document." I'd value you your opinions. Is my evidence more credible than that of the experts? Thanks for the subscription!
Thank you for this information Bill - I sent your substack sub info to my husband, a virologist of many yrs who worked in Public Health for state of PA. He will read over your 2 articles and the explanations you posted about evidence of of test results. He's a better person to look over the science than I am. I'm not a scientist, I'm a researcher and help him with his research is all. He can answer any questions you might have. He will probably answer them on your substack column. Hope this helps, let me know if you need anything else.
It's worse than that - how could they test for a virus using PCR which is not a test in any way whatsoever? THere is a video on Yoo Toob (or was several months ago) of Karey Mullis, inventor of PCR process addressing an audience shortly before covid came out. Someone asks him a question about the PCR "test". He looks very perplexed and explains that it was never meant to be a test, it's a process used to obtain more info on DNA strands. That is all. They use it on things like dinosaur bones to obtain more info about their DNA. It's called paleobiology which one could say Mr. Mullis created that new field. Anyway, he also says if you try to use it as a test, you can make anything look like a positive result so it should never be used for a test. The video is about 4 min. long. Mullis own the Nobel prize in 1993 IIRC for creating the PCR process. Sadly, Mullis died just a few months before covid came out. Hmm...
The antibody tests have never gotten enough attention imo. I think they can be manipulated as well and probably were to conceal evidence of early spread. But if someone does test positive for antibodies, they almost certainly did have Covid at an earlier date. The naysayers of my early spread hypothesis say that all the early positives on antibody tests were "false positives." To which I say: ALL of them? Even those people who got multiple positive tests from different assays? Did the tests suddenly get better? If the tests produce "false positives" do they also produce "false negatives" from time to time? If they do, that 2.03 prevalence result from the Red Cross antibody study might be the lowest possible percentage. If there were more false negatives than positives, there were MORE than 2.03 percent of people who had been infected by November 2019.
I would like to know, whose decision was it to stick that dangerous, demeaning swab so far up the nose? How did that become the required way to administer the test? The answer is, I think, very important and gets to the heart of the conspiracy. I think it was a test to see just how far the sheep would let them go in violating their bodily autonomy.
BINGO!!! Exactly - because from what I've read there is ethylene oxide in it, which causes cancer. Also, shoving a swab so far up the nose can damage the blood brain barrier. If E.O. is able to breach the blood brain barrier - can you say brain cancer? Here is why E.O. is not good to put up the nose close to your brain, from the OSHA website:
https://www.osha.gov/ethylene-oxide
Back in Aug. 2020, my husband was rushed to hospital and was very, very ill. They tested him at least several times for covid, several of which were swabs. My husband has always had a very sharp brain, remembers EVERYTHING and had a head full of knowledge gained from 55 yrs research into virology/immunology and other branches of biological sciences. When he came home, he was a changed man and his brain has been going downhill ever since. I don't know if it's from the swab or maybe had had some kind of stroke and we may never know the answer to that. But he never consented to the swabs because he knew the PCR "test" is not any kind of test, it's a process to gather knowledge about DNA strands/sequences. It is used on dinosaur bones for example to gather info on their DNA to learn more about them. There is a video on Yoo Toob of Kerry Mullis, inventor of PCR process saying it should never be used as a test because it doesn't test for anything. He did also say that you can get a false positive result for anything if used as a test. My point is this - how much brain damage might the ethylene oxide on those swabs have caused to untold numbers of people?
"The naysayers of my early spread hypothesis say that all the early positives on antibody tests were "false positives."
Do they have evidence of that? Can they explain how or why the false positives occur?
They speculate/proclaim that the tests are picking up cousins of the novel coronavirus. So someone who tests positive is "cross-reactive." It was another virus that made them sick. That's the other thing they don't talk about. These people not only tested positive for Covid antibodies, they also had all the Covid symptoms months before their tests. And they hadn't been sick after that. They also disparage antibody results that are producing high numbers of positives as being "junk" tests - not reliable. Personally, I trust the "junk" tests more than the tests the government uses and authorizes. I saw you just subscribed. You can read my stories on "How they Conceal Early Spread" and "Antibody Evidence of Early Spread in One Document." I'd value you your opinions. Is my evidence more credible than that of the experts? Thanks for the subscription!
Thank you for this information Bill - I sent your substack sub info to my husband, a virologist of many yrs who worked in Public Health for state of PA. He will read over your 2 articles and the explanations you posted about evidence of of test results. He's a better person to look over the science than I am. I'm not a scientist, I'm a researcher and help him with his research is all. He can answer any questions you might have. He will probably answer them on your substack column. Hope this helps, let me know if you need anything else.
Thank you very much. What a great resource - a researcher and a virologist.
Thank you! I'm happy to help a "struggling journalist" especially one who seems to want so badly to get to the truth.
I'm working so hard so that I might reach readers just like you and your husband!