Most people know about the human microbiome, where bacteria live in our gut. But within the microbiome is the human virome, where 380 trillion viruses exist. Every virus on planet Earth has a piece of it in every human's virome.
You have Ebola in your virome. You have Zika in your virome. You have H1N1 in your virome. And you have Covid19 in your virome.
So, how do we create a pandemic -- out of nothing?
We use a test to determine the cause of an illness in a person or a population ... that is NOT actually capable of determining such a cause.
In other words: a FAKE test. It's not that the test itself is fake; it's that the USE OF the test RESULT is fake.
To know if a particular pathogen causes an illness, Koch's Postulates must be observed (look it up).
So, to create a pandemic out of nothing:
Step 1: We IGNORE Koch's Postulates
Step 2: We instead use a PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) test. While this test has its use, it is NOT CAPABLE of identifying whether or not a person is sick due to a particular pathogen. That is not the purpose of the test. But the hoaxers are using it for just that purpose.
This is fraud.
Even the inventor of the PCR testing methodology, Dr. Kerry Mullis, said that the test CANNOT prove causation.
PCR is a method to study something in the blood that is present in such a small quantity that it cannot be seen under a microscope to be studied. So, Mullis came up with a method of amplifying the substance by multiplying it to a point were it would show up enough to be seen and studied.
While you might start out with a tiny amount (an amount that EVERYBODY on Earth already has in their virome), you could end up with a whole lot more, depending on how many "amplification cycles" you run. If you run too few cycles, you will not see it, and could declare "negative" -- not enough there to show up.
But ... if you run it more cycles, it eventually WILL show up, and you can declare "positive." So, how many cycles should you run?
20? Not enough. 35? Maybe. 40? Probably. 60? Definitely.
If you run enough cycles, you could show that 100% of the population "has" it. Yes, the person has a tiny amount (as does everyone else on Earth). But the "positive" test result does not prove that there is such a large enough quantity in the person that it is actually a threat to their health. It only shows "positive" because the person doing the testing has amplified it into a large amount in the lab, by running enough PCR cycles.
PCR was never intended to be used to prove that someone has a virus in such a large quantity that it is a threat to their health. It was designed to amplify amounts that are so tiny that they cannot be seen under a microscope. The amplification process allows the lab technician to identify it and study it, and do so more quickly than with other methods.
A "positive" test result does NOT mean that the person is sick from this particular microorganism. PCR is NOT CAPABLE of proving that, and was never intended for that purpose. But it is being used exactly for that purpose.
Again, it is fraud.
THIS is how they can manipulate how big of a "problem" it is. Just run enough cycles.
PCR does not prove that a virus causes ill health. It only shows up or does not show up -- and THAT is determined by how many cycles are run. How many cycles are run is determined by Anthony Fauci, or someone like him.
It proves NOTHING.
The pandemic is CREATED ... from NOTHING.
And the same was true of SARS, Ebola, Zika, N1H1, and the rest. It is the SAME PLAYBOOK.
Same epidemic, different year (the year that Trump runs for re-election).
23527116? ago
As far as you know is there a test for an antibody to indicate one has had the virus?
23519241? ago
A reply I got on Facebook regarding this post: As someone who literally wrote a book about this ("Welcome to the Microbiome: Getting to Know the Trillions of Bacteria and Other Microbes In, On, and Around You"), let me just ease some fears that this post may have caused. You do not have Ebola in your gut. You do not have swine flu in your gut. The vast majority of viruses in there are phages - they use bacterial cells as their hosts and not human cells. So, yes, you have viruses but you are not a Petri dish of pathogens. Second, PCR, or in this case, RT-PCR is used for some of the tests. These are amplification processes that rely on the presence of template material to copy. If there is not viral RNA(Covid in this case), you won't get amplification. Yes, extra numbers of cycles can sometimes give you false positives. That is why specific conditions are calibrated and used in the diagnostic labs. Is it perfect? No. But, it's quite reliable if the testing primers are good and it's reasonably fast and cheap. Finally, anyone who claims this is a hoax is living under a rock. I don't know about you, but I'm getting pretty darn tired of having my heart broken from reading about friends' parents dying, my co-workers dying, and everyone I know having their lives touched by this horrible pathogen.
I hope this adds to your data gathering.
Points and counterpoints... good to learn
23514478? ago
Trump says it's a national emergency, but you say it doesn't exist. Who should I believe?
23514691? ago
Trump talks about the "invisible enemy." He doesn't say what or who that is.
23515140? ago
Thanks for this post OP. I have been saying the same with less technical understanding.
For this particular question (why is Trump on board?) you may find this post of interest:
https://voat.co/v/QRV/3753596
23515555? ago
Hey, I didn't see that thread. Thanks for posting. Interesting thoughts.
23514082? ago
This submission was linked from this anonymous v/QRV submission.
Posted automatically (#106012) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.
23512914? ago
Just like fiat currency, created from nothing. Welcome to the Grand Illusion.
23512906? ago
I posted this on Facebook, dumb idea I know, especially living in Southern NY, but I do have a question, but then why are there so many deaths from it... They just seems to be miss categorized in my thinking.
23514392? ago
CDC issued a report telling state health administrators (who gave it to hospital administrators and doctors) to report any death as a Covid-19 death, even if the death was likely due to something else, if the person had Covid-19 or was assumed to have it (with no test).
IOW: The death stats are entirely made up. We have no idea how many people actually died due to Covid-19. That number might be 0.
"COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have causedor contributed to death."
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/coronavirus/Alert-2-New-ICD-code-introduced-for-COVID-19-deaths.pdf
23512443? ago
Thanks for posting this. Lots to learn!
23512263? ago
The quotes from Mullis are both interesting and true. But the information you started the post with is wrong.
How can I have Ebola or any part of it in my body if I’ve never been in contact with it? Sorry, OP, these assertions are nonsense.
Are there viruses which copy themselves into the genome of your cells and go into a latent phase to hide? Yes, but you have to get infected with it first. I suppose you could inherit a genome with viral sequences in it if one of your ancestors was infected in the germ line cell population. (Non germ line cells don’t get passed down).
Also, not all viruses copy themselves into your cells DNA. Only certain families of viruses do that.
So no, I’m afraid we don’t have Ebola and etc. why? Because we’ve never been exposed to them.
23517187? ago
Have you ever been vaccinated?
What was in the vaccine?
23519727? ago
It’s important to understand that every single DNA-based conviction would be overturned if it were true that you could find anything in any sample, so long as you PCR it enough times. You can’t amplify something that isn’t there. Zero times a large number is still zero.
23513858? ago
Good question. My OP included info from multiple sources, so I did not post a ton of links. You are correct in that most of the articles talking about the virome say that Ebola, for example, is not in our virome. However, all of those articles appear to be identical, just on different websites. So, they are from the same source.
I got info from another source (can't remember where now -- researching is not my profession, just something I was curious about) that said that all the viruses out there have some small amount in our virome.
I do not KNOW which opinion is true. However ...
If PCR is the method used to test all of the illnesses of the past decade (Ebola, Zika, SARS, etc.), and we know that PCR is NOT capable of giving us information about the CAUSE of an illness, but merely is a mechanism to replicate in a lab from a small initial sample, then it stands to reason that all of these politically-motivated scare viruses actually do have some small amount inside each of us.
I am not convinced that COVID-19 is what it is claimed to be, but let's say it is. Look how quickly it spread around the world in a matter of months. Now, take some other virus which might have been on planet Earth before humans existed. Not hard to imagine that every person has a small bit of it in their virome.
Having a small amount does NOT make a person sick from it. THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT.
You have to have A LOT of it to get sick. Only a tiny fraction of people have enough to get sick. But the PCR test can make it LOOK LIKE people do have enough to be sick from it, if enough amplifications are performed in the lab.
That is the point.
So, whether the theory that Ebola is not already inside all of us, or the theory that it is, the bottom line is it still takes a ton of it to make anyone sick, but a PCR test does not tell us anything about that. It is the wrong test for the job (using a hammer when you need a screwdriver).
23514755? ago
So essentially your post boils down to a claim that, at least for nucleic acid testing, if PCR is involved in order to amplify viral genetic material prior to reagent binding, there is a risk of false positive results (which is a result saying you’re infected when you aren’t) because “we already have it in our virome.”
This may be one source of false positive results, but I doubt it for the case of covid. If the NA test is highly specific for covid sequences, and if the result is positive because of covid genes in the test subject’s virome, the question must be asked how did a broken version of covid get into your virome? Because if it’s not broken then it would replicate until the body got it under control, in which case you should also test positive for the presence of antibodies.
So all in all, while there is some fact behind what you say, I doubt how relevant it is to covid as a source of false positives in NA testing.
23515228? ago
It's not just a risk of false positives. It is a guarantee of false positives, if enough amplifications are done. The number of amplifications chosen by the lab is completely arbitrary, and there is no standardization. And the doctor that sent the sample to the lab, and got the result back, has no idea what that result represents (how many amplifications were done).
That's another problem:
"... it’s those generic parts in a Corona virus that the PCR test picks up. They can have partial loops but if you only took a few little samples of fingerprints you are going to come up with a lot of segments of RNA that we are not sure have anything to do with corona virus. They will still show up in PCR. You can get down to the levels where its biologically irrelevant and then amplify it a trillion-fold.”
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/#
23516794? ago
I disagree with this point. If it isn’t there to begin with, it will never be detected no matter how many PCR cycles are performed. That’s why it comes down to pathogen specificity.
I agree with this point, which is why I said “if.” Presuming you have high enough specificities (and no contamination, etc), you won’t get false positives. Since we don’t have perfectly specific tests, and also since the virus mutates, which makes it a moving target, we are bound to get false positives.
And if a certain test is returning a false positive because of a lack of specificity, that same test should continue to do so for the same sample, which is why we need a variety of tests.
23510114? ago
Yet more info:
The FIRST person tested in Wuhan, China tested positive on only 3 of 11 tests. Another woman, who was one of the earliest tested in Wuhan, was tested 18 times, and ALL 18 WERE NEGATIVE, and yet SHE WAS DECLARED POSITIVE.
Crowe described a case in the literature of a woman who had been in contact with a suspect case of Corona (in Wuhan) they believed was the index case. “She was important to the supposed chain of infection because of this. They tested her 18 times, different parts of the body, like nose, throat—different PCR tests. 18 different tests. And she tested negative every time. And then they—because of her epidemiological connection with the other cases, they said: “We consider her infected. So, they had 18 negative tests and they said she was infected.”
“Now why was she important? Well there was only one other person who could have theoretically transmitted the virus if the original patient, outside the family was who they thought it was. But secondly, she had the same exact symptoms as everybody else. Right? So, four people in his family came down with fever and cough and headaches, fatigue and all these kinds of big symptoms. So, if she could get those symptoms without the virus, then you, you’ve got to say, well, why couldn’t everybody else’s symptoms be explained by whatever she had? I mean, maybe they, they ate some bad seafood or something and so they all got sick, but it had nothing to do with the coronavirus. But because three out of the four, tested positive, then they were, they were all considered infected and out of the same paper.
Another interesting thing is that they did a lot of tests. The first person in the list of people tested, he was positive on three out of 11 tests. So again, they took nose and throat samples and you know, different methods and all this kind of stuff. And they got 11 separate tests and only three were positive. And of course, all you need to be considered infected is one positive test. They could test you 20 times and if you test positive once, then you’re infected. So, a positive test is meaningful. A negative test. It’s like, eh. Not so much.”
I asked Crowe what he thought Kary Mullis would say about this explosion of PCR insanity.
“I’m sad that he isn’t here to defend his manufacturing technique,” he said. “Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that.”
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/#
23510045? ago
This doctor says very similar things, good video.
https:// www.globalresearch.ca/respiratory-doctor-exposes-fake-virus-pandemic/5710274
23509956? ago
More info:
“The first thing to know is that the test is not binary,” he said. “In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative.”
“What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.”
“Wow,” I said. “That’s so important. I think people envision it as one of two things: Positive or negative, like a pregnancy test. You “have it” or you don’t.”
“PCR is really a manufacturing technique,” Crowe explained. “You start with one molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great. What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it. You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength. So, they measure the amount of light that comes back and that’s their surrogate for how much DNA there is. I’m using the word DNA. There’s a step in RT- PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So, the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It’s using DNA, but it’s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it’s the same thing, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there’s a certain number of cycles.”
This is where it gets wild.
“In one paper,” Crowe says, “I found 37 cycles. If you didn’t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered “indeterminate.” And if you got in that range, then you did more testing. I’ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it’s quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test. So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.”
"... Déjà vu all over again. Just like in the HIV battle—people were never told that the “HIV test” had different standards in different countries, and within countries, from lab to lab. The highest bar (the greatest number of HIV proteins) was in Australia: five. The Lowest was Africa: 2. In the US it is generally 3-4.
We used to joke that you could rid yourself of an “HIV diagnosis” by flying from either the US or Australia, to Africa. But for many years, “AIDS” in Africa was diagnosed without any tests whatsoever. Just a short list of symptoms that tracked precisely with symptoms of most tropical diseases, such as fever, cough, and shortness of breath.
“I think if a country said, “You know, we need to end this epidemic,” They could quietly send around a memo saying: “We shouldn’t be having the cutoff at 37. If we put it at 32, the number of positive tests drops dramatically. If it’s still not enough, well, you know, 30 or 28 or something like that. So, you can control the sensitivity.”
Yes, you read that right. Labs can manipulate how many “cases’ of Covid-19 their country has. Is this how the Chinese made their case load vanish all of a sudden?
“Another reason we know this is bogus,” Crowe continued, “is from a remarkable series of graphs published by some people from Singapore in JAMA. These graphs were published in the supplementary information, which is an indication that nobody’s supposed to read them. And I think the authors probably just threw them in because they were interesting graphs, but they didn’t realize what was in them. So, they were 18 graphs of 18 different people. And at this hospital in Singapore, they did daily coronavirus tests and they grasped the number of PCR cycles necessary to detect fluorescence. Or if they couldn’t detect florescence by…37 cycles, they put a dot on the bottom of the graph, signifying a negative.”
“So, in this group of 18 people, the majority of people went from positive, which is normally read as “infected,” to negative, which is normally read as “uninfected” back to positive—infected again. So how do you interpret this? How do you have a test if a test act is actually, you know, 100% positive for detecting infection, then the negative results must’ve been wrong? And so, one way to solve that is to move the point from 37 to say 36 or 38. You can move this, this cycle of numbers. It’s an arbitrary division up or down. But there’s no guarantee that if you did that, you wouldn’t still have the same thing. It would just, instead of going from, from 36 to undetectable and back to 36 or back to 45, it might go from 33 to undetectable to 30 or something like that. Right? So, you can’t solve the problem by changing this arbitrary binary division. And so basically this says that the test is not detecting infection. Because if it was, like if you’re infected, and then you’re uninfected, and you’re in a hospital with the best anti-infective precautions in the world, how did you get re-infected? And if you cured the infection, why didn’t you have antibodies to stop you getting re-infected? So, there’s no explanation within the mainstream that can explain these results. That’s why I think they’re so important.”
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/#
23509901? ago
Well written, but you have to remember that most people don't even know how many people die of influenza each year. And if you asked them nobody would bother to ever look it up for themselves.
23509867? ago
thank you, up on 8kun
https://8kun.top/qresearch/res/8881083.html#8881328
23509645? ago
Thank you for this post, OP. It seems that the MSM wants to talk this thing to death while avoiding the all-important data collection methodology (which is the only way to reveal the contagiousness as well as morbidity) which is vital in classifying it as a pandemic. This, in turn, is vital for politicians wishing to justify the drastic measures they've imposed on the public. Likewise they avoid discussing the specifics of biology and the questions that immediately become obvious regarding issues like even the fundamentals such as the likelihood of false positives/negatives, not to mention the more specific questions like those you've laid out here. There's no excuse for this oversight. I suspect there are two reasons: inability to even comprehend these issues, and a personal, diabolical political motivation.
23509694? ago
I suspect you have identified the two classes of "journalists" today. Those who are evil, and those who are stupid. The former directs the latter.
23509397? ago
Ran across an interesting article with a couple of interesting quotes. The writer interviewed Kerry Mullis, inventor of PCR, in 1994. Mullis had an opinion on none other than Anthony Fauci:
“What ABC needs to do,” says Mullis, “is talk to [Dr. Anthony] Fauci and [Dr. Robert] Gallo and show that they’re assholes, which I could do in ten minutes.”
Also, from another bio-chemist:
“You have to have a whopping amount of any organism to cause symptoms. Huge amounts of it,” Dr. David Rasnick, bio-chemist, protease developer, and former founder of an EM lab called Viral Forensics told me. “You don’t start with testing; you start with listening to the lungs. I’m skeptical that a PRC test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine. 30% of your infected cells have been killed before you show symptoms. By the time you show symptoms…the dead cells are generating the symptoms.”
I asked Dr. Rasnick what advice he has for people who want to be tested for COVID-19. “Don’t do it, I say, when people ask me,” he replies. “No healthy person should be tested. It means nothing but it can destroy your life, make you absolutely miserable.”
23509456? ago
Wow.
23508818? ago
deep
23508562? ago
I don't disagree with your summary above. Whether or not this virus they've "identified" is real and harmful - I just don't have enough reliable data to make a decision (although I'm in extreme doubt). I do affirm, however, that we are not in a "pandemic". If you are coming from a position of specific knowledge, then my question to you is this: how can we have this specific (COVID-19) already being present in our human virome when it is supposedly a "novel" virus? Is it because the Corona virus family is what is being identified - meaning that positive results could simply indicate that you could simply have a version of the common cold (from the Corona virus familY? Inability to distinguish between specific members in the Corona virus family renders the test useless.
23510058? ago
Found an answer to your question.
“It’s like fingerprints. With PCR you’re only looking at a small number of nucleotide. You’re looking at a tiny segment of gene, like a fingerprint. When you have regular human fingerprints, they have to have points of confirmation. There are parts that are common to almost all fingerprints, and it’s those generic parts in a Corona virus that the PCR test picks up. They can have partial loops but if you only took a few little samples of fingerprints you are going to come up with a lot of segments of RNA that we are not sure have anything to do with corona virus. They will still show up in PCR. You can get down to the levels where its biologically irrelevant and then amplify it a trillion-fold.”
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/#
23508915? ago
Good question, and I have not been able to figure that one out.
Interesting to note that the inventor of PCR, Kerry Mullis, was outspoken about the fact that his technique could not prove that a "positive" test result meant that the person was sick (of course, because a "positive" is determined by how many cycles the amplification is done).
Mullis was outspoken about this. He died in August 2019.
As far as Covid 19, here are the possibilities:
1) Transferred from bat to human, and then immediately spread like wildfire in humans. This would mean that most people do not have it in their virome. Problem with this theory is that virologists who understand how this works have stated that it takes time for a virus, once it transfers from one species to another, to "learn" how to survive in the new host. Lots of time. And that the immediate spread like wildfire is impossible.
2) Created in a lab. Several people have claimed it shows hints of being purposely designed. Not proven, but a possibility.
3) The tests are for "any" coronavirus, and being falsely claimed as Covid19. Some reports have been that the tests were not specific to Covid19, so this is a possibility.
4) Covid19 has existed for a long time, is already established within the human virome, and somebody is lying about it being "novel." The fact that the person who declared it was novel was someone in China who made the declaration after studying 50 patients makes this a possibility, as well.
I don't know which of these is the truth. I think #1 is unlikely, but can't completely rule it out. #2 is possible, but if someone with evil intention created it, one would think it would have been more deadly. Could also have been experimental and not yet ready for prime time, and accidentally released.
Plenty of evidence for #3, but the only thing that makes me question that is reports from doctors that they do see something different in lung x-rays of their patients.
And #4 could be possible if it was discovered in a lab, and something was added to recent vaccines that somehow made it more active than otherwise. China initiated a mandatory vaccine program for everyone in China, and that began on Dec 1, 2019.
IOW ... dunno.
23514941? ago
Well that timing is convenient.
23511043? ago
you mean to say Covid-19 is the illness, meaning the same pathologies as altitude sickness? (showing inhibition of oxygen binding to hemoglobin by the release of the iron contained within. Causing liver, kidneys, marrow to go into overdrive, draining the body further of oxygen till total shutdown)
The test is geared towards establishing whether or not you have a corona virus in your system? However, they cannot distinguish between any corona virus and what they designated as Sarscov-2?
Meaning, they still have no clue as to what causes the pathologies?
23513300? ago
Exactly - but this isn't what I know - it's simply speculation from some researchers with alternative theories to the mainstream. I think they're at least worth hearing out until we get better data - or better yet - test this theory itself. I would suspect that it wouldn't be that difficult to find out.
23509300? ago
Yet another possibility that I've heard some discussing is that this malady is being misidentified as a virus - and superficially seems to present as a virus, but in reality it is likely some sort of parasite that dramatically affects oxygen transfer in hemoglobin. It is speculated that it somehow can cause the red blood cell to shed iron - and that this excess iron which is now freely floating in the plasma can cause the lung damage that is sometimes seen in the victims. If it is a parasite and if (as Trump has speculated) it can be effectively treated with a quinine-similar medicine, it would make sense based on our experience with quinine's effectiveness against malaria.
23509564? ago
Interesting. There are plenty of reports that oxygen is a problem, and that iron is striping O2.
I think oxygen might turn out to be the #1 key to good health. O2 levels in the atmosphere are lower today than 300 years ago.
Otto Warburg discovered back in the 1930's that low oxygen levels at the cellular level is associated with cancer (today's doctors dismiss this, but have no real reason why, other than they do what they are told).
Hyperbaric oxygen has shown to improve health. It is used for cancer patients in Europe.
Chlorine Dioxide has been showed to cure people of malaria, just like HCQ. They are not the same, but they are related and both have to do with improving oxygen levels in the body.
I once did research on what causes erectile dysfunction, and why viagra works. Long story short, it is due to lack of oxygen in the blood. This is why nitric oxide boosters solve ED issues. Viagra is not technically a nitric oxide booster, but does something very similar. The best booster is high-quality citrulline, the amino acid found in watermelon. Needs to be "pharmaceutical grade" though, which just means it doesn't have bullshit fillers.
Side note: I decided to buy some tonic water with quinine, just to check it out. There is a product out there that claims it contains "pure quinine." The name of the product?
Q.
I've been drinking it. Not my favorite flavor, but not the worst thing, either. Reminds me of gin, which I hate.
Interesting, though.
This Covid thing could turn out to be a real game changer, if we can get honest research done, and distributed to the masses.
23509137? ago
The idea that past flu vaccines made people vulnerable to Covide19 is an interesting point worth investigating. I think you may be on to something here.
23512528? ago
Past flu vaccines INJECTED Covid at the time. The push for flu vaccines was so they could get these markers into at least 40% of the population. Good enough to cause a panic.