Ah, one more thing: If PCR tests are bunk and Covid jab trials are based on PCR results…?

Did you even know that PCRs are used under the EUA too?
I called this a ‘PCRdemic’ in a meme last year and I’ve been proven right countless times.

A blast from a past pandemic

Let’s play dumb for a moment and pretend we believe SARS-COV-2 exists outside computers and human minds.

All Covid vaccine trials have shown is infinitesimally tiny decreases in symptoms for injected fools. To detect these tiny differences, they used the largely erroneous and unreliable non-tests known as PCR.
(They also ‘morphed’ some symptoms into adverse effects to get the needed numbers, but that’s another story).
If you can’t defend PCR tests, you can’t defend Covid injections.
And anyone with at least half a functional brain knows there’s nothing to defend, because there’s no such this as PCR Covid tests, there may be PCRs and SARS-COV-2 tests, as separate items only.
So these Covid injections trials and studies are worth precisely and exactly:
They are as null as all Covid stats, the whole Covid sham and anything based on PCRs as a diagnose tool or as a quantitative detector.
All approvals based on these trials and studies are null.
Up until today, officials have maintained that PCRs are “the gold-standard of Covid testing”, so it’s not wrong to extrapolate their accuracy to the whole Covidiocracy.

“According to a Johns Hopkins study, this so-called gold standard RT-PCR test can have a false negative up to 20 to 66 percent of the time in even symptomatic patients depending upon the test’s timing. False negatives can be up to 100 percent on day one of exposure (asymptomatic) and down to 20 percent on day 8 of exposure (day 3 of symptoms) and then starts going up again. Statistics tell us that the false-negative rate goes up even higher as the prevalence of disease goes up, as is the case with COVID right now. A meta-analysis from Europe actually found an average false negative of 54 percent. These numbers are actually from monitored and regulated studies where things are done more meticulously than real-world scenarios. Performing many of these tests quickly in the clinical setting because of soaring demand, with each test resulting in sampling error, pressure on labs to provide quick turnaround, and rationing of scarce reagents in labs increase this percentage even higher. Some mutations could be potentially affecting the accuracy as well.” – KevinMD
Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MDKevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

I say flipping the coin would achieve similar results as PCRs, I dare everyone to test this.
But even if its error margin was only about 8%, as Mayo Clinic claims, that’s still eight times bigger than the variations detected in Pfizer’s or Moderna’s lab humans.
Fact-check this! Plenty more resources on this very website and its extensions.
If self-evidence and logic are not your thing, I have two guys here who seem to agree, they’re kinda advised in this field:

Now, just to flex a bit, allow me to fact-check the fact-checker that made even NYT to retract one of their best and most honest articles since Covid, claiming as much as 90% of PCR positives may be false.

Healthfeedback.org claims ultrasensitivity in tests doesn’t matter because PCRs are not used quantitatively, just to detect presence, as they should. They admit that people who are not sick or not even infectious, people who were sick in the past (but not anymore) and people who might be sick in the future (but not yet), are considered cases, just because the tiniest viral load is detected:

Some outlets have even called these high Ct positive results “false positives”, which is inaccurate. The term “false positive” indicates that a person tested positive but does not have the disease[1]. However, the New York Times report makes it clear that a person is or has been infected if they test positive, regardless of whether the test had a high or low Ct value. This also means that it is appropriate to consider a person with a positive result and high Ct value as a COVID-19 case.
Therefore, the sensitivity of the PCR test is not responsible for the high number of cases in the U.S. Simply put, case numbers are high because there are many infected people. This indicates a high level of virus transmission in the community and public health measures, such as physical distancing and lockdowns, are effective and important for reducing the number of infections and protecting the community[2,3].
Apoorva Mandavilli, the journalist who wrote the New York Times article, also stressed this point in a Twitter thread, clarifying that “people who test positive but with high CTs *were* contagious, just at an earlier time point. They are not contagious *anymore*. Doesn’t mean they were never infected, so doesn’t affect the case count.”

As they accuse NYT of using straw man arguments, fact-checkers do precisely that, as per usual. We, the independent scholars and media, were the first to cry out PCRs are not a quantitative tool, the establishment never bothered to educate, we dug out PCR inventor Kari Mullis’ teachings, as early as last summer. So we are more aware even than NYT presstitutes, vocational press-release copy-pasters, and when we accuse hypersensitivity in tests, it’s mainly about QUALITATIVE sensitivity. What happens if a tiny viral fragment detected is MISIDENTIFIED, not just misquantized, because hypersensitivity or overcycling?

WHO already admitted it, the numbers of amplification cycles influence the qualitative sensitivity, that’s why they lowered the threshold on Biden’s inauguration day: this trash was detecting anything and everything the way it was used.

What happens if the test reacts to something we all normally live with, since our virome is comprised of countless millions of varieties and we’re also full of viral debris? Don’t you get the perfect pandemic? Besides toasting bread and burping, is there anything simpler to achieve?
How else would you get dozens of labs sending 100% positives like they did last year?!

Prof. David Rasnick PhD is a reputed researcher, a friend of Kari Mullis’ and one of the first to whistleblow on the AIDS hoax. A bit of a hero to me

Now back to vaccine trials:
They can’t afford lumping together past, present and potential future sick people, as PCRs do, the trials are supposed to measure present symptoms in currently ill people, past and future are beyond the scope.
To these trials, the quantitative aspect is crucially relevant, because it’s different in each category.
I hope it goes without saying that the correct identification of the virus is paramount, and, as the PCR inventor put it: “These things can find anything if you keep cycling”.
So, top authoritative sources, logic and life experience confirm:

PCRs need to be backed by proper lab analysis, they mean nothing by themselves.

Why do you think they burn bodies without autopsy? At the coroner is where the real testing happens, so they illegally destroy murder evidence.


I know, we need to enlarge our horizons, and by a lot, just to encompass how big the scam is… almost as large as the mass-mental-retardation pandemic sweeping the species with infinitely more casualties than any natural virus.
I know, it may be hard to flex that much, makes anyone dizzy, but if we’re not capable of doing it quickly and at mass-level, we are going to have a mass-level extinction instead.
But I also know I’d rather live to see a crowd-sourced investigation into Kari Mullis’ suspicious death just months ahead of the pandemic. It’s doable if we flex our horizon and brain more and more often.

It’s gonna be a Very Dark Winter and we need ‘flexi-brains’ to come out of it, among other skills.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them


Comments are closed.