“With PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody. It makes you believe in the Buddhist notion that everything is contained in everything else”
By KARY MULLIS
The invaldity of the PCR method is especially significant when 45 repetition cycles are used, as stated in the original publication by Drosten et al. The generally excepted upper limit is at most 25-35 repetition cycles – everything above is completly unreliable as the proportion of false positives rises exponentially (see recommendations for PCR Cycling Parameters).
Quote: “Thermal cycling was performed at 55 °C for 10 min for reverse transcription, followed by 95 °C for 3 min and then 45 cycles of 95 °C for 15 s, 58 °C for 30 s.”
Corman, V. M., Landt, O., Kaiser, M., Molenkamp, R., Meijer, A., Chu, D. K., Bleicker, T., Brünink, S., Schneider, J., Schmidt, M. L., Mulders, D. G., Haagmans, B. L., van der Veer, B., van den Brink, S., Wijsman, L., Goderski, G., Romette, J. L., Ellis, J., Zambon, M., Peiris, M., … Drosten, C. (2020). Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR. Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 25(3), 2000045. doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.3.2000045
Zitat von Kary Mullis (dem Erfinder der PCR):“Wenn es gut gemacht wird dann kann man mit dem PCR Test so ziemlich alles in jedem finden. Es erinnert an die Buddhistische Sichtweise das alles in allem enthalten ist.”
Mainstream scientific outlets deny the fact; c.f.: in.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pcr/fact-check-inventor-of-method-used-to-test-for-covid-19-didnt-say-it-cant-be-used-in-virus-detection-idUSKBN24420X
The PCR test is the crucial ‘domino stone’ on which all other fallacious conclusions rest (it forms the major premise of the quasi-syllogistic argument which is constantly presented to justify the neoliberal Corona measures which aggressively antagonise the middle-class). Given that all “Corona Lockdown Measures” are based on dual-process theories of thinking and reasoning).PCR testing, this specific test thus lies at the very core of the invalid statistical conclusions which are currently propagated by the mass-media (i.e., systematic fearmongering to inhibit higher-order psychological processes; cf.
First of all, the PCR method has never been approved for diagnostic purposes. Its inventor, Kary Mullis, has repeatedly emphasised that this test should not be used as a diagnostic tool. This crucial fact is simply denied in public discourse. Listen to Kary Mullis for yourself – don’t fall victim to the hype…Deutsche Version unten
As noted by Dr. Fuellmich:
“[PCR tests] are simply incapable of diagnosing any disease … A positive PCR test result does not mean that an infection is present. If someone tests positive, it does not mean that they’re infected with anything, let alone with the contagious SARS-CoV-2 virus. Even the United States CDC … agrees with this and I quote directly from page 38 of one of its publications on the coronavirus and the PCR tests dated July 13 2020.
The PCR swabs take one or two sequences of a molecule that are invisible to the human eye and therefore need to be amplified in many cycles to make it visible. Everything over 35 cycles is … considered completely unreliable and scientifically unjustifiable.
However, the Drosten test as well as the WHO recommended tests … are set to 45 cycles. Can that be because of the desire to produce as many positive results as possible and thereby provide the basis for the false assumption that a large number of infections have been detected?”
“Even Drosten himself declared in an interview with a German business magazine in 2014 … that these PCR tests are so highly sensitive that even very healthy and non-infectious people may test positive,” Fuellmich notes.
Dr. Yeadon, in agreement with the professors of immunology, Camera from Germany, Capel from the Netherlands and Cahill from Ireland as well as a microbiologist, Dr. Harvey from Austria, all of whom testified before the German corona committee, explicitly points out that a positive test does not mean that an intact virus has been found.”
As explained by Fuellmich, crimes against humanity, first defined during the Nuremberg trials following World War II, are today regulated in Section 7 of the International Criminal Code. The three questions the committee seeks to answer through judicial means are:
1. Is there a COVID-19 pandemic or is there only a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test pandemic?
Specifically, does a positive PCR test result mean that the individual is infected with SARS-CoV-2 and has COVID-19, or does it mean absolutely nothing in connection with the COVID-19 infection?
2. Do pandemic response measures such as lockdowns, mask mandates, social distancing and quarantine regulations serve to protect the world’s population from COVID-19, or do these measures serve only to make people panic?
Are these measures intended to sow “panic in order to make people believe, without asking any questions, that their lives are in danger, so that the pharmaceutical and tech industries can generate huge profits from the sale of PCR tests, antigen and antibody tests and vaccines, as well as the harvesting of our genetic fingerprints?”
3. Is it true that the German government was massively lobbied — more so than any other country — by the chief protagonists of this COVID-19 pandemic?
According to Fuellmich, Germany “is known as a particularly disciplined country and was therefore to become a role model for the rest of the world for its strict and, of course, successful adherence” to pandemic measures.
Answers to these questions are urgently needed, he says, because SARS-CoV-2, which is touted as one of the most serious threats to life in modern history, “has not caused any excess mortality anywhere in the world.”