Quick sketch on virus and testing definitions

Edith

I wish I knew more about this subject but you seem to be pointing out that it was going to be reasonably easy for the pcr to find something that occurs in humans?

Andrew Kaufman MD is a calm clear and kind educator on this and similar matters. He does not TELL what to believe but what he has discovered from study, and his own clinical medical experience to share in ways translated out of 'medical obfuscation'. IE: Idiopathic means 'unknown cause'.

Youtube deleted some of his vids - he is partly on

https://lbry.tv/@DrAndrewKaufman:f

but others have uploaded to various video sites so just search.

The nutshell as I would put it without getting technical is that without an actual physical isolate of the original whole particle - presumed to cause infectious disease - the short samples of RNA code or definable organic matter, looked for and 'discovered' in the soup of centrifuged sputum (such that only very very small particles are taken as the sample) - do not constitute a 'virus'.

But by collecting a few of such short strings and referring back to already defined 'viruses' in terms of their code, researchers can use computer modelling fill in, align or combine these into a novel corona type 'virus' - but they could have looked for an found other 'viruses'. They claimed no investigation of cause of disease when they 'defined' this discovery in terms of its RNA. (And the other 'viruses' to which they referred and used to fill in the blanks, were also 'discovered in the same way).

This amounts to being in control of a dictionary or definitive scientific authoritative definition or patent from which tests are derived. The PCR test uses a few short strings of RNA as selected 'primers' seeking a match in the tested sample that are supposed to be unique to the specific and novel (?) virus. It has been found they are not. And that a positive can be derived from matching other things as well as very likely when the 'count of cycles of replication of the sample is set high. (So the test can be made to find or not find by adjusting parameters).

The postulated virus may or may not have any causal role or perhaps immune function support role in clinical conditions

New ones are looked for in disease outbreaks or clusters in which to go and seek and find the 'virus'.

The clinical cases for Sars-Cov-2 started in one of the most polluted regions in China - likewise Italy and a region of Spain. But once a 'virus' is shouted no funding or research goes anywhere else. This happens every time Dr WHO shouts Wolf! And is not just collecting money but consolidating control by bringing in all other agencies and institutions to 'lockstep' in emergency preparedness. THIS time the response plan was switched at the last minute from something similar to the Barrington proposal (what we always did in the past) to the lockdown of the healthy and of the Economy and of the Media messaging etc to a Chinafication of rulers and ruled.

i jumped a bit there; the PCR test that Dr Drostren miraculously formulated and published in less than a day after receiving NO actual sample of isolated virus, but from viral definitions, is flawed, as well as its contributors not revealing extreme conflicts of influence.

Like Ferguson, the man has a previous record of singularly un-qualifying characteristics.

Who defines the Word and the narrative thereof, can generate 'reality' and mutate or shift its parameters and diagnosis to suit. And this is not new, but the old normal for Pharma, and for all who are brought up and conditioned to react and respond to it as believed or self-evident reality.

Questioning conditioning (reality) seeks our true nature - not another normal.

The simplified gist of actual method of the PCR testing is best to go to Kaufman's videos or indeed Tom Cowan.

NOTE: Deconstructing the false is for the freedom to restore appreciation for what is true!