A hidden admission by the CDC that the China Virus was never isolated?
(media.greatawakening.win)
? B O O M ! ?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (44)
sorted by:
No it isn't an admission the virus has never been isolated - it's an admission that they weren't using an isolated virus sample when developing the test. Which is also an important admission.
It’s essentially the same thing. The “only’ way we ‘know’ this virus ‘exists’ is through these tests which were never calibrated to an actual virus sample.
It is not the same thing at all. The PCR test doesn't in any way care about isolating the virus. In fact, a viral isolate would be a hindrance to developing the PCR test, not a boon. The PCR test requires RNA (in the case of an RNA virus like SARS-cov-2). If it was a viral isolate you would have to then lyse the viral bodies, extract the RNA, then create the PCR test for it. Just starting with the RNA (artificially created or pre-extracted) is way easier.
There aren't any detection tests that need an isolate, though in truth there should be, and such a test would probably be pretty accurate. The details of such a test I will not elaborate here, but that would be a test we would have if we really wanted to be testing for the virus. The problems with such a test are that they take a bit of time, and require some infrastructure, though I'm sure it could be streamlined if the desire was there.
These PCR tests, or Ab tests are not the only way we know the virus exists. In truth, a properly done PCR test CAN tell if the virus exists to a reasonable degree, it would just have a lot of false positives/negative. By a lot, I don't mean by the current standards, I mean a few percent (5-10 ish). When you over cycle it though, like the current Covid PCR tests you are probably better off flipping a coin than taking the test, since it isn't a quantitative PRC, but just a test for a positive, and the more you cycle PCR, the more likely you will get a false positive.
Nevertheless, there have been countless labs that have published results of isolation of the virus, with good tests, and lots of electron microscopy pictures, and all the stuff people seem to want, but refuse to admit exists.
Every antibody (Ab) test that is also a positive and done for a non-vaccine recipient is also a fairly good case for proof of the virus. Are they 100%? No, but they are a very strong indication, and any denial of their indication would have to be backed by really good evidence to the contrary. Evidence which I have never seen, and I look daily.
They never calibrated the PCR test to the isolate though. That’s the whole problem. They went off a computer model of what the algorithm ’thinks’ the virus should be. In reality it could be anything
That's not a problem. If you assume the virus exists, there is nothing wrong with using the RNA to create the PCR test. These are completely separate issues. In the context of the CDC's statement, there is nothing really damning there.
Please note I am not suggesting the PCR test is good. It is literally the worst test (as it is set up by the protocol, dictated by the WHO) that they could possible do. It is designed to produce false positives.
The problem is one of conflating issues. In this statement by the CDC there is nothing wrong with not having the isolate to create a PCR test, viable or otherwise.