Thank you but that source is invalidated. It relies on PCR tests, which have been proven to be completely bogus because of the way they're being used. This fact has been confirmed by the inventor of the test.
Incorrect, that “fact” was not confirmed by the creator of the PCR testing method dr. Katy Mullins, as she never commented on the effectiveness in relation to covid. Infact, she never commented on effectiveness at all. So thank you, but your response is invalidated by your lack of any sort of investigation into what you claim is a “fact.”
Regardless of my auto correct issues the point remains Dr. Mullins never said anything about PCR and it’s effectiveness in testing for covid 19. You are incorrect here.
Yes
Asymptomatic spread paper, peer reviewed
Thank you but that source is invalidated. It relies on PCR tests, which have been proven to be completely bogus because of the way they're being used. This fact has been confirmed by the inventor of the test.
Incorrect, that “fact” was not confirmed by the creator of the PCR testing method dr. Katy Mullins, as she never commented on the effectiveness in relation to covid. Infact, she never commented on effectiveness at all. So thank you, but your response is invalidated by your lack of any sort of investigation into what you claim is a “fact.”
Link
Thank you, but your response is invalidated by your lack of any sort of investigation into what you claim is a woman, named "Katy Mullins."
Dr. KARY MULLIS was a man (!) who knew a lot more about the PCR test than most doctors:
https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/
And just for fun, here's an article in the Journal of the Bulgarian Pathology Association titled COVID-19 PCR Tests are Scientifically Meaningless:
https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/
You can find more with a little research. Happy Hunting!
Regardless of my auto correct issues the point remains Dr. Mullins never said anything about PCR and it’s effectiveness in testing for covid 19. You are incorrect here.