Request for information from anons educated in PCR test.
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
My wife is required to submit to weekly testing for the coof. I asked the testing facility what Cycle Threshold they use for their tests. Here is the response:
**Our test does not use cycle thresholds (Ct). Ct is used for a qPCR test method, whereas we perform rRT-PCR. Our detection is given by flourescently tagged molecules that generate Median Fluorescent Intensity (MFI) based on the viral load of the collected sample. We test for multiple genes within the SARS-CoV-2 genome and have a different threshold for each. I hope that answers your question. **
I 'think' I understand but perhaps there is an anon in here that can give a brief explanation regarding accuracy etc.
Kary Mullis said that was bogus, too. He said that not 1 in 10,000 doctors even knows what a Western Blot Test is, much less what it does or what a result means.
Yes. Doctors know shit about experimental biology (or biology at all at the molecular or cellular level). I am writing a report that includes a section on the Rockefeller takeover of medicine and education. It's really quite revealing on exactly how it is we are in the state we are in with regards to medicine and doctors.
Yes, the same is true of law schools, and which universities, departments, and professors gets grants for a variety of subjects (such as journalism), etc. Almost like somebody is ... conspiring ... or something.
Can you point to evidence of Rockefeller influence on Law schools? I have a lot on medical schools, general education, grants, biology research, but none on the law schools.
Any specifics on journalism grants would also be very helpful.
I don't have specific references, just information I've picked up from various sources.
There was a change in the law school curriculum sometime around the 1920's - 1930's. They have a specific name for the change, but I don't remember off hand.
Today, the way I would describe it (to my layman's understanding) is that they teach there is no such thing as right/wrong or even so much as justice. The words are sometimes used, but the ideas behind them are not considered.
They will discuss a court case in class. Prof will say, "If you were defending Roe, how would you argue it?" Once the student comes up with an answer, the prof will say, "OK, if you were defending Wade, how would you defend it?"
There is no consderation for which side might be right or wrong, morality, ethics, or even common sense. They also rarely discuss constitutional principles, which is really talking about fundamental rights.
The end result of this is that law school students come out with the idea that it there is no such thing as right or wrong, or that justice should be an end goal. Instead, they only seek to find the "angle" or the "tactical advantage" to win the case. Winning at all cost is the name of the game.
This difference results in a massive shift in what happens in the law. The judges and politicians come from the law schools, and they don't think about right, wrong, morality, natural rights, etc.
BTW, Slyver --
Have you read through this info on this topic?
https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/07/19/the-scam-has-been-confirmed-pcr-does-not-detect-sars-cov-2-but-endogenous-gene-sequences/
Would like to know your feedback.