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.
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.
These are useful thoughts. They give me ideas on where to look. Thank you.
I think the change that happened was that they no longer taught the other systems of law (Natural Law, Common Law, etc.) and focused solely on Statutory Law. This aligns with the rest of what you said. I will look into when that change happened. Maybe I can trace it back to the Rockefellers from there.
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.
I don't have time atm, but I will read it later.
I have been meaning to do a deep dive into the primers and how they might match with other organisms or viruses (H1N1, other coronaviruses, etc.). I know that the N-proteins that some of the PRC tests look at (per the CDC guidelines) are almost the same size across the board of these related RNA viruses. Close enough that on a gel they will easily be confused, especially when one "errs on the side of caution." The same errors would occur with the rRT-PCR if the primers were close enough and the cycling high enough. If there is a close enough primer match with some of these other viruses it could be a smoking gun. I haven't seen anyone else do that analysis.
I think you will find the article interesting. I realize it takes more than 30 seconds to get through it. ;-)
Catch you later.