The first experiment would confirm or deny the accuracy of the PCR
diagnostic test. The experiment would reveal whether this widespread
test for COVID-19 can actually predict illness in the real world, in
humans, not in the lab.
This experiment has never been done. It should have been done before
the PCR was ever permitted to make claims about THE QUANTIY OF VIRUS
that is replicating in a patient's body.
Quantity is vital, because, in order to even begin talking about whether
a virus can cause disease, millions and millions of virus must be
actively replicating in a patient's body.
Here is the experiment. Assemble a group of 500 volunteers, some sick,
some healthy. Take tissue samples from them, and give the samples to
PCR technicians. The technicians will never see or know who the 500
volunteers are.
The techs run these samples through the PCR. For each sample, they
report which virus they found, and how much of it they found.
"In patients 34, 57, 83, 165, and 433, we found a great deal of the following disease-causing viruses."
Now we un-blind those specific patients. By the test results, they
should all be sick. Are they? Aren't they? Then we would know. We
would know how accurate and relevant the test is in the real world.
Of course, this is not the end of the experiment. The same samples
should have been given to a whole other set of PCR techs to run. Did
they come up with the same results the first set of PR techs did?
Several new groups of 500 patients each should be enlisted, and still
more sets of lab techs should repeat the experiment, ending up with
confirmation or rejection of the initial findings. This is the way the
scientific method is supposed to work.
In the absence of this experiment, the quantitative PCR must be looked
at as a rogue hypothesis that should never have been foisted on the
public. It should never be used as the basis for determining case
numbers of any disease.
In the "COVID-19 crisis," all case numbers derived from the PCR should be thrown out.
The second vital experiment concerns the discovery of a new virus---in this case, COVID-19.
First of all, there is no lab procedure that can climb inside the human
body in real time and record the active replication of millions of
virus. The closest you can come involves the use of electron
microscopy.
Suspecting the existence of a new disease-causing virus, researchers
should line up, at the very least, several hundred people who seem to
have the new disease. Tissue samples should be taken from them. Using
correct steps of centrifuging these samples, specimens
of the results should be examined and photographed under the electron
microscope.
In every one of the several hundred photos, do the researchers see many
identical particles of a virus they've never seen before; and do the
researchers see that these many particles are the same from photo to
photo?
If so, and if more than one group of researchers independently carrying
out this procedure on the patients' tissue samples achieves the same
result...then, this is as close as you can come to saying you've
discovered a new disease-causing virus.
Other researchers with other patients should attempt to replicate the above findings.
This vital experiment has never been done in the case of COVID-19. Not
even close. Therefore, researchers can't make a true claim to have
discovered a new disease-causing virus.
In the absence of the two vital experiments I've described in this
article, all you're left with, concerning a single "COVID-19" pandemic
and a single new cause, are: anecdote, rumor, gossip, conjecture,
speculation, bad science, and lies.
Plus the horrendous damage from all the consequences of lockdowns based on those lies.
TURN ON THE ECONOMY.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment