Fauci and CDC sued for Crimes Against Humanity
Thank you for your input ChrisKaz. Are you able to provide us with any data to help explain these differences and help us to better understand PCR testing?
Also, would you care to offer your comments on the following two videos. The first is Dr. Bhakdi explaining how PCR tests have been used improperly for nefarious intent. The second lawyer Dr. Reiner Fuellmich who is leading the class action lawsuits, on the foundational premise (as I understand it) that the PCR tests were used fraudulently to foment fear. This of course is similar to the video posted to start this particular forum.
COVID Shots to “Decimate World Population,” Warns Dr. Bhakdi – The *** American [change *** to New]
Are you able to refute what these two seemingly credible individuals are saying about PCR tests?
I have a hard time believing that highly credentialed individuals would stick their necks out on the world stage like this. Dr. Bhakdi has since made more videos, and is seriously sounding the alarm bells to stop all injections. If you can provide more data to foster our understanding re the PCR tests then please do so.
I watched the PCR part of the first video, the second link was not active. Dr. Bhakdi makes some extraordinary claims essentially saying that the “Brilliant doctors” who developed the test didn’t bother to do the most standard items of a validation which is a bit unbelievable. Even EUA approvals of diagnostic tests require pretty extensive data.
Just an one example see this link which describes in detail the validation experiments done to prove the Labcorp PCR test works:
Note that within this document they tested both influenza as well as 4 different coronaviruses for false positives and found no cross reactivity. The only other virus that was positive was SARS, which to my knowledge is not circulating actively. Also they tested 100 negative samples for amplification and none were found to produce false positives. When they tested 20 asymptomatic samples the average cycle for positivity was 24-25 (They test two separate Covid targets intros test) and these were tested with a second PCR test to confirm along with 113 negative samples of which none were positive. There is a ton more data here but you hopefully get the point I am making that the PCR tests aren’t thrown together willy-nilly but have a decent amount of hard evidence behind them. I tend to believe the data in this document, some of which directly contradicts the Dr’s claims, although I acknowledge his stories of multiplying pennies and testing alcohol or vinegar aren’t particularly effective but are required to get most people to follow him. He probably couldn’t go into more detail but IMO that isn’t an excuse to provide not more convincing evidence.
As an aside, as someone who works in diagnostics, there are lots of Doctors who do not understand the details and nuances of developing and validating the tests they run. They apply the results in slightly wrong ways or over interpret what the tests can do, misunderstand the limitations etc. So while being a medical doctor makes one super smart and informed, that does not extend to everything within healthcare.
Hopefully this is informative
Also a note about the threshold cycle. It used to be, back in the 90s that most real-time PCR used a DNA binding dye for fluorescent detection of the DNA after every cycle. This was non-specific and the products, especially small ones derived from interactions of the two PCR primers (called primer-dimer) would eventually amplify and cause positive signal at high cycles.
However now the standard is to use a sequence-specific probe sequence for detection. This is a probe that matches the target sequence being amplified at a place other than the two specific primer sequences used to amplify. This greatly increases the sensitivity and eliminated other products from generating signal that could sauce false positives. This is all depending on how good the primer/probe designs are as well as the uniqueness of the sequences targeted. But the end result is that with good design you can go 40 cycles without spurious products generating signal in negatives, allowing for high cycle detection of positives beyond 30-35 cycles.
Here is a detailed description of the Ct by the manufacturer fo the PCR Instrument used for the test in my previous post:
Too bad it isnt a criminal prosecution. Lawsuits hold little meaning to trillionaires. If found guilty of these things one would expect no less than the death penalty.
Its just grotesque to me that some pauper who commits murder in about half the states in the US can face the death penalty…..yet powerful people, many of whom hold public positions of trust and power, can conspire against all of humanity and face little more than a lawsuit.
Such a ridiculous disparity is a failure of our society. It is blatantly uncivilized.
Thanks for your two responses, Chris.
I will let those in the PP crowd who have the necessary technical expertise to analyze what you say and the articles you linked.
As to me, I have zero faith in anything coming from the FDA or any other of the alphabet institutions, especially the WHO. None of them have any credibility left. Prolific lying leads to a form of cancel culture – they have cancelled their integrity.
May I suggest that you write directly to Dr. Reiner Füllmich to ask questions and provide your expertise re: PCR tests? He and the other 3 lawyers have set up a website to share the information gained from their investigation and the following note (translated) indicates they are still accepting input from experts, as well as the general public for those who have relevant information to contribute:
Do you have any questions for the Committee of Inquiry? Can you, as a witness, help to clarify the circumstances? As an expert, can you contribute expertise? Write to us: [email protected]
The website is in German, but you can write to them in English.
In litigation, language is extremely important, especially when dealing with complicated concepts and specialized knowledge. In this case, the information collected has come many individuals working in medicine and research. The accuracy of the resulting summary of this information depends on the quality of the communication between the medical experts and the lawyers. Also, journalists who write about these things are not always accurate in their interpretation or description, so it is best to use the source documents when arriving at an opinion. In any case, it sounds like you have important information/clarifications to share with the 4 lawyers if you doubt the integrity of their current data.
I’ve been reading for over a year that the PCR tests being used to diagnose Covid have a relatively high false positive/false negative rate and are not reliable, so this is not a new concept. It would be nice to know whether this is true or not, and if true, whether it is due to the tests themselves or improper administration or processing of them, or some other reason.
Of course, PCR tests are only one aspect of this class action suit and there are several other points in the proposed lawsuit. But if the PCR tests are not reliable, this would need to be accurately described and argued in court, so the lawyers may appreciate your input in this area.
Sure seems like all of the high courts are tied up by the same folks whom own the banks and major corporations.
I have read his testimony but have yet to see any actual data on his website. If you have a link to studies his team have done using the PCR test or another empirical evidence that isn’t opinion I would love to take a look. I can only offer a critique of the data but have not seen any concrete data yet. I’ve posted a little bit of data for the other side of the argument (ie one PCR validation – note there are multiple now that are separately designed from the initial one the Dr. K makes in claims about)
Many of the claims around the PCR test can be proven with a good experimental design. Just two examples off the top of my head:
There are hundreds on biobanks in the world where samples from years ago could be obtained and run by PCR to see if they come up positive. This would at least go a long way to proving the abundance of false positives.
The assertion that the test is confounded by lingering dead virus or nucleic acid could be easily tested by following known symptomatic cases and seeing how long after their infection clears they turn PCR negative. I have been hoping that this would be done for circulating antibodies as well and haven’t checked up to see that latest on that.
I’m not trying to change anyone’s minds here, that is a lost cause. I am trying to get people to scrutinize BOTH sides of the argument equally. Too often I find the burden of proof falls too heavily on only one side and is in contradiction to the premise of “innocent until proven guilty”…and I can very easily find holes in the claims of the side doing the accusing and they too often get a free pass.
I’m not trying to change anyone’s minds here, that is a lost cause. I am trying to get people to scrutinize BOTH sides of the argument equally.
I have a suggestion. Instead of tilting at windmills by using assertion alone, you might consider providing us some reference material that’s on point. I’ve always found that to be a lot more convincing than a couple of paragraphs which sum to “I’m a subject matter expert and you should believe me.”
And we might learn something in the bargain.
I thought I did in my earlier posts – was the link describing the PCR Test validation not on point? How about the link to the “PCR learning center”? Here is a systematic analysis of tests as of mid-year last year. Note there were multiple PCR tests at this time.
Anyways, I never said I was a subject matter expert nor did I ask anyone to believe me. I am asking for people to check out those links without predisposition to what they might already believe. Admittedly it is tall order to ask as it is against our nature.
I have not yet found any studies/data that prove the PCR test is generating large amounts of false positives. Nor any data on how often such a test is used, was not verified or followed up on by other methods, etc. that would indicate that any potential false positives actually have an effect on decision making. I’ll keep looking though.