by Jon Rappoport
April 4, 2018
Because of their sophistication and complexity, scientific tests are accepted without question. But what happens when they don’t work and are nothing but professional gibberish?
One such test is the PCR (polymerase chain reaction), when it is used to measure the amount of a particular virus present in the human body and, therefore, the presence of disease.
The PCR is used all over the world as a gold standard of disease diagnosis.
PCR starts with what is presumed to be a tiny, tiny, tiny piece of a virus from a patient. This piece is far too small to be seen directly. The test amplifies the supposed viral fragment many times. Think of a whisper of a sound in a far-off forest turning into a full orchestra three feet away from you. It’s that level of amplification.
The result? According to the pros, they can then observe the virus and identify it. And they can also tell how much of it is in the patient’s body.
“Well, Mr. Jones, you have virus X24. So you have disease X24.”
Except for a few issues.
First, in order to say a person has a disease, you would have seen lot and lots and lots of virus in his body. Millions. A few little critters aren’t going to make any impact on the person’s health.
So why is the PCR test necessary in the first place?
If all you can find is a tiny, tiny fragment of what might be a virus, you already know you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Without the PCR, you should be able to establish that millions of a particular virus have invaded the patient’s body.
If you can’t, why bother using the PCR?
And second, the claim that the PCR can be used to say there ARE millions of a particular virus in the body is unverified. It could be verified or rejected, if more direct tests were done, but I don’t see that happening.
For example, you do a PCR on a patient, and you conclude he has a huge load of virus X in his body. Well, then, use a different test and confirm this is true. It should be easy. With filters and a centrifuge, for example, show that you can extract a concentrated pellet consisting of millions of virus X particles.
The PCR test itself is a remarkable procedure. But its use in disease diagnosis is way off the mark. Fake.
What are the implications? All over the world, every day, patients are tested with the PCR. The results say nothing about disease, yet that’s exactly how and why the test is deployed.
False disease diagnoses are made, and toxic drugs are prescribed.
“Well, we did a PCR test on Mr. Jones, and we found he has virus X, so he has disease X.”
“You didn’t find out anything. If Mr. Jones has disease X, he would have millions and millions of virus X in his body. You could find that out by using other direct tests. But when you do those other tests, you can’t find large quantities of virus X.”
“That’s ridiculous. I’m too busy to talk to you. I have to get to the lab.”
In 1996, journalist John Lauritsen wrote, “Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in Science for inventing the PCR…has stated: ‘Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron’.”
Translation: the PCR test can’t be used to say how much virus is in a person’s body.
Using PCR to measure the number of viruses in the human body (quantitative) is contradictory to the way the test works. The test isn’t designed to spout those numbers. Therefore, using it to diagnose active disease in a person is absurd.
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
“In 1996, journalist John Lauritsen wrote, “Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in Science for inventing the PCR…has stated: ‘Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron’.”
Translation: the PCR test can’t be used to say how much virus is in a person’s body.”
And it can’t say anything about the distribution of viruses, how many of what types of viruses are present and where, tissue distribution.
Who are those lunatics that rule or lives? Where in hell do they get them?
Who are the people who believe in their bullshit? I would say probably the people who take their news from the MSM.
How did we get here? Where did those bastards get their absolute power from? I guess it is from greater bastards in governments.
Boy, are screwed!
This planet needs a major change if it wants to survive. Everything is rigged. Sometimes I dream that we could start back from scratch.
Riding horses, build our home from cutting trees ourselves, medicate with natural plants, communicate with our neighbors directly face to face, grow our own gardens, swim in crystal clear waters, etc.
For such wholesale level of criminalities can only be perpetrated by those who do not have any respect or value of human life (Goyim life in particular).This is why I know for fact being in the medical research field, that it’s just the very tiny tip of the iceberg. One has to only find out which private research companies are doing the research and are they fronting foreign entities under American disguise (By way of deception thou shalt make war)!!!!
In addition, any fool should be able to determine that PCR shows up how a body “reacts” to the numerous pollutants thrown at it over a lifetime. That’s why no one’s ever been able to “isolate” any virus (to my knowledge) and even if they did, it would only confirm “genetic synchronicity”.
In fact PCR remedies some confusion over massive boasts by geneticists. Even the Draco (a million times intellectually superior to human) have never been able to “harness” “DNA”, because it is beyond their control and they know WHY. Every amendment they attribute boomerangs back to the original template or dies – given enough time.
Since the 1910 Flexner Report Western patent medicine is all about making things complicated, elitist, technical.
What are they ‘measuring’ anyway?
The ‘virus’ that they say is there, might be the ‘artifact’ which pops up in their lingo every time they see something they either want to ignore, or simply don’t understand…
Dis-ease is all about the state of the internal milieu of the body.
It is all about pH status, nutritional status, stress, toxic load…
I am a molecular biologist and also active in animal health. While I would agree to the main premise of this article that PCR tests for a chunk of DNA, its not functional, I do not agree about many other points raised in the article. Karry Mullis’s comment was taken from a time when quantitative PCR technology had not yet been developed. Today that is not any longer the case. Is there uncertainty in the quantization? Yes of course and copies of DNA are not necessarily related to function but the PCR test is most certainly not “fake”.
Quantification becomes less accurate with less input material and more PCR cycles, but as long as we understand the limits of the technology it’s still possible to derive some useful information.
A few days ago, there was a claim that between 30 and 50% of middle-aged people are not going to the doctor and if they go, they don’t take the medicine that was prescribed. The article’s author was mystified that most of these people had insurance but still did not go to the doctor. This tells me that 50 to 70% of the people haven’t figured the game out yet.
Usually viral tests are performed to confirm the illness of a person already sick. In this instance it is reasonable to assume these virus factors have increased significantly and are easier to detect. And yes, yes indeed better testing is needed and coming, in fact some researchers I know have said that this is the beginning of the golden age of– diagnostics.
“Usually viral tests are performed to confirm the illness of a person already sick. In this instance it is reasonable to assume these virus factors have increased significantly and are easier to detect”.
these remarks are meaningless. there is no virus. bits of genetic material are not viruses.
viral tests do not measure viruses. pcr does not measure viruses, or an imaginary viral load.
science fiction is not fact. “viruses” are not tiny exogenous spaceships that invade from
outer space, and then “trick” our cells into reproducing them. the story makes good theater,
especially for the pharmaceutical industry, and they have turned this story into bars of
gold, without ever demonstrating the viruses existence.
I’m curious. If you or someone is sick with what the doctor finds through testing to be a viral infection and you think the entire science of virology and related sciences of molecular biology and biochemistry are “theater”, then what would you say is happening to people to make them sick? Let’s say it’s someone who has never been vaccinated (like a naturopathic doctor’s child) and has also never taken any medications produced by the pharmaceutical industry. Is it demons? Imbalances of the humors?
You were way ahead of your time with this..kind of like $hill Gate$ and Dr FRAUDci with their pandemic prophecies. Not to criticize your post in any form or fashion but rather to belittle those demonic clowns. And also because probably 99% of us, besides all people here commenting in 2018, have never heard of the PCR test nor Kary Mullis. I found this page as I was looking for more quotes from Mr Mullis.
Does anyone think it might be a possibility that he was offed, died in August 2019, before this Covid-19 thing broke out, so that he wouldn’t speak out about his invention being used to test for it?
Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for this, Mr. Rappoport, and also to point out modern-day allopathic medicine i$ pretty much ba$ed on one thing, pu$h drug$.