I was just as adamant about refusing the tests as the shots. The danger they posed (at that time the “rapid antigen” tests weren’t available) with the cramming of who knows what poisons next to the blood/brain barrier was out of the question.
It was clear that the tests were fraudulent, but I appreciate the deep dive into exactly why this is so. His article is fairly long so thanks for summarizing some of it.
As someone who did PCR in a lab in the mid 90s I am familiar with the process. I thought the critiques of the Drosten protocol as outlined in the Corman Drosten review paper had merit, but then have been surprised since then to see one of the review’s authors (Kevin McKernan) bristle at any attempt to critique Covid PCR results (other than CT values). I mean were his concerns in the review (which was rejected for publication) ever addressed and corrected in labs around the world?
So many things wrong with PCR. It was never meant to be a scale process orchestrated by low quality techs in low quality labs in mass quantities for a purpose it was never appropriate for in the first place. Compound this with the drive-thru sampling etc. So. many. opportunities. for. error. Literally none of the "case data" were worth a darn. As soon as any study or essay brings up case counts, stop reading.
The same could be said for the impact on COVID shot data. I understand the shots didn't do what was claimed (and were never warranted in the first place), but the reason I stopped caring about that data is because I determined the definitions alone made all of it a hot mess! (Nevermind the flu shot being in the mix, other compounding effects of shutdowns, etc...)
Reminder for all that the "Defense Against the Dark Arts" teaching position at Hogwarts was very hard to fill and retain.
:)
I was just as adamant about refusing the tests as the shots. The danger they posed (at that time the “rapid antigen” tests weren’t available) with the cramming of who knows what poisons next to the blood/brain barrier was out of the question.
It was clear that the tests were fraudulent, but I appreciate the deep dive into exactly why this is so. His article is fairly long so thanks for summarizing some of it.
As someone who did PCR in a lab in the mid 90s I am familiar with the process. I thought the critiques of the Drosten protocol as outlined in the Corman Drosten review paper had merit, but then have been surprised since then to see one of the review’s authors (Kevin McKernan) bristle at any attempt to critique Covid PCR results (other than CT values). I mean were his concerns in the review (which was rejected for publication) ever addressed and corrected in labs around the world?
So many things wrong with PCR. It was never meant to be a scale process orchestrated by low quality techs in low quality labs in mass quantities for a purpose it was never appropriate for in the first place. Compound this with the drive-thru sampling etc. So. many. opportunities. for. error. Literally none of the "case data" were worth a darn. As soon as any study or essay brings up case counts, stop reading.
Agreed.
The same could be said for the impact on COVID shot data. I understand the shots didn't do what was claimed (and were never warranted in the first place), but the reason I stopped caring about that data is because I determined the definitions alone made all of it a hot mess! (Nevermind the flu shot being in the mix, other compounding effects of shutdowns, etc...)
Reminder! https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/it-is-challenging-to-determine-the