Shorter - Too much magnification means "positives" with ZERO percent chance of it actually being positive
23 views
•
Published 3 years ago
•
Shorter version of last vid.
Bluntly - do you believe that if someone with only a 53% chance of being positive has SIXTEEN-THOUSAND times as much material as you, that you should be positive too?
EDIT/ CLARIFICATION below:
I didn't EXACTLY say it right for deniers in the video. I'm anticipating their "duh, stupid!" reaction. Let me explain:
Yes... by the "words" you are "positive" if you have any. And having but a tiny, tiny fraction of what someone with a 53% chance of actually having culture is still "having" "some."
Except that's the point - At those high levels of amplification (PCR cycles 36 and above), you really do NOT have ANY!!
----------------------------------------------------------------
That is what the French study and other people, including Demon Fearci himself have already said - IF it took above 35 amplification cycles to cross the "positive" threshold, THEN there really was NO LIVE CULTURE (NO LIVE VIRUS YOU'RE TRYING TO DETECT) in the sample! It IS absolutely a false positive.
----------------------------------------------------------------
That is the point - "positive" PCRs "detected" at the higher cycles (35 and above) are largely amplifying dead or non-infectious virus, or are not amplifying ANY virus, but instead are just popping positive due to artifacts - errors of overamplifying.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The idea of artifacts (and you kind find that terminology all over the place on this subject) has a pretty good analogy with the idea that your ability to detect a REAL thing in a photo is limited by the resolution. If you're zooming in SO far, then it is the artifacts of the resolution - the pixelization or the photo or print process - that you're seeing.
=====================================
So if we are using 5 to seven cycles past the LAST cycle level for which there was ANY chance there was live culture (and that was only a 2.7% chance), then to what purpose EXCEPT to MASSIVELY skew the numbers???
ESPECIALLY when none of our health propaganda officers are giving the granular detail of what cycle thresholds were needed to attain the allegedly positive test totals they're trying to lock us down with.
Do you believe that if someone with only a 77% chance of being positive has OVER A HALF-MILLION times as much material as you, that you should be a positive too?
Bluntly - do you believe that if someone with only a 53% chance of being positive has SIXTEEN-THOUSAND times as much material as you, that you should be positive too?
EDIT/ CLARIFICATION below:
I didn't EXACTLY say it right for deniers in the video. I'm anticipating their "duh, stupid!" reaction. Let me explain:
Yes... by the "words" you are "positive" if you have any. And having but a tiny, tiny fraction of what someone with a 53% chance of actually having culture is still "having" "some."
Except that's the point - At those high levels of amplification (PCR cycles 36 and above), you really do NOT have ANY!!
----------------------------------------------------------------
That is what the French study and other people, including Demon Fearci himself have already said - IF it took above 35 amplification cycles to cross the "positive" threshold, THEN there really was NO LIVE CULTURE (NO LIVE VIRUS YOU'RE TRYING TO DETECT) in the sample! It IS absolutely a false positive.
----------------------------------------------------------------
That is the point - "positive" PCRs "detected" at the higher cycles (35 and above) are largely amplifying dead or non-infectious virus, or are not amplifying ANY virus, but instead are just popping positive due to artifacts - errors of overamplifying.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The idea of artifacts (and you kind find that terminology all over the place on this subject) has a pretty good analogy with the idea that your ability to detect a REAL thing in a photo is limited by the resolution. If you're zooming in SO far, then it is the artifacts of the resolution - the pixelization or the photo or print process - that you're seeing.
=====================================
So if we are using 5 to seven cycles past the LAST cycle level for which there was ANY chance there was live culture (and that was only a 2.7% chance), then to what purpose EXCEPT to MASSIVELY skew the numbers???
ESPECIALLY when none of our health propaganda officers are giving the granular detail of what cycle thresholds were needed to attain the allegedly positive test totals they're trying to lock us down with.
Do you believe that if someone with only a 77% chance of being positive has OVER A HALF-MILLION times as much material as you, that you should be a positive too?
Keywords
health freedompropaganda fightingmassive economic fraudstuvid
FREE email alerts of the most important BANNED videos in the world
Get FREE email alerts of the most important BANNED videos in the world that are usually blacklisted by YouTube, Facebook, Google, Twitter and Vimeo. Watch documentaries the techno-fascists don't want you to know even exist. Join the free Brighteon email newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time. 100% privacy protected.
Your privacy is protected. Subscription confirmation required.
Related videos