PCR-Test Cycle Threshold Issue

Some news agencies decided to refer to the size of the crowd as "large." Yesterday I read that the "crowd" stretched for at least four or five block.

Sure it did . . .

https://twitter.com/MatteaMerta/status/1388701253215997956?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1426725533816004611%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.u-s-news.com%2Fpolitics-vax-pass-hits-canada-tens-of-thousands-march-in-montreal-against-vaccine-passports-ahead-of-sept-1-rollout%2F

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms. The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV infection. This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”

— The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

So, for those of you who mistakenly believe that the PCR-test was a wise choice, perhaps you'll take the above as proof that your trusted authority figures knew that it wasn't, but stood by silently as labs used it anyway. And to add insult to injury, they also stood by silently as those labs used a ridiculously high cycle-threshold of 40 when they knew that:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

“…If you get [perform the PCR test at] a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-confident [aka accurate] are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus [detect a true positive result] from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…”

--Tony
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

They were all playing dumb for some reason. Can anyone tell me why they were playing dumb with you?

Speaking of playing dumb, the accepted authority figures and organizations have also decided to play dumb about the consequences of wearing a mask all day long.

Townhall Tipsheet Scott Morefield
A Group Of Parents Sent Their Kids' Face Masks to A Lab for Analysis. Here's What They Found
Scott MorefieldScott Morefield| @SKMorefield|Posted: Jun 15, 2021 9:00 PM

A Group Of Parents Sent Their Kids' Face Masks to A Lab for Analysis. Here's What They Found
Source: AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File


We've been told for well over a year that widespread forced public masking should be implemented because, even if only moderately to slightly to negligibly effective at curbing the spread of COVID-19, there are ZERO drawbacks.

"What's the harm?" they ask.

"It's only a minor inconvenience," they bleat.

"If it saves ONE LIFE, it's worth it!" they implore.

Meanwhile, we on Team Reality have not only continued to point to real-world data that shows masking to be entirely ineffective, we've also maintained that forced public masking, especially long-term, has negative societal and even health ramifications that the powers-that-be are all-too-happy to ignore in subservience to their newfound face mask god.

It only stands to reason that one of those health ramifications would be the fact that millions of people, particularly children, have been forced to wear and carry around pieces of cloth they've continually breathed through for hours on end. What lurking pathogens might be found on these disgusting contraptions being incessantly handled, stuck in pockets, and mindlessly tossed on books, tables, and desks? Well, one group of Florida parents sent a batch of masks worn by their children to a lab to find out. And yeah, you'll probably need to make sure you aren't eating dinner anytime soon before you digest THESE results.

Via press release:

Gainesville, FL (June 16, 2021) – A group of parents in Gainesville, FL, concerned about potential harms from masks, submitted six face masks to a lab for analysis. The resulting report found that five masks were contaminated with bacteria, parasites, and fungi, including three with dangerous pathogenic and pneumonia-causing bacteria. No viruses were detected on the masks, although the test is capable of detecting viruses.

The analysis detected the following 11 alarmingly dangerous pathogens on the masks:

• Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumonia)

• Mycobacterium tuberculosis (tuberculosis)

• Neisseria meningitidis (meningitis, sepsis)

• Acanthamoeba polyphaga (keratitis and granulomatous amebic encephalitis)

• Acinetobacter baumanni (pneumonia, blood stream infections, meningitis, UTIs— resistant to antibiotics)

• Escherichia coli (food poisoning)

• Borrelia burgdorferi (causes Lyme disease)

• Corynebacterium diphtheriae (diphtheria)

• Legionella pneumophila (Legionnaires' disease)

• Staphylococcus pyogenes serotype M3 (severe infections—high morbidity rates)

• Staphylococcus aureus (meningitis, sepsis)

Half of the masks were contaminated with one or more strains of pneumonia-causing bacteria. One-third were contaminated with one or more strains of meningitis-causing bacteria. One-third were contaminated with dangerous, antibiotic-resistant bacterial pathogens. In addition, less dangerous pathogens were identified, including pathogens that can cause fever, ulcers, acne, yeast infections, strep throat, periodontal disease, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, and more.

The face masks studied were new or freshly-laundered before wearing and had been worn for 5 to 8 hours, most during in-person schooling by children aged 6 through 11. One was worn by an adult. A t-shirt worn by one of the children at school and unworn masks were tested as controls. No pathogens were found on the controls. Proteins found on the t-shirt, for example, are not pathogenic to humans and are commonly found in hair, skin, and soil.

A parent who participated in the study, Ms. Amanda Donoho, commented that this small sample points to a need for more research: “We need to know what we are putting on the faces of our children each day. Masks provide a warm, moist environment for bacteria to grow.”

These local parents contracted with the lab because they were concerned about the potential of contaminants on masks that their children were forced to wear all day at school, taking them on and off, setting them on various surfaces, wearing them in the bathroom, etc. This prompted them to send the masks to the University of Florida’s Mass Spectrometry Research and Education Center for analysis.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/scottmorefield/2021/06/15/a-group-of-parents-sent-their-kids-face-masks-to-a-lab-for-analysis-heres-what-they-found-n2591047

Yet more hysteria from medical "professionals." Australia's top health officer told everyone to stop talking to each other in order to stop the spread of Covid.

She said:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

“So even if you run into your next door neighbor in the shopping center…don’t start up a conversation, now is the time for minimizing your interactions with others, even if you’ve got a mask, do not think that affords total protection, we wanna be absolutely sure that as we go about our daily lives we do not come into contact with anyone else that would pose a risk.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

AUSTRALIA'S TOP HEALTH OFFICIAL CARING FOR YOU!!

What's next? Taking a deep breath and holding it when passing someone in the grocery store or on the sidewalk? Absolutely hysterical!

There is a good chance that you will live to see the day when there will be Covid-19 articles with titles like 'WHAT WERE THEY THINKING!'.

I May not make it, so enjoy a good laugh for me.

Even more likely are Covid-19 articles with titles like "WHY WEREN'T THEY THINKING?"

And follow-up articles will have titles like "WHY DID WE BELIEVE THEM WHEN WE KNOW HOW TO READ?"

After getting the first experimental injection, you're supposed to wait 2-3 weeks before getting the second injection. After the second injection, you're supposed to wait 1-2 weeks before "immunity" kicks in.

Did anyone know that if you get infected within two weeks after receiving the second experimental injection, you're considered unvaccinated?

And guess who said get ready for #3!

The show that never ends..

While damn near everyone has finally come to terms with the fact that the experimental injections do not prevent infection or transmission, they're still willing to believe that a "vaccine" passport will do just that.

So, now their trust has been transferred to a piece of paper, which is even more ridiculous than believing herd immunity can be achieved using something that does not prevent infection or transmission.

This event has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can't argue with peoples' fear; it's impervious to facts.

I see the CDC finally got around to fixing their lie about 'the jab' being a vaccine.

In typical authoritarian style, they did it by changing the definition of the word 'Vaccine'. Best laugh i got on the CDC website. It did make the back pages of the press that virtually nobody reads.

Probably my last post here. A2k violated my own policies for the second time.

"The virus" was only released to get the Blair passport a.k.a. sanitary pass into public consciousness. They tried it with SARS1, ebola, swine flu - somehow the kids weren't so dumb in those days to believe all of it until the orange man was responsible for it. And the solution to "vaccine" failure is you guessed it, more "vaccines" read: monthly updates to your "operating system" from good friends at big pharma who never deceive the regulatory agencies or falsify their data to get approval.

If they can hijack your language, they can control your thoughts into all kinds of inappropriate places. You only need protection when you engage in risky behaviors, right? You don't need immunity from the deadliest new disease ever because there is no cure and no one can survive without big pharma's help, right?

Yeah, they're pretty slippery. I'm sure there's a parasitic medicine they could all take, but that would necessarily mean they themselves would disappear.

Pfizer scientists have already stated that the experimental injection is not superior to natural immunity. The video at the link below shows Pfizer scientists telling what they really know about natural immunity versus the experimental injection when they didn't know they were being recorded.

Are they going to be shut down/fired for spreading misinformation? Were they lying?

https://www.globalresearch.ca/pfizer-scientists-caught-undercover-admitting-pfizer-evil-natural-immunity-better-than-covid-19-vaccine/5757751

These people also think that global warming is a hoax.

Next.

So, in your opinion, those Pfizer scientists also think that global warming is a hoax? None of them mentioned global warming.

Why are you trying to make them look like idiots? They're just telling it like it is . . . when they thought you'd never hear them.

Anyway, which one in particular stood out to you as an idiot, and what did he say that got you riled up?

You can't recall what set you off?

Well that's the beauty of videos. I provided one so that, if need be, you can go back and find the segment that exposed these scientists as global warming deniers.

I was referring to your global research people.

Ah, so you don't have a problem with what those Pfizer scientists had to say about natural immunity versus the experimental injections? They were pretty candid, weren't they?

I wonder why Tony wants those with natural immunity to get an experimental injection despite what these scientists have said.

Project Veritas is notorious for producing deceptively edited videos.

So, what you're saying is that you don't believe those were scientists from Pfizer even though their names and positions were shown for all to see.

Okay.

It's either that, or you believe that their words were edited in such a way as to give the opposite meaning of what they were clearly heard saying. So, which is it?