PCR-Test Cycle Threshold Issue

@InfraBlue,

How about this scientist from Johnson & Johnson? Do you suspect some editing of this video, too? Or, were they all holograms?

The truth is, when these "trusted" scientists think that nobody's listening to them, they get honest.

Have you seen Johnson & Johnson's rap sheet? Didn't think so. You should have look at it.

But in the meantime:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNIj83XNNeE&t=232s

Scientists at Pfizer say that natural immunity is superior to the immunity you don't get from the experimental injection. When is Tony and company going to listen to the scientists?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

b.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

This, more specifically, is from Project Veritas as well.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

What people hear you saying is that those scientists from both Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson who said that natural immunity is superior to those experimental injections are not real; and this, despite having the video of them doing just that put in front of your eyes and ears.

Before I bring you proof that they do indeed exist and that they did indeed say that natural immunity is superior to the experimental injections, would you like to retract your suspicion to the contrary?

2 Replies

@Glennn,

I don't think it really matters. In order to get immunity from getting Covid, you risk significant illness, hospital stays at costs upwards of $20,000, possible "long Covid" effects including physical limitations and impacts to memory and concentration and of course death. To get immunity from a shot, you walk over to a drugstore and it's free. Plus there is a growing body of evidence that says that the immunity you get from either getting Covid or getting a vaccine wanes over the course of a year (or less). Do you want to risk getting Covid every year or just take a shot every year?

At the highest level, you can look at the people in the hospitals right now whose lives are changing significantly for the worse or dying and see that the vaccine is effective. The risk/benefit calculation for taking the vaccine is pretty clear. The risks of not taking the vaccine are very well documented: illness, death, long term impact to quality of life. The risk of taking the vaccine is ... losing your partisan beliefs?

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

Yes, they work exceptionally well!

Hmm.

Who said this:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

“Our vaccines are working exceptionally well. They continue to work well for Delta with regard to severe illness and death, they prevent it. But what they can’t do anymore is prevent transmission.”
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

That was from a couple months ago. Do you understand what "can't prevent infection anymore" means?

You want me to protect those who've already had the experimental injection by getting the same experimental injection that doesn't protect me from them.

0 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

Plus there is a growing body of evidence that says that the immunity you get from either getting Covid or getting a vaccine wanes over the course of a year (or less).

Right . . .

Did you even bother to listen to what those scientists from Pfizer and J&J said about natural immunity being superior to the experimental injection, and how children shouldn't be getting them? Infrablue believes they had to be holograms. What about you. How do you interpret their candor?

Why is it that even after it is discovered that the CDC, the FDA, the WHO, and Tony allowed for the use of an unapproved test that was set way too high to boot, you're still willing to believe whatever they tell you?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Watch those videos? No. Project Veritas is known solely for deceptive editing and taking conversations out of context. I could post dozens of videos of respected doctors encouraging you to take the vaccine, not recorded in secret and edited, just honest testimonials. You'd not watch a one.

Did you read my comments about immunity being good regardless of how it is obtained? How do you interpret my candor? Are you still willing to believe what you read on fringe Internet site while unvaccinated people die in hospitals around the country?

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennnn wrote:

What people hear you saying is that those scientists from both Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson who said that natural immunity is superior to those experimental injections are not real; and this, despite having the video of them doing just that put in front of your eyes and ears.

No they don't.

Gle wrote:

Before I bring you proof that they do indeed exist and that they did indeed say that natural immunity is superior to the experimental injections, would you like to retract your suspicion to the contrary?

I decline, thank you.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Quote:

Are you still willing to believe what you read on fringe Internet site . . .

You're one to talk. You continue to believe the same medical "authorities" who kept their mouths shut about the PCR-test being unable to distinguish between Covid and influenza. You must have decided that that would be their last attempt to deceive you?

But more to the point, why are you referring to what I've shown you as something I've read? You saw and heard those Pfizer and J&J scientists saying that natural immunity is better than what you get from the experimental injection, and that it shouldn't be given to kids.

I've looked at the videos again and there is no break in the flow and continuity of their sentences. Nor are their lips out of sync with what you hear them saying. So, you're going to have to let us in on what tipped you off to the editing you claim took place. Since that's your story and you're sticking to it, could you provide the time mark in the video where the smoking gun for your editing-claim can be seen?

Thanks

0 Replies

@engineer,

I know what it was. It was the Pfizer science guy who was eating and talking at the same time, wasn't it? It's hard to get past that, ain't it? However, while difficult to watch, you shouldn't let what you see distract you from what you actually hear. If you have to, close your eyes while he's talking. I promise you'll hear him saying that natural immunity is superior to that of the "vaccine" and that it should not be given to children. Those were the scientists talking about the experimental injection. The question is: why is tony not following the science?

If it means anything to you, at least one of the scientists in those videos who agreed that natural immunity from Covid is better than whatever it is that you get from the the experimental injections had no food particles on his lips as he spoke. So . . .

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Quote:

I decline, thank you.

Why do you not want to acknowledge that the scientists at Pfizer and J&J are real and have said--in no uncertain terms--that the experimental injection is inferior to natural immunity and that children should not get it? Denying what they've said will not make it untrue. And talking about immunity in reference to an experimental injection that does not prevent infection or transmission will not magically change the fact that it doesn't.

Are you going to follow the real science from the actual scientists' lips, or are you going to follow tony? Keep in mind that tony and company decided not speak up when labs around the world used a test that they themselves have admitted is inappropriate to the purpose, and whose cycle threshold was set way too high anyway.

0 Replies

Good news!

In a July 21 alert, the CDC advised that after December 31, 2021, it will withdraw its request to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for EUA of the real-time RT-PCR diagnostic panel test, which was introduced last February to detect the presence of COVID-19.

It recommended that laboratories using RT-PCR transition to a test that can differentiate the coronavirus from influenza viruses.

https://ewnews.com/no-more-rt-pcr-cdc-withdraws-eua-for-covid-19-test-dr-duane-sands-says-it-will-be-logistical-switch

Well that seems to validate what the CDC said about the PCR-test here.

“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

https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

0 Replies

This morning I've heard people complaining about the unvaccinated, saying that they're the ones responsible for not achieving herd immunity. I'd like to challenge anyone who actually holds that position to explain how it is that herd immunity can be achieved when the experimental injection they're pushing does not prevent infection or transmission.

And so, to whom it may concern, why do you want others to accept the same experimental injection that you did when it doesn't protect you from anything. You're in the same situation you were in before being injected. So, you want me to get the experimental injection so that I, too, can live in fear of those who haven't. That doesn't make sense. In fact, since the experimental injection does not prevent infection or transmission, you must also live in fear of those who have received it.

Anyone?

0 Replies

Very well, then.

That settles it!

It makes no sense!

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

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.

What is wrong with the term "vaccine"?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

What is wrong with the term "vaccine"?

Nothing. I was just pointing out that the previous definition (prior to my last post) was not applicable to any of the mRNA 'jabs' developed for COVID-19.

The CDC changed the definition of the word 'vaccine' to include them on or about the date of my post.

One of the key changes was that previously, a vaccine was to provide immunity to a single strain of virus. The Covid-19 shot does not provide immunity, but it does boost the body's own immune response to multiple virus strains. That’s why it works on delta, mu, etc, as well as the original.

And of course previously, a vaccine provided virtually permanent immunity, the Covid-19 shot is apparently only short term (< 1 year) help.

How many polio vaccine shots did you get?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

That’s why it works on delta, mu, etc,

Where did hear this?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

It “works” with the same mechanism on variants as on the original virus.

I’m not making any judgement on the efficacy of that 'working'. That is a different thing.

I’m just amazed about how we disrupted the entire world economy unnecessarily by following the advice of 'authorities'. The effects of that are just starting to be realized.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Yeah, and it was all to protect the elderly. It was insane to lockdown everyone instead of just the elderly. People have forgotten how to think when it's most important--when "experts" are telling them to not think.

0 Replies

PCR-Test Cycle Threshold Issue

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know