FDA to Link China Virus "Vaccine" to Guillain-Barré Syndrome

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: tanstaafl
"The fact is, it is pure speculation, because there is now way to prove it ... at all... ever."

False, we have several studies, and they all show almost no one vaccinated develops an infection and while we dont know the exact numbers, the percent of vaccinated people who can spread covid is extremely small.

Yeah, and you just made all that up.

Of 9535 workers tested, 379 ended up testing positive after their first dose of vaccination, but only 7 got Covid after full vaccination.

Which test? PCR? What amplification?

You can't pass it on if it's not in your system.

And as they have all clearly stated, the jab doesn't prevent you from 'catching it' (having it in your system), it only maybe lowers your chances of getting really sick and/or dying.

If you can catch it (have it in your system), you can spread it.

originally posted by: nonspecific


More importantly when and how did we find out they knew about the side effects?



a reply to: IAMTAT

They should have known.
More importantly, once they knew...they should have stopped injecting people.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: IAMTAT

Amazing how all these warnings start accumulating AFTER millions of people have already been pressured to get the jab.

In true Washington DC fashion. If you want to know the side effects of the jab, you got to take the jab.

You just made me angry all over again....I had forgotten that evil bitch said that.
(Pass the bill to know what’s in the bill)

Do you really know enough about PCR testing procedures to think that knowing the number of cycles will allow you to determine its viability or have you just read something that you don't really understand and think it's a good counterpoint whenever PCR is mentioned?

Do you understand that many factors are involved in the number of cycles to be used and also the data that is collected will he dependant somewhat on that?

It's rather cute to see you going head to head with all those medical professionals and scientists with these little nuggets of knowledge you feel make you an expert.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: tanstaafl
"The fact is, it is pure speculation, because there is now way to prove it ... at all... ever."

False, we have several studies, and they all show almost no one vaccinated develops an infection and while we dont know the exact numbers, the percent of vaccinated people who can spread covid is extremely small.

Yeah, and you just made all that up.

Of 9535 workers tested, 379 ended up testing positive after their first dose of vaccination, but only 7 got Covid after full vaccination.

Which test? PCR? What amplification?

You can't pass it on if it's not in your system.

And as they have all clearly stated, the jab doesn't prevent you from 'catching it' (having it in your system), it only maybe lowers your chances of getting really sick and/or dying.

If you can catch it (have it in your system), you can spread it.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: HawkEyi
As far as blood clots go, can you show me the number of people who got blood clots from the vaccine with no covid infection, and then give me the number of those with blood clots from covid? If you are going to talk about a problem, you need to give numbers, like I always do.

Yeah, numbers that are just made up with no basis in reality.

A question for you...

How many people who have died and or experienced debilitating adverse reactions were documented as 'not caused by the jab'?

originally posted by: nonspecific
Do you really know enough about PCR testing procedures to think that knowing the number of cycles will allow you to determine its viability or have you just read something that you don't really understand and think it's a good counterpoint whenever PCR is mentioned?

I read assessments by both the inventor of the technology (who said PCR tests should never ever be used for diagnostic purposes) and many other practicing physicians and virologists who all say the same thing, both about the use of them for diagnostic purposes, as well as the fact that when the amplification is increased beyond 28 or 30, it becomes pretty much useless.

Do you understand that many factors are involved in the number of cycles to be used and also the data that is collected will he dependant somewhat on that?

Do you understand that arguing against reality makes you look somewhat ... unbelievable?

It's rather cute to see you going head to head with all those medical professionals and scientists with these little nuggets of knowledge you feel make you an expert.

What is cute is watching you arguing to the point your head is about to explode trying to rationalize tyhe insanity that is currently underway.

I hope you survive 'the crazy years' we are going through right now.

Ok show me where Kary Mullis said PCR "should never be used for diagnostic purposes"

If he as the inventer of PCR felt strongly about this I'd imagine he made the statement multiple times both professionally and otherwise.

A couple of links will firmly prove me wrong on that I think?



I'll also have some links to how a PCR becomes "pretty much useless" over 28 cycles.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: nonspecific
Do you really know enough about PCR testing procedures to think that knowing the number of cycles will allow you to determine its viability or have you just read something that you don't really understand and think it's a good counterpoint whenever PCR is mentioned?

I read assessments by both the inventor of the technology (who said PCR tests should never ever be used for diagnostic purposes) and many other practicing physicians and virologists who all say the same thing, both about the use of them for diagnostic purposes, as well as the fact that when the amplification is increased beyond 28 or 30, it becomes pretty much useless.

Do you understand that many factors are involved in the number of cycles to be used and also the data that is collected will he dependant somewhat on that?

Do you understand that arguing against reality makes you look somewhat ... unbelievable?

It's rather cute to see you going head to head with all those medical professionals and scientists with these little nuggets of knowledge you feel make you an expert.

What is cute is watching you arguing to the point your head is about to explode trying to rationalize tyhe insanity that is currently underway.

I hope you survive 'the crazy years' we are going through right now.

a reply to: nonspecific

Did you know Mullis actually developed PCR, not as a diagnostic tool...but as a method to amplify DNA for research?

In fact he flat out stated that it could be "misused" as a diagnostic tool by amplifying (Scan Cycle Thresholds) "anything in anyone" to lead to a false or predetermined diagnosis. Which is exactly what is now being done through CT manipulation.

“The PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody--If you can amplify one single molecule up to something you can really measure, which is something you can do.…So that could be thought of as a misuse of it.”

www.bitchute.com...

I'm aware of what he said.

I'm also aware of how when taken out of context it can be used as a "smoking gun" in these types of debates.

I'd have thought he'd mention it more than that one time if he felt so strongly about it don't you?

Maybe even in a professional capacity at some.poimt over the years.

PCR has been used for years now as a diagnostic test for STDs some types of cancer and a few other things as well.

It's surprising no one on the planet realised the mistake until the internet community picked up on it.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: nonspecific

Did you know Mullis actually developed PCR, not as a diagnostic tool...but as a method to amplify DNA for research?

In fact he flat out stated that it could be "misused" as a diagnostic tool by amplifying (Scan Cycle Thresholds) "anything in anyone" to lead to a false or predetermined diagnosis. Which is exactly what is now being done through CT manipulation.

“The PCR, if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody--If you can amplify one single molecule up to something you can really measure, which is something you can do.…So that could be thought of as a misuse of it.”

www.bitchute.com...

a reply to: nonspecific

It's actually not just 'A' diagnostic tool, it's the 'gold standard', and not just for covid.

PCR the Gold Standard for Herpes Simplex Virus Detection

www.reviewofoptometry.com...

I've heard talk about these variants being caused by EpsilonG. It is known that Epstein Barr can be dormant in your body and reactivated with electromagnetic waves. What other virus's can they do this with? Can they do this with normal flu shot viruses?

Have you told them it's actually not even fit for purpose though?

They are going to feel rather foolish when the news from ATS hits them that they have been wasting time and money on something that's not even any good?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: nonspecific

It's actually not just 'A' diagnostic tool, it's the 'gold standard', and not just for covid.

PCR the Gold Standard for Herpes Simplex Virus Detection

www.reviewofoptometry.com...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: IAMTAT

Amazing how all these warnings start accumulating AFTER millions of people have already been pressured to get the jab.

In true Washington DC fashion. If you want to know the side effects of the jab, you got to take the jab.

So they are supposed to know the side effects on people, including 1 in a million chance side effects, before anyone even gets it? Can you explain to me and them how they would do it?

I guess science and medical knowledge and computer modeling and stuff….


I think public opinion wouldn’t be so hesitant if lawsuit protections wasn’t placed for companies making millions off the vaccine.

The federal government has granted companies like Pfizer and Moderna immunity from liability if something unintentionally goes wrong with their vaccines.

www.cnbc.com...

Being relatively young, being in an age group with negligible death rates from COVID-19, and being in good health.

Why would I risk taking the “jab”?

a reply to: IAMTAT

You can only find it if it's there. Can you show me where he said you can find things that aren't there?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: IAMTAT

Amazing how all these warnings start accumulating AFTER millions of people have already been pressured to get the jab.

In true Washington DC fashion. If you want to know the side effects of the jab, you got to take the jab.

So they are supposed to know the side effects on people, including 1 in a million chance side effects, before anyone even gets it? Can you explain to me and them how they would do it?

I guess science and medical knowledge and computer modeling and stuff….

So you have no actual knowledge and guess based on .... what exactly? If these things could be found with computer models and medical knowledge we would not need any trials at all, we'd run it through the model and then it would either go right to market or not, right?

Archived NYT's article showing how an entire 'Pseudo-Epidemic' at Dartmouth resulted from reliance on PCR as a diagnostic tool for Pertussis.
archive.is...-513.39-513.210

Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t

epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test that led them astray.

Interesting to note that the article had to be archived...as it was eventually scrubbed from the Internet by the NYTs because it went against the current narrative.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: IAMTAT

You can only find it if it's there. Can you show me where he said you can find things that aren't there?

You work in a hospital and you don't know that, on a molecular level, practically EVERYTHING is in EVERYONE in miniscule amounts...and if amplified enough (Scan Cycle Thresholds), you can produce a diagnosis of it?

a reply to: IAMTAT

15 years ago, and based on the fact when another lab ran PCR all but 1 positive disappeared it would appear the problem was the lab doing the initial test.

After doing some more research I have found the problem, and it appears I was correct. The initial lab ran a PCR for a single target of IS481. There are other bacteria that will also show up positive for IS481, it was a lab error, not a testing error. The PCR test found exactly what it was looking for. The CDC used a dual target assay of IS481 and ptxS1.

Again, the PCR test can't find something that is not there, the problem was the interpretation of the results, human error, not a PCR error.

a reply to: IAMTAT

False. Which is why when the CDC ran the PCR all but 1 of the positives disappeared. IS481 and ptxS1 are not in EVERYONE even in miniscule amounts.