In that long interview of Mullis done by Gary Null, Mullis insists on being against "belief." He, like almost everyone else, seems to be of the belief that scientists do not believe anything and do not have opinions. They focus on the data, which is to say, on measurement.
This is what some critics see as a satirical depiction of Isaac Newton by William Blake, from 1795, the age of revolutions. The scientist is so focused on the objectivity and precision of his measuring that he forgets he is naked. The entire reality of nature passes by his side, and leaves him untouched. All his might is focused on the reality of his tools, and everything else is irrelevant.
Is PCR amplification real or not?
Google maps, and others, do a nasty trick. I consider it nasty.
When you see a street or anything else on the map, you are allowed to zoom in, or out. This does two different things: one, it can stretch pictures to make them look bigger, to see "details", as if you were using a magnification lens on a painting. This process does not add information. But it changes the information, because the zoomed sections receive the effect of "smoothing" filters, because pixelation looks ugly.
The other thing they do is different. They bring more information for greater detail. Not a magnification of a defective raster graphics picture. As you move on the map, the computer adds information, from a database, adjusted to the level of the detail you are requesting, and only if the database has that information available. This should not be called "zoom" because it is not magnification but aggregation of information.
What PCR does is make copies of "genetic material." Let's remember that "genetic material" is only a chemical product. Any meaning we impose on genetic material is our own mind trying to fool us. The magnification of this genetic material may or may not allow to "see" (abusing language here) real details of the chemical in question.
Assuming that the magnification process does not add or subtract information from the genetic material, the multiple copies of if perhaps allow, perhaps, to measure things that are very difficult to measure using the small sample. But logic says that you can only be certain that the new measurements done on the amplified genetic material coincide with the original sample if, and only if, you have the original measurements on the original sample, to compare.
And now we have a tool to obsess about, like Blake's Newton and his compass and roll of paper.
Because if you know (belief, belief, belief...) by measuring X, Y and Z facts on very many small samples of genetic material, and you also measure exactly X, Y and Z on the corresponding amplified samples, then you are very tempted to say: "Hey, the next time someone brings me a small sample of genetic material, I'm going to go directly to the thermal-cycler, and start the amplification right away, and I'll measure my X, Y and Z on the amplified material, and then simply proclaim that the original sample also has X, Y and Z. And I can do this because the PCR method has been found to be ultra precise and reliable. So we are allowed to jump to conclusions safely."
This is what is really happening, and it is irrational. And yet it may also be correct: the result may be a perfect replica of the original, even though you have not gone through the awful work of looking at the original thoroughly. And you cannot be "certain" because you cannot compare. You've done a beautiful leap of faith, disguised as precise measurement of something objectively true.
And the charlatans who rule us got wind of this. And it was relatively easy, once the undue prestige of Science and its modern tools was established, to fool everyone, including students of biology and medicine, into the complete absurdity of having amplification with addition of information from incomplete samples. Obviously, the added information, generated by the PCR process, cannot be compared with the original full sample because it was an incomplete sample.
But impossibilities don't discourage charlatans.
Another thing, totally different from what the charlatans have done, is the mystical approach.
That information that was not there is actually identical to the newly created information added by the PCR. Because MAGIC. Or because, for some unknown reason, the incomplete pieces of genetic material have a bias. A meaning inside them, independent of the tricks of our minds. It is possible, then, to rebuild life, from incomplete pieces, because life is fundamentally redundant and fractal.
I think this is only mystical. Or mathematical. Not natural.
Incomplete genetic material cannot regenerate exactly its lost parts. Not on its own, not by a chain reaction. The added information is likely to be dysfunctional and different than whatever was there. And I take this conclusion on faith, not on fact. I don't even believe that life can be reduced only to genetic material.
What do scientists like Mullis really believed? Well, I don't know. I do know that lots of religions and beliefs and weird thoughts have been created in California in the 20th century. All seem to be linked to espionage and crime, by the way.
Most likely, the charlatans simply use the weird irrational stuff of the mystics and drug users to create impossible data, with which they steal money and power from everyone. People are in awe, due to ignorance. Charlatans are greedy. They don't need truth or violence. They only need fear to convince people to submit and those will force others to submit.
Correctly used, logic can destroy all frauds, and expose all charlatans.
But this is too much certainty.
People see certainty as arrogance. You are not allowed to be arrogance in this plantation, slave!
Yet, truth is truth: a learned scientist, a crazy man and a powerful king can all agree on that. And all three will try to destroy each other, for different reasons. Not for truth, but for their emotions.
So this is my critique. It's not that they are not doing science right, withing the boundaries of logic, but that they believe that logic is not a boundary of science. They were educated that way. The falsification of science was part of the plan all along.
So logic only applies when it is convenient for Power. Otherwise, it's an epidemic of gaslighting.
So... Because of all the fuckery, the PCR is pretty much universally misunderstood. The PCR test is a shortcut, cheaper way of taking an educated GUESS... It isn't meant to diagnose, or "find" anything, as Mullis insisted repeatedly, but after he dissed Fauci many times, he died suddenly, of a heart attack, in Sept. of 2019... after repeatedly insulting the intelligence and character of Anthony Fauci.
The PCR test, according to Tom Cowan, MD, in his book "The Contagion Myth," explains it like this:
The PCR, among other tests, is a *surrogate* test, which is much cheaper to use, and which "does not look for what you need to find, but rather for something likely to be there if the condition is present... The surrogate test allows doctors to make an educated guess." But accuracy is not part of the process. It's a SHORTCUT that might LEAD TO using a more expensive test, it seems.
So-- because of various factors like COST and DIFFICULTY, the PCR was widely used... but NOT for diagnosis or "finding" a virus... Not ever. It's not a "gold standard" test, but a CLUE-giving one, IF it works the way it should, which is to sort of point a finger.
Again, according to Dr. Cowan, "Kary Mullis... has insisted, time and time again, PCR tests do not prove causation and cannot diagnose illness."
From everything else I've read, this is an accurate description of the PCR test. I've read much the same kind of explanation in many different places, I just happen to have Cowan's book.
So-- you're sort of right, lol. (I feel strongly that Fauci had Mullis "offed.")
Jeez. Don't blame the dead man for the misuse. He even said that it's not a diagnostic "test".
It would more appropriately be called an assay device imo. Its like doing a chemical analysis of a rock. You can get the elements but without other studies it may never tell you much. Like rocks made of carbon. Diamonds or coal?
Great post! I am still shocked by the amount of people that are going and getting "tested" for "covid" (or any other flu/cold like illness!). The human race survived for a long time without getting "tested" for colds. My mom and my grandmother had their own "PCR" tests! Hand on the forehead... yep, you've got a fever. Are you coughing? Yep. Do you feel achy and tired? Yep. Well... (drum roll please).... you've got a cold or the flu. Time to get some rest, drink some water and stay home from school/work. Somehow, this method of testing has gone by the wayside, even though it's 100 times more accurate than all of these fake fear tests. I will NOT be tested. (Not to mention, that if a person goes and gets an "official" "test" for a cold/flu they are put into a government database). Good grief people, wake the F up!
You have misinterpreted what Kary Mullis said. I can't find the video now, but it should still be widely available. If you listen to his own words he advises against using it as a test for anything. That's not what it's designed for.
I'm going to write a slightly critical comment. Buckle up.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/h59i4ABgVZDJ/
Go to 01:18:00
In that long interview of Mullis done by Gary Null, Mullis insists on being against "belief." He, like almost everyone else, seems to be of the belief that scientists do not believe anything and do not have opinions. They focus on the data, which is to say, on measurement.
See this picture: https://adeptinitiates.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Newton-1.jpg
This is what some critics see as a satirical depiction of Isaac Newton by William Blake, from 1795, the age of revolutions. The scientist is so focused on the objectivity and precision of his measuring that he forgets he is naked. The entire reality of nature passes by his side, and leaves him untouched. All his might is focused on the reality of his tools, and everything else is irrelevant.
Is PCR amplification real or not?
Google maps, and others, do a nasty trick. I consider it nasty.
When you see a street or anything else on the map, you are allowed to zoom in, or out. This does two different things: one, it can stretch pictures to make them look bigger, to see "details", as if you were using a magnification lens on a painting. This process does not add information. But it changes the information, because the zoomed sections receive the effect of "smoothing" filters, because pixelation looks ugly.
The other thing they do is different. They bring more information for greater detail. Not a magnification of a defective raster graphics picture. As you move on the map, the computer adds information, from a database, adjusted to the level of the detail you are requesting, and only if the database has that information available. This should not be called "zoom" because it is not magnification but aggregation of information.
What PCR does is make copies of "genetic material." Let's remember that "genetic material" is only a chemical product. Any meaning we impose on genetic material is our own mind trying to fool us. The magnification of this genetic material may or may not allow to "see" (abusing language here) real details of the chemical in question.
Assuming that the magnification process does not add or subtract information from the genetic material, the multiple copies of if perhaps allow, perhaps, to measure things that are very difficult to measure using the small sample. But logic says that you can only be certain that the new measurements done on the amplified genetic material coincide with the original sample if, and only if, you have the original measurements on the original sample, to compare.
And now we have a tool to obsess about, like Blake's Newton and his compass and roll of paper.
Because if you know (belief, belief, belief...) by measuring X, Y and Z facts on very many small samples of genetic material, and you also measure exactly X, Y and Z on the corresponding amplified samples, then you are very tempted to say: "Hey, the next time someone brings me a small sample of genetic material, I'm going to go directly to the thermal-cycler, and start the amplification right away, and I'll measure my X, Y and Z on the amplified material, and then simply proclaim that the original sample also has X, Y and Z. And I can do this because the PCR method has been found to be ultra precise and reliable. So we are allowed to jump to conclusions safely."
This is what is really happening, and it is irrational. And yet it may also be correct: the result may be a perfect replica of the original, even though you have not gone through the awful work of looking at the original thoroughly. And you cannot be "certain" because you cannot compare. You've done a beautiful leap of faith, disguised as precise measurement of something objectively true.
And the charlatans who rule us got wind of this. And it was relatively easy, once the undue prestige of Science and its modern tools was established, to fool everyone, including students of biology and medicine, into the complete absurdity of having amplification with addition of information from incomplete samples. Obviously, the added information, generated by the PCR process, cannot be compared with the original full sample because it was an incomplete sample.
But impossibilities don't discourage charlatans.
Another thing, totally different from what the charlatans have done, is the mystical approach.
That information that was not there is actually identical to the newly created information added by the PCR. Because MAGIC. Or because, for some unknown reason, the incomplete pieces of genetic material have a bias. A meaning inside them, independent of the tricks of our minds. It is possible, then, to rebuild life, from incomplete pieces, because life is fundamentally redundant and fractal.
I think this is only mystical. Or mathematical. Not natural.
Incomplete genetic material cannot regenerate exactly its lost parts. Not on its own, not by a chain reaction. The added information is likely to be dysfunctional and different than whatever was there. And I take this conclusion on faith, not on fact. I don't even believe that life can be reduced only to genetic material.
What do scientists like Mullis really believed? Well, I don't know. I do know that lots of religions and beliefs and weird thoughts have been created in California in the 20th century. All seem to be linked to espionage and crime, by the way.
Most likely, the charlatans simply use the weird irrational stuff of the mystics and drug users to create impossible data, with which they steal money and power from everyone. People are in awe, due to ignorance. Charlatans are greedy. They don't need truth or violence. They only need fear to convince people to submit and those will force others to submit.
Correctly used, logic can destroy all frauds, and expose all charlatans.
But this is too much certainty.
People see certainty as arrogance. You are not allowed to be arrogance in this plantation, slave!
Yet, truth is truth: a learned scientist, a crazy man and a powerful king can all agree on that. And all three will try to destroy each other, for different reasons. Not for truth, but for their emotions.
So this is my critique. It's not that they are not doing science right, withing the boundaries of logic, but that they believe that logic is not a boundary of science. They were educated that way. The falsification of science was part of the plan all along.
So logic only applies when it is convenient for Power. Otherwise, it's an epidemic of gaslighting.
So... Because of all the fuckery, the PCR is pretty much universally misunderstood. The PCR test is a shortcut, cheaper way of taking an educated GUESS... It isn't meant to diagnose, or "find" anything, as Mullis insisted repeatedly, but after he dissed Fauci many times, he died suddenly, of a heart attack, in Sept. of 2019... after repeatedly insulting the intelligence and character of Anthony Fauci.
The PCR test, according to Tom Cowan, MD, in his book "The Contagion Myth," explains it like this:
The PCR, among other tests, is a *surrogate* test, which is much cheaper to use, and which "does not look for what you need to find, but rather for something likely to be there if the condition is present... The surrogate test allows doctors to make an educated guess." But accuracy is not part of the process. It's a SHORTCUT that might LEAD TO using a more expensive test, it seems.
So-- because of various factors like COST and DIFFICULTY, the PCR was widely used... but NOT for diagnosis or "finding" a virus... Not ever. It's not a "gold standard" test, but a CLUE-giving one, IF it works the way it should, which is to sort of point a finger.
Again, according to Dr. Cowan, "Kary Mullis... has insisted, time and time again, PCR tests do not prove causation and cannot diagnose illness."
From everything else I've read, this is an accurate description of the PCR test. I've read much the same kind of explanation in many different places, I just happen to have Cowan's book.
So-- you're sort of right, lol. (I feel strongly that Fauci had Mullis "offed.")
Jeez. Don't blame the dead man for the misuse. He even said that it's not a diagnostic "test".
It would more appropriately be called an assay device imo. Its like doing a chemical analysis of a rock. You can get the elements but without other studies it may never tell you much. Like rocks made of carbon. Diamonds or coal?
Maya: measure
Illusion
The Measure of A Man...The Illusion
How much? HOw big? How little? How many? How strong? How weak? How hot? HOw cold?
The Split
Way to Rule Method of Domination....the measure of power and control...money, sex, and power
Boys will be Boys and Must Have Their Toys
And He with the Most Technological Toys
WINS
until the only Winner
Death
comes to call
It's a big club
I was invited
I walked away
Either way
They'll make you pay
and pay and pay and pay
anyway
They Are The Masters
The Masters of War
Great post! I am still shocked by the amount of people that are going and getting "tested" for "covid" (or any other flu/cold like illness!). The human race survived for a long time without getting "tested" for colds. My mom and my grandmother had their own "PCR" tests! Hand on the forehead... yep, you've got a fever. Are you coughing? Yep. Do you feel achy and tired? Yep. Well... (drum roll please).... you've got a cold or the flu. Time to get some rest, drink some water and stay home from school/work. Somehow, this method of testing has gone by the wayside, even though it's 100 times more accurate than all of these fake fear tests. I will NOT be tested. (Not to mention, that if a person goes and gets an "official" "test" for a cold/flu they are put into a government database). Good grief people, wake the F up!
Good post. It opened up much discussion.
You have misinterpreted what Kary Mullis said. I can't find the video now, but it should still be widely available. If you listen to his own words he advises against using it as a test for anything. That's not what it's designed for.