by Celia Farber
Celia Farber is half Swedish, raised there, so she knows
"socialism" from the inside. She has focused her
writings on freedom and tyranny, with an early focus on
the pharmaceutical industry and media abuses on human
She has been under ferocious attack for her
writings on HIV/AIDS, where she has worked to document
the topic as a psychological operation, and rooted in
She is a contributor to UncoverDC and The
Epoch Times, and has in the past written for Harper's,
Esquire, Rolling Stone and more.
Having been gravely
injured in legacy media, she never wants to go back. She
is the recipient of the Semmelweis International Society
Clean Hands Award for Investigative Journalism, and was
under such attack for her work, she briefly sought
protection from the FBI and NYPD.
She is the author of
"Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS,"
and the editor of The Truth Barrier, an investigative
and literary website.
She co-hosts "The Whistleblower
Newsroom" with Kristina Borjesson on PRN, Fridays at
Celia Ingrid Farber
Corona Simulation Machine:
Why the Inventor
of the "Corona Test"
'Not to use it
to Detect a Virus'...
"Scientists are doing
an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I
don't mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of
Inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction
What do we mean when we
say somebody has 'tested positive' for the Corona Virus?
would astound you. But getting this "answer" is like getting to a
very rare mushroom that only grows above 200 feet on a Sequoia tree
in the forbidden forest.
I say that for dramatic effect, but also because I wound up, against
all odds, finding it.
Every day I wake up and work at shedding one more layer of ignorance
- by listening carefully. I got lucky with scientists many years
ago; Epic, incredible scientists, happening to cross my path when
nobody else wanted to talk to them.
Now their names are
emerging, their warnings and corrections crystallizing. True
"science" (the nature of the natural world) is never bad news.
Globalist science is
nothing but bad news.
Bill Gates wants you to believe
a Corona Virus will exterminate over '450 million people' is that,
he hates nature, God, and you... (a subjective interpretation)...
Why is that? You'd have to
But let's talk about the latest terror bomb detonated by Global
Atheist PC Creeps upon your perfectly good, free life as a US
citizen in 2020, governed by a President who does not think
How many of us are "infected" with this novel Corona virus, and how
scared should we be?
First, a spiritual law:
Anything that tries to frighten you comes
from "opposition," in spiritual battle...
It's not the Holy Spirit,
period. Ignore its threats and keep your wits about you.
You don't have to shout,
"Stay safe!" to your neighbors.
We are safe.
We have an immune system
that is a miracle like the Sistine Chapel.
It withstands toxic,
microbial inundation on a grand scale at all times, while operating
a super-highway of adaptive life-sustaining genetic information, on
cellular bridges, emitting telegrams of vital evolutionary code,
slandered as "viruses" or "retroviruses."
People die - yes.
But people don't die the way Bill Gates would
have you believe, at the mercy of malicious, predatory
pathogens, "lurking" on every surface, and especially other humans.
That's not "science"
- That's social engineering - Terrorism...
What do we mean when
we say a person "tests positive" for Covid-19?
We don't actually mean they have been found to "have" it.
We've been hijacked by our technologies, but left illiterate
about what they actually mean.
In this case, I am in the
rare position of having known, spent time with, and interviewed the
inventor of the method used in the presently available Covid-19
tests, which is called
PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction.)
His name was Kary B. Mullis, and he was one of the warmest,
funniest, most eclectic-minded people I ever met, in addition to
being a staunch critic of HIV "science," and an unlikely Nobel
Laureate, i.e. a "genius"...
One time, in 1994, when I called to talk to him about how PCR was
being weaponized to "prove," almost a decade after it was asserted,
HIV 'caused' AIDS, he actually came
The people who have taken all your freedoms away in recent weeks,
politicians, globalist thought leaders, bankers, WHO fanatics,
and the like...
Their army is composed of
media," which is now literally a round-the-clock perfect
propaganda machine for the Gates-led Pandemic Reich.
Kary Mullis was a scientist...
He never spoke like a
globalist, and said once, memorably, when accused of making
statements about HIV that could endanger lives:
"I'm a scientist. I'm
not a lifeguard."
That's a very important
line in the sand.
Somebody who goes around
claiming they are "saving lives," is a very dangerous animal, and
you should run in the opposite direction when you encounter them.
Their weapon is
fear, and their favorite word is
They entrap you with a
form of bio-debt, creating simulations of every imaginable thing
that "could" happen, yet hasn't.
Bill Gates has been
waiting a long
time for a virus with this much, as he put it, "pandemic potential"...
But Gates has a 'problem,'
Of Mullis' invention, Polymerase Chain Reaction, the London Observer
"Not since James Watt
walked across Glasgow Green in 1765 and realized that the
secondary steam condenser would transform steam power, an
inspiration that set loose the industrial revolution, has a
single, momentous idea been so well recorded in time and place."
What does HIV have to
do with Covid-19?
PCR played a central role in the HIV war (a war you don't know
about, that lasted 22 years, between Globalist post-modern HIV
scientists and classical scientists.)
The latter lost the war.
Unless you count being correct as winning.
violence finally silenced the opposition, and it seemed nobody
would ever learn who these scientists were, or why they fought
this thing so adamantly and passionately.
And PCR, though its inventor died last year, and isn't here to
address it, plays a central role in Corona terrorism.
Here is an outtake from
an article I published in SPIN, in 1994, about Kary Mullis, PCR, HIV
"PCR has also had a
great impact on the field of AIDS, or rather, HIV research.
can, among other things, detect HIV in people who test negative
to the HIV antibody test.
The word "eccentric" seems to come up often in connection with
His first published scientific paper, in the
premier scientific journal Nature in 1986, described how he
viewed the universe while on LSD - pocked with black holes
containing antimatter, for which time runs backward.
He has been known to
show photographs of nude girlfriends during his lectures, their
bodies traced with Mandelbrot fractal patterns. And as a side
project, he is developing a company which sells lockets
containing the DNA of rock stars.
But it is his views
on AIDS that have really set the scientific establishment
Mullis, like his friend and colleague Dr. Peter Duesberg, does
not believe that AIDS is caused by the retrovirus HIV. He is a
long-standing member of the Group for the Reappraisal of the
HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, the 500-member protest organization pushing
for a re-examination of the cause of AIDS.
One of Duesberg's strongest arguments in the debate has been
that the HIV virus is barely detectable in people who suffer
Ironically, when PCR
was applied to HIV research, around 1989, researchers claimed to
have put this complaint to rest.
Using the new
technology, they were suddenly able to see viral particles in
the quantities they couldn't see before. Scientific articles
poured forth stating that HIV was now 100 times more prevalent
than was previously thought.
But Mullis himself
"PCR made it easier to see that certain people
are infected with HIV," he told Spin in 1992, "and some of those
people came down with symptoms of AIDS.
But that doesn't
begin even to answer the question,
'Does HIV cause
Mullis then went on to
echo one of Duesberg's most controversial claims.
"Human beings are
full of retroviruses," he said.
"We don't know if it
is hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands. We've only
recently started to look for them. But they've never killed
People have always survived retroviruses."
Mullis challenged the
popular wisdom that the disease-causing mechanisms of HIV are simply
too "mysterious" to comprehend.
"The mystery of that
damn virus," he said at the time, "has been generated by the $2
billion a year they spend on it. You take any other virus, and
you spend $2 billion, and you can make up some great mysteries
about it too."
Like so many great
scientific discoveries, the idea for PCR came suddenly, as if by
direct transmission from another realm.
It was during a
late-night drive in 1984, the same year, ironically, that HIV was
announced to be the "probable" cause of AIDS.
"I was just driving
and thinking about ideas and suddenly I saw it," Mullis recalls.
"I saw the polymerase
chain reaction as clear as if it were up on a blackboard in my
head, so I pulled over and started scribbling."
A chemist friend of his
was asleep in the car, and, as Mullis described in a recent special
edition of Scientific American:
groggily to the delay and the light, but I exclaimed I had
discovered something fantastic. Unimpressed, she went back to
Mullis kept scribbling
calculations, right there in the car, until the formula for DNA
amplification was complete.
The calculation was based
on the concept of "reiterative exponential growth processes," which
Mullis had picked up from working with computer programs.
table-pounding, he convinced the small California biotech company he
was working for, Cetus, that he was on to something.
Good thing they finally
They sold the patent for PCR to Hoffman-LaRoche for the
staggering sum of $300 million - the most money ever paid for a
Mullis meanwhile received a $10,000 bonus...
Mullis's mother reports that as a child, her lively son got into all
kinds of trouble - shutting down the house's electricity, building
rockets, and blasting small frogs hundreds of feet into the air.
These days, he likes to
surf, rollerblade, take pictures, party with his friends - most of
whom are not scientists - and above all, he loves to write.
Mullis is notoriously difficult to track down and interview. I had
left several messages on his answering machine at home but had
gotten no response.
Finally, I called him in
the late evening, and he picked up, in the middle of bidding
farewell to some dinner guests.
He insisted he would not
give me an interview, but after a while, a conversation was
underway, and I asked if I couldn't just please turn my tape
"Oh, what the hell,"
he gruffed. "Turn the fucker on."
Our talk focused on AIDS.
Though Mullis has not
been particularly vocal about his HIV skepticism, his convictions
have not, to his credit, been muddled or softened by his recent
success and mainstream acceptability.
He seems to revel in his
newly acquired power.
"They can't pooh-pooh
me now, because of who I am," he says with a chuckle - and by
all accounts, he's using that power effectively.
When ABC's "Nightline"
approached Mullis about participating in a documentary on himself,
he instead urged them to focus their attention on the HIV debate.
"That's a much more
important story," he told the producers, who up to that point
had never acknowledged the controversy.
In the end, "Nightline"
ran a two-part series, the first on Kary Mullis, the second on the
Mullis was hired by ABC
for a two-week period, to act as their scientific consultant and
direct them to sources.
The show was superb, and represented a historic turning point,
possibly even the end of the seven-year media blackout on the HIV
debate. But it still didn't fulfill Mullis' ultimate fantasy.
"What ABC needs to
do," says Mullis, "is talk to [Chairman of the National
Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Dr.
Anthony] Fauci and [Dr. Robert] Gallo [one of the discoverers of
HIV] and show that they're assholes, which I could do in ten
But I point out, Gallo
will refuse to discuss the HIV debate, just as he's always done.
"I know he will,"
Mullis shoots back, anger rising in his voice.
"But you know what? I
would be willing to chase the little bastard from his car to his
office and say,
'This is Kary
Mullis trying to ask you a goddamn simple question,' and let
the cameras follow.
If people think I'm a
crazy person, that's okay.
But here's a Nobel
Prize-winner trying to ask a simple question from those who
spent $22 billion and killed 100,000 people. It has to be on TV.
It's a visual thing.
I'm not unwilling to do something like
He pauses, then
"And I don't care
about making an ass of myself because most people realize I am
While many people, even
within the ranks of the HIV dissidents, have of late tried to
distance themselves from the controversial Duesberg, Mullis defends
him passionately and seems genuinely concerned about his fate.
"I was trying to
stress this point to the ABC people" he says, "that Peter has
been abused seriously by the scientific establishment, to the
point where he can't even do any research.
Not only that, but
his whole life is pretty much in disarray because of this, and
it is only because he has refused to compromise his scientific
There ought to be
some goddamn private foundation in the country, that would say,
'Well, we'll move
in where the NIH [National Institutes of Health] dropped
off. We'll take care of it. You just keep right on saying
what you're saying, Peter.
We think you're
an asshole, and we think you are wrong, but you're the only
dissenter, and we need one, because it's science, it's not
And that was one of
the reasons why I cooperated with ABC."
"I am waiting to be
convinced that we're wrong," Mullis continues.
"I know it isn't
going to happen. But if it does, I will tell you this much - I
will be the first person to admit it. A lot of people studying
this disease are looking for the clever little pathways they can
piece together, that will show how this works.
'What if this
molecule was produced by this one and then this one by this
one, and then what if this one and that one induces this
becomes, after two molecules, conjecture of the rankest kind.
People who sit there
and talk about it don't realize that molecules themselves are
somewhat hypothetical, and that their interactions are more so,
and that the biological reactions are even more so.
You don't need to
look that far. You don't discover the cause of something like
AIDS by dealing with incredibly obscure things. You just look at
what the hell is going on.
Well, here's a bunch
of people that are practicing a new set of behavioral norms.
Apparently, it didn't work because a lot of them got sick.
That's the conclusion. You don't necessarily know why it
But you start there."
That was a historical detour, shared in hopes of rooting this
When you see the word "cases" on your TV screen, in this world that
has now been hijacked by one single event, one dread, one Idol, you
will be forgiven for thinking those are cases of Covid-19.
The number of "cases" is often a very big number, back-lit in red.
Today for example,
the number of "total
cases," in the US, according to Worldometer, is 309,728.
total death figure is 8,441.
"Active cases," is 286,546, of
which 8,206 are "Serious, Critical."
The number of "new deaths"
is 1,037, and the number of "total recovered" is 14,741...
I'm not clear what an
"active" case is.
Does that mean fully
If the latter, it surely
encompasses influenza/pneumonia, which has magically, as many have
observed, dropped off a cliff for 2020.
In China, generally,
they diagnose 'Corona' with
CT scans and one or two positive PCR
In the US, it's
difficult to find out what makes a "case," i.e. what the case
Absent CT scans, we are
in a bio-tech free-fall.
One website offers this
distressingly unclear definition:
coronavirus, or COVID-19, has been spreading worldwide,
resulting in growing numbers of infected individuals since
late 2019 and increased mortality numbers since early 2020.
So far, experts
have seen that while there are severe cases, the infection
is usually mild with non-specific symptoms.
And there are no
trademark clinical features of COVID-19 infection."
There are no
trademark clinical features?
What then, collapsed
I sure hope this isn't
all riding on a "test," as bio-tech Oracle.
A few graphs down, my fears are confirmed:
COVID-19 involves laboratory tests.
Once someone has been
diagnosed with the coronavirus, additional diagnostic tests may
be done to determine the severity of the infection."
I accept that "something
is going on" that overlaps with flu, but reportedly worse than a
That's what we're
hearing. It involves an acute lack of oxygen, for reasons unclear.
People can't breathe. Intubation is a serious, potentially dangerous
procedure that begs many questions - but that's for a future
What is the
relationship between the spread of testing and the "spread" of a
How do we know what
we are experiencing, in comparison to what we are assuming we
One study in Austria
found that increased testing correlated with, no surprise, increased
In an email discussion between a group of international scientists,
academics and MD's, the question was posed whether the daily number
of new cases would track with the daily number of tests.
"Yes, they do," wrote
Austrian MD Christian Fiala.
"Here are the data
from Austria. In other words if they want to further increase
the number of 'infected' people, they have to also increase the
number of tests.
However, that is
Another aspect: during the first weeks most tests were done on
sick people. Therefore, the percentage of positive tests was
But there are not so
many sick people and with the general roll out of tests, the
vast majority of those tested will be healthy. Consequently, the
percentage of positive tests will be low, and most will be false
In other words, it is impossible to continue the increase of
positive test results."
In the US, we have all but abandoned classical diagnostic medicine
in favor of biotech, or lab result medicine.
This has been going on
for a long time and is a dangerous turning. The "Corona test" is
named with characteristic tech-tedium:
Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel."
That means it is a needle
in a DNA haystack test... A PCR test...
It finds fragments,
From an email from Kary
Mullis, to the widow of boxer Tommy Morrison, whose career and life
were destroyed by an "HIV test," and who litigated ferociously for
years, against test manufacturers, Dr. Mullis wrote, on May 7, 2013:
"PCR detects a very
small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus
The specific fragment detected is determined by the
somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the
ends of the amplified fragment. "
If things were done
right, "infection" would be a far cry from a positive PCR test.
"You have to have a
whopping amount of any organism to cause symptoms.
of it," Dr. David Rasnick, bio-chemist, protease developer, and
former founder of an EM lab called Viral Forensics told me.
"You don't start with
testing; you start with listening to the lungs.
that a PRC test is ever true. It's a great scientific research
tool. It's a horrible tool for clinical medicine. 30% of your
infected cells have been killed before you show symptoms.
By the time you show
symptoms… the dead cells are generating the symptoms."
I asked Dr. Rasnick what
advice he has for people who want to be tested for COVID-19.
"Don't do it, I say,
when people ask me," he replies.
"No healthy person
should be tested. It means nothing but it can destroy your life,
make you absolutely miserable."
One of the countless
head-spinning mysteries of this whole Corona Situation has been the
advent of famous people, from Tom Hanks and his wife, to Sophie
Trudeau, to Prince Charles announcing they had "tested positive" for
COVID-19 and were self-quarantining.
In all these
famous-powerful people cases, the symptoms were either non-existent
Why, one wondered,
did they make such hay about it?
The British Royals,
especially, seemed to contradict their ethos of secrecy in this
case. So what did it mean?
It signaled, if anything,
that COVID-19 is not all that deadly...
That the virus can be
present without causing the disease. That host factors matter. And
that being "positive" for COVID-19 is neither a PR death sentence
nor an actual death sentence.
Maybe in their elite and
esoteric language, it means some kind of prestige, or sacrament to a
Pagan Virus Deity. Who knows?
In the case of the
Trudeau, Sophie tested positive, and had symptoms, while her husband
Justin, the Prime Minister, never got sick, and was never tested.
(He didn't want to appear privileged; not everybody can get tested
in Canada, you must have symptoms.)
We do live now in a world dominated by a Corona virus, as my friend
Kevin Corbett, a retired nurse in the UK puts it, "with knobs on
it." Shrek-Green is the color that was chosen.
We're lost in a
simulation, seeking to grab hold of "truth" and reality. One way
that I do that is to grab hold of words, slow them down, and analyze
them. Globalists love to weaponize words and make spells out of
To this end, they invent
new words, and force you to use them and live them.
"Corona Virus," and
Whether we realize it or
not, this phrase is an echo of HIV-think, which I swam through for
most of my so-called career in journalism, choking and spitting all
the way out.
The globalists write
They encode "viruses" and give them a weaponized, video-game
In this video game, you lose all your freedoms, and must
display gratitude and servitude.
Viral code trumps all other forms
Nothing can counter it.
Especially not "science."
The virus is also a
sweeping metaphor for the spread of "misinformation," which means
anything outside their religious doctrines, not recognizable by
The code, the potential scenarios, the mysticism and superstition
about how the virus spreads, must not be questioned, if you wish to
remain a person, as opposed to an un-person.
It's a form of
post-globalist environmental socialism gone malignant:
Demand that all
people submit to an equal chance to be killed by a virus.
Act out the theatrics
of worshiping the virus with fear as the measure of inverted
This is why celebrities
love this kind of thing. It gives them a chance to debase
themselves, to self-flagellate as fellow sufferers.
As I write this, from my
window in New York City, at 7 pm every evening, people are heard
hollering, clapping, and blowing horns from their windows, to show
solidarity to the health care workers on the front lines.
Was any such thing ever
devised for the mass deaths from opioids? No, they weren't
significant deaths for the global elites.
It's not "death," this
play is about. It's socialist contagion theology. You can't go to
the grocery store without encountering new displays of Corona
Heroica. Only viruses interest these people, these haters of
Yet they refuse to learn
the first thing about the natural life of viruses and humans. If
they did peer into this world, they would find beauty, truth, and
They would find that
viruses are rarely deadly, always misunderstood, and actually trying
to protect us.
The reason the globalists are obsessed with "spread"
and "viruses" is because they want to shut down all forms of
communication and information exchange that threatens their
New World Order.
"Every time somebody
takes a swab, a tissue sample of their DNA, it goes into a
government database. It's to track us," says David Rasnick.
"They're not just looking for the virus.
Please put that in
In HIV, the death spell (code) came to people in the form of two
antibody tests called ELISA and Western Blot, initially.
Not PCR tests - they came
later, to measure "viral load," and were specifically not to be used
for diagnosing HIV. Rather, to stress people out about their
"surrogate markers," said to represent where they stood in their
battle against HIV.
(Did people really need
to be in a "battle" against HIV? This was the trillion-dollar
In any case, those tests were not built on a "gold standard" which
means purification of an actual virus. Purification means the
pathogen has been separated from all else.
HIV co-discoverer and
Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier famously told journalist
Djamel Tahi in an interview:
"I repeat, we did not
HIV was never "separated
from everything else."
It was and is a
laboratory artifact, a set of lab-tortured antigens around which a
"test" was built - a test which shattered countless millions of
lives, because people watched TV and believed what they were told.
They didn't get a chance
to hear what Kary Mullis or dozens of other real scientists
had to say about the supposedly deadly retrovirus, HIV.
Nothing was proven
before it was asserted.
This became the norm,
paving the way for the situation we are in now.
We all dreaded this
would happen, but we never dreamed they would choose a cold
A Corona virus...
In the early 1990's, PCR,
(Polymerase Chain Reaction) came into popular use, and Kary Mullis
was awarded the Nobel Prize for it in 1993.
PCR, simply put, is a
thermal cycling method used to make up to billions of copies of a
specific DNA sample, making it large enough to study.
As it correctly says on
PCR's Wikipedia page, PCR is an,
technique" with a "broad variety" of applications, "…including
biomedical research and criminal forensics."
The page goes on to say,
to my dismay, that one of the applications of PCR is,
"…for the diagnosis
of infectious diseases."
Kary B. Mullis
PCR is a needle in a
haystack technology that can be extremely misleading in "the
diagnosis of infectious diseases."
The first conflict
between this revolutionary technology and human life happened on the
battlefield of AIDS, and Mullis himself came to the front line
arguing against PCR as diagnostic tool.
In 1987, esteemed
Berkeley cancer virologist Peter Duesberg had doomed his
funding and "career" by issuing a broadside in a paper published in
Cancer Research to the growing and promiscuous assertions made for
cancer viruses, including at least one he stood to gain a Nobel
Prize for had he not diffused its significance himself.
His main argument was that the Gallo/Montagnier fusion "virus" that
came to be called 'HIV' was (like all viruses in its class) barely
capable of infecting cells.
It infected so few cells
that Duesberg likened the pathogenic model to thinking you can
conquer China by killing 3 soldiers a day. There was simply not
enough "there-there" in the form of cell death.
"It's a pussycat," he
He even said he wouldn't
mind being injected with it. (though not if it came from Gallo's
With PCR's rise, the HIV Industrial Complex weaponized it to assert
that now they could see HIV more abundantly, hence their maligned
foe Peter Duesberg was toast.
And it was Kary Mullis,
himself an HIV dissenter, who rose to Duesberg's defense and said,
"No he isn't."
I conducted a two-hour interview with David Crowe - Canadian
researcher, with a degree in biology and mathematics, host of The
Infectious Myth podcast, and President of the think-tank
He broke down the
problems with the PCR based Corona test in great detail, revealing a
world of unimaginable complexity, as well as trickery.
"The first thing to
know is that the test is not binary," he said. "In fact, I don't
think there are any tests for infectious disease that are
positive or negative."
The next part of his
explanation is lengthy and detailed, but let's push through:
"What they do is they
take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this
point is the difference between positive and negative."
"Wow," I said. "That's so important. I think people envision it
as one of two things: Positive or negative, like a pregnancy
test. You "have it" or you don't."
"PCR is really a manufacturing technique," Crowe explained.
"You start with one
molecule. You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle
the amount doubles, which doesn't sound like that much, but if
you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion
times more material than you started with.
So as a manufacturing
technique, it's great.
What they do is they
attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it. You
shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get
light sent back at a different wavelength.
So, they measure the
amount of light that comes back and that's their surrogate for
how much DNA there is. I'm using the word DNA. There's a step in
RT-PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA.
So, the PCR test is
actually not using the viral RNA. It's using DNA, but it's like
the complimentary RNA. So logically it's the same thing, but it
can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA?
Basically, there's a
certain number of cycles."
This is where it gets
"In one paper," Crowe
says, "I found 37 cycles. If you didn't get enough fluorescence
by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper,
the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered
And if you got in
that range, then you did more testing. I've only seen two papers
that described what the limit was.
So, it's quite
possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada
versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different
cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test.
So, if you cut off at
20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might
have everybody positive."
I asked him to pause so I
could exclaim my astonishment.
And yet, it was Déjà vu
all over again.
Just like in the HIV battle - people were never told
that the "HIV test" had different standards in different countries,
and within countries, from lab to lab.
The highest bar (the
greatest number of HIV proteins) was in Australia: five.
The Lowest was
In the US it is
We used to joke that you
could rid yourself of an "HIV diagnosis" by flying from either the
US or Australia, to Africa.
But for many years,
"AIDS" in Africa was diagnosed without any tests whatsoever. Just a
short list of symptoms that tracked precisely with symptoms of most
tropical diseases, such as fever, cough, and shortness of breath.
David, in his quiet Canadian way, dropped a bombshell in his next
"I think if a country
said, 'You know, we need to end this epidemic,' They could
quietly send around a memo saying:
'We shouldn't be
having the cutoff at 37. If we put it at 32, the number of
positive tests drops dramatically. If it's still not enough,
well, you know, 30 or 28 or something like that. So, you can
control the sensitivity'."
Yes, you read that right.
Labs can manipulate how many "cases' of Covid-19 their country has.
Is this how the Chinese made their case load vanish all of a sudden?
"Another reason we
know this is bogus," Crowe continued, "is from a remarkable
series of graphs published by some people from Singapore in JAMA.
These graphs were
published in the supplementary information, which is an
indication that nobody's supposed to read them. And I think the
authors probably just threw them in because they were
interesting graphs, but they didn't realize what was in them.
So, they were 18
graphs of 18 different people. And at this hospital in
Singapore, they did daily coronavirus tests and they grasped the
number of PCR cycles necessary to detect fluorescence.
Or if they couldn't
detect florescence by…37 cycles, they put a dot on the bottom of
the graph, signifying a negative."
"So, in this group of 18 people, the majority of people went
from positive, which is normally read as "infected," to
negative, which is normally read as "uninfected" back to
positive - infected again.
So how do you
interpret this? How do you have a test if a test act is
actually, you know, 100% positive for detecting infection, then
the negative results must've been wrong?
And so, one way to
solve that is to move the point from 37 to say 36 or 38.
You can move this,
this cycle of numbers. It's an arbitrary division up or down.
But there's no guarantee that if you did that, you wouldn't
still have the same thing. It would just, instead of going from,
from 36 to undetectable and back to 36 or back to 45, it might
go from 33 to undetectable to 30 or something like that. Right?
So, you can't solve
the problem by changing this arbitrary binary division. And so
basically this says that the test is not detecting infection.
Because if it was,
like if you're infected, and then you're uninfected, and you're
in a hospital with the best anti-infective precautions in the
how did you get
And if you cured
the infection, why didn't you have antibodies to stop you
So, there's no
explanation within the mainstream that can explain these
That's why I think
they're so important."
I couldn't believe my
ears. And yet I could.
Have you ever tried to
read the package insert for a "Corona" PCR test? You begin to feel
after a while that the technobabble is some kind of spell, or
An alien language from
another dimension, that could not possibly - whatever else it may do
- help a single human being have a better life. It's not "English."
I don't know what it is.
"I've been quoting,
Alice in Wonderland a lot recently," David says, "because it's
the only way I can wrap my head around it.
'Sometimes I can
believe six impossible things before breakfast'!"
One of the ways to
distinguish truth from deception in contemporary "science" is to
track what gets removed.
For example, David tells
me, there was apparently an English abstract online at PubMed out of
China that rendered the entire COVID testing industrial complex
baseless and absurd.
"There was a famous
Chinese paper that estimated that if you're testing asymptomatic
people, up to 80% of positives could be false positive.
That was kind of
shocking, so shocking that PubMed had to withdraw the abstract
even though the Chinese paper appears to still be published and
available. I actually have a translation with a friend. I
translated it into English and it's a really, standard
calculation of what they call positive predictive value.
basically said that in asymptomatic populations, the chance of a
positive coronavirus test being a true positive is only about
20%. 80% will be false positive."
"Doesn't that mean the test means nothing?" I asked.
"The Chinese analysis was a mathematical analysis, a standard,
the standard analysis that's been done a million times before.
There's no reason to withdraw the paper for any reason.
dramatic about the paper. It's a really boring analysis. It's
just that they did the standard analysis and said, in some
populations, like they estimated 1% of people are actually
infected in the population.
You could have 80%
false positive. Uh, they couldn't do a real analysis of false
positives in terms of determining whether a test is correct or
not because that requires a gold standard and the only gold
standard is purification of the virus. So, we get back to the
fact that the virus is not being purified.
If you could purify
the virus, then you could take a hundred people who tested
positive and you could search for the virus in them. And if you
found the virus in 50 out of a hundred and not in the other 50,
you could say that the test is only accurate 50% of the time.
But we have no way to
do that because we haven't yet purified the virus.
And I don't think we
Dave Rasnick has
had exchanges with David Crowe about this, and concurs,
"To my knowledge,
they have not yet purified this virus."
In a previous interview I
did with him a few weeks ago, he said this, about PCR tests and the
fallacies of thinking less is more, or smaller is better, or more
"sensitive" means more accurate:
fingerprints. With PCR you're only looking at a small number of
You're looking at a
tiny segment of gene, like a fingerprint. When you have regular
human fingerprints, they have to have points of confirmation.
There are parts that
are common to almost all fingerprints, and it's those generic
parts in a Corona virus that the PCR test picks up.
They can have partial
loops but if you only took a few little samples of fingerprints
you are going to come up with a lot of segments of RNA that we
are not sure have anything to do with corona virus.
They will still show
up in PCR. You can get down to the levels where its biologically
irrelevant and then amplify it a trillion-fold."
"The primers are what you know. We already know the strings of
RNA for the Corona family, the regions that are stable. That's
at one end. Then you look at the other end of the region, for
all Corona viruses.
The Chinese decided
that there was a region in those stable areas that was unique to
their Corona virus. You do PCR to see if that is true. If it is
truly unique it would work. But they're using the SARS test
because they don't really have one for the new virus."
"SARS isn't the virus that stopped the world," I offer.
"PCR for diagnosis is a big problem," he continues. "When you
have to amplify it these huge numbers of time, it's going to
generate massive amounts of false positives.
Again, I'm skeptical
that a PCR test is ever true."
Crowe described a case in
the literature of a woman who had been in contact with a suspect
case of Corona (in Wuhan) they believed was the index case.
"She was important to
the supposed chain of infection because of this. They tested her
18 times, different parts of the body, like nose, throat -
different PCR tests. 18 different tests.
And she tested
negative every time. And then they - because of her
epidemiological connection with the other cases, they said:
"We consider her
infected. So, they had 18 negative tests and they said she
"Now why was she
Well there was only
one other person who could have theoretically transmitted the
virus if the original patient, outside the family was who they
thought it was.
But secondly, she had
the same exact symptoms as everybody else. Right?
So, four people in
his family came down with fever and cough and headaches, fatigue
and all these kinds of big symptoms. So, if she could get those
symptoms without the virus, then you, you've got to say, well,
why couldn't everybody else's symptoms be explained by whatever
I mean, maybe they,
they ate some bad seafood or something and so they all got sick,
but it had nothing to do with the coronavirus.
But because three out
of the four, tested positive, then they were, they were all
considered infected and out of the same paper.
Another interesting thing is that they did a lot of tests. The
first person in the list of people tested, he was positive on
three out of 11 tests.
So again, they took
nose and throat samples and you know, different methods and all
this kind of stuff. And they got 11 separate tests and only
three were positive.
And of course, all
you need to be considered infected is one positive test. They
could test you 20 times and if you test positive once, then
you're infected. So, a positive test is meaningful. A negative
test. It's like, eh.
Not so much."
I asked Crowe what he
thought Kary Mullis would say about this explosion of PCR insanity.
"I'm sad that he
isn't here to defend his manufacturing technique," he said.
"Kary did not invent
a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that
is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not
He knew that and he
always said that."
Our conversation went in
many different directions and I plan to publish the entire audio
I asked David what he
thought was happening here, at the most core level.
"I don't think they
understand what they're doing," he said.
"I think it's out of
control. They don't know how to end this. This is what I think
what happened: They have built a pandemic machine over many
years and, and as you know, there was a pandemic exercise not
long before this whole thing started."
"I just want to identify who sponsored that simulation
conference, 6 weeks before the first news broke out of Wuhan," I
"It was the Bill and
Melinda Gates foundation, Johns Hopkins Center For Health
Security, and the World Economic Forum. Incidentally, all the
stats, projections and modeling you see in the media are coming
out of Johns Hopkins."
So, this beautiful pandemic machine is a lot like…let's
use an example of an aircraft simulator. Okay. So, so pilots are
tested on an aircraft simulator.
So if you're flying
along in an airplane and there's a loud bang and you see smoke
coming from an engine on the right hand side, this is probably
the first time a pilot has ever been in an airplane that had an
But he's tested this
scenario 25 times on an aircraft simulator. So, he knows exactly
what to do without being told.
He goes through the
procedure. He doesn't have to think, he just does the steps that
he's been taught through the, the aircraft simulator and he
successfully lands the airplane with one engine.
So, a pandemic
simulator is just like that. You sit down at the computer, you
see the virus going around the world, um, and you say, okay, so
what we need to do is we need to dress everybody in protective
"We need to quarantine everybody who's positive. Next step. We
need to do social isolation. It's a mathematical model. And at
the end you always win, right?
So, in the end, the
good guys win, and the pandemic is defeated. But there's,
there's never been like an actual real pandemic since they built
So, there's this huge
machine, it's got a red button on it and it's like if you ever
detect a pandemic starting, you press the red button. We don't
know exactly what happened, but I think the Chinese government
was embarrassed cause they were being accused of covering up a
They said, okay, you
know, we want Western approval for our medical system so we're
going to press the goddamn red button. Or they did. And then
everything followed from that.
The problem is that
the simulation was never based on reality."
In another part of our conversation, he said something
essentially been taken over by the medical Taliban, if you
I pressed him one last
conclusion, finish this sentence: "The PCR test for Corona is as
His reply made me laugh.
I didn't know I still
"It's as good as that
Scientology test that detects your personality and then tells
you need to give all your money to Scientology."