https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=26&v=NUpwiYq_t3g&embeds_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.raigbrym.com%2F&embeds_origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.raigbrym.com&source_ve_path=MTI3Mjk5LDEzOTExNywzNjg0MiwzNjg0MiwzNjg0MiwyMzg1MQ&feature=emb_title

--------

 https://www.raigbrym.com/faith-assumption/

"An Introduction to The Virus Misconception

People have FAITH in “experts.”
Experts have FAITH in theories.

People ASSUME the experts are right.
Experts ASSUME the theories are right.

People have FAITH in their doctors.
Doctors have FAITH in their treatments.

The treatment ASSUMES the diagnosis is correct.
The diagnosis ASSUMES the case numbers are true.

People don’t question the doctors,
Doctors don’t question the experts,
Experts don’t question the theories.

And anyone who questions the test is silenced."

"The PCR test cannot detect an infection.

The PCR test cannot identify any unknown sequence or any unknown virus.

The PCR test can only detect a short piece of a genetic sequence that has already been determined.

In order to do so, the PCR test needs a ready-made genetic ‘template.’

This ‘template’ defines what the supposed virus ‘looks like.’

However, Prof. Christian Drosten started developing the ‘template’ for his test (the test that would rapidly go global) before the Chinese virologists in Wuhan had even published their results.

Instead of waiting, he used pre-existing sequences downloaded from a database – sequences theoretically belonging to the old SARS viruses, not SARS CoV-2.

The short genetic sequences held on databases are BELIEVED to have been “isolated” from dying cells and tissue in a lab. The way this “isolation” process works is difficult to understand – not because it’s scientifically complex but because it makes no logical sense.

A non-purified sample from an “infected” person is added to the tissue culture and when the cells and tissue die, they are BELIEVED to be dying due to the presence of a virus.

However, the fact that toxic antibiotics have also been added to the mix is not taken into account. In reality, the tissue and cells are not dying because of a virus. They are dying from being poisoned with antibiotics and from being starved of nutrients.

This fact would be easily proved by performing the routine control experiment to determine whether the dying of cells is induced by a virus or by the scientific method itself.

But what about that sample? Why is it not purified in the first place? Good question.

The sample that is added to the tissue culture should have been put through a centrifuge process to separate out particles of the same density which may or may not include the presumed ‘viral’ particles.

Next, this band of particles should have been photographed with an electron microscope and analysed further.

Finally, it should have been tested on a group of live subjects to confirm that the presumed ‘virus’ is indeed transmissible and infectious.

It would appear, however, that these steps are routinely missed out. And even if they are performed, the sample remains far from purified because there has never been a way of distinguishing between ‘viral’ particles and countless other kinds of particles.

The genetic sequences are not isolated from a virus. They come from a soup of genetic material — including monkey cells and serum from cow foetuses — containing all manner of molecules, vesicles and exosomes that are produced by ordinary metabolic processes in the body. This is the so-called “isolate” that forms the basis of a genetic sequence simulated on a computer that is then claimed to represent a virus.

Isolation and purification in the true and rational sense did not take place. No purified isolate exists.

By extension, the genetic sequences used as the ‘template’ for Prof. Drosten’s test were not isolated from a virus of any description – not from SARS, as they were labelled by the database from which they came, and certainly not from SARS CoV-2.

And yet, as early as 21st January 2020 — three days before the Chinese virologists reported their findings — the WHO recommended Prof. Drosten’s PCR test for diagnosing Covid-19 around the world.

When the Chinese CDC finally published their results, they claimed to have “isolated” a number of short genetic sequences, which if joined together conceptually using computer models could theoretically represent the full genome of a new virus.

However, the virologists disregarded their own rules and neglected to verify their own claims: the necessary control experiments to prove these sequences actually belonged to a pathogenic virus, were never carried out.

If they had ever conducted those vital experiments, they would have found that the genetic sequences they threaded together like guesses on a string are in fact random products of the human metabolism, not the genome of a virus.

That is the reason why so many healthy people test positive time after time, and why the fallacy of the “asymptomatic carrier” is as enduring as a classic fairytale.

Again and again, we come back to the root cause of all the panic and fear: the tool that produces the case numbers, the PCR test that is so reliable it can “detect” the presence of “the virus” even in fruit juice, Coca-Cola or a pawpaw.

The obvious thing to do would be a control experiment on the PCR Test itself. According to Dr. Stefan Lanka:

“Control experiments are the only way to assess that this method [PCR] has any validity, any reliability or any informative value and they are also the only way to make sure that you don’t have millions of cases of misdiagnosis around the world because it is defective and is testing people “positive” for other reasons rather than a virus.”

– Dr. Stefan Lanka, The Virus Misconception, Part 2

Yes, a control experiment would be the obvious thing to do, but like so much about this declared “pandemic,” the obvious is never considered, because if the obvious was ever done, rationality and science would suddenly make an appearance. And if that ever happened, faith and assumption would wither away and the pandemic would cease to exist – in the only place it ever has existed: the public mind.