All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 4, 2020 - Jim Fetzer
26:40
We Are Being LIED TO! Here's How...
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome, everyone.
I'm Spiro.
Thanks for tuning in.
The big news this week, of course, is that President Trump and his wife, the First Lady, both tested positive for COVID and they are showing mild symptoms, or at least that's what we're being told at this point.
According to his doctor, the diagnosis was determined using the PCR test, just like everyone else we are told who has the virus.
Now, the PCR test was invented in the 80s by an American biochemist named Carey Mullis.
Which won him the Nobel Peace Prize a decade later.
So how could a test developed almost 40 years ago be used to diagnose what we are told is a brand new disease which the world just became aware of last year?
Well, from what I understand, it can't.
But I'm not a doctor or scientist and I'm certainly not an expert or a biochemist like Carey Mullis.
We have seen a lot of false positives with the coronavirus testing.
Many of these false positives are believed to be triggered by dead virus cells.
We have seen examples of goats and fruit testing positive, which raises more questions than it answers.
We have even seen a woman injured by a test after a nasal swab punctured her brain lining, causing brain fluid to leak from her nose.
All of this due to a virus with a 99 plus percent survival rate for Most who get it.
Why is understanding this test so important?
Because it is the driving factor of the fear campaign that is being driven by the media, the corrupt media, and then used by the government as a justification to impose restrictions on our lives.
On a positive note, it has been determined in Michigan by the state Supreme Court that the governor's restrictions were unconstitutional, and the same outcome was determined in Pennsylvania by a federal judge.
In this video I'm going to play several different clips from people who are doctors, in addition to clips from the inventor of the PCR test himself, and I am fairly confident by the end of this report you will come to the same conclusion that I have.
That we are being lied to.
Now, let's start with Kerry Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test.
I want to ask this to Kerry.
How do they misuse PCR to estimate all these supposed free viral RNAs that may or may not be there?
I think misuse PCR is not quite I don't think you can misuse PCR.
The results, the interpretation of it.
See, if you can say, if they could find this virus in you at all, and with PCR, if you do it well, you can find
almost anything in anybody, it starts making you believe in the sort of Buddhist notion
that everything is contained in everything else, right?
Because if you can amplify one single molecule up to something that you can really measure, which PCR can do,
then there's just very few molecules that you don't have at least one single one of them in your body, okay?
So that could be thought of as a misuse of it, just to claim that it's meaningful.
But the real misuse of it is that you don't need to test for HIV.
You don't need to test for the other 10,000 retroviruses that are unnamed also in the subject.
Somebody that's got HIV generally is going to have almost anything that you can test for because they have definitely been, HIV is a fairly rare virus.
There's only one million of us out of 250, 300 million people in America that have that virus.
So you have to get around, either your mother had to have it and pass it to you, or you have to really be paying a lot of attention to people that do have it and paying only attention to them and get a pretty good chance of getting it that way.
It's hard to get it.
But if you have it, there's a good chance you've also got a lot of other ones.
Because you've been in the market for, it's been possible for you to get a lot of It's to test for that one and say that has any special meaning is what I think is the problem.
Not that PCR has been misused.
It's like It's not an estimation, it's a really quantitative thing.
It tells you something about nature and about what's there, but it allows you to take a very minuscule amount of anything and make it measurable and then talk about it in meetings and stuff like it is important.
See, that's not a misuse, that's just sort of a misinterpretation.
It is.
There's very little of what they call HIV and what's been brought out here by Philpott and Isai already.
The measurement for it is not exact at all.
It's not as good as our measurement for things like apples.
An apple is an apple.
You know, you can get something that's kind of like, if you've got enough things that look kind of like an apple and you stick them all together, you might think of it as an apple.
But, and HIV is like that.
Those tests are all based on things that are invisible, and they are, the results are inferred, in a sense.
PCR is separate from that, it's just a process that's used to make a whole lot of something out of something.
That's what it is.
But it doesn't tell you that you're sick and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was going to hurt you or anything like that.
So even if you believe in HIV, it can't tell the difference between virus particles or active live virus.
I mean, there's a lot of questions.
So I hope you caught that.
Towards the end in particular when Mullis is talking about tests, well he differentiates PCR from tests.
He calls it a process to take a tiny amount of something and make a whole lot more out of it.
Mullis also very importantly states that PCR does not tell you that you were sick and it does not tell you that if what you have will make you sick. So right there,
according to the inventor of PCR himself, it is not capable and should not be used as a diagnostic
test to determine false or positive test results. Yet this is the standard test being used
worldwide to diagnose. Then based off of those results, the government imposes COVID-19 restrictions
around the world.
It looks like a fraud to me.
So, what would Carey Mullis say today about PCR as it's being used as a test for COVID?
Sadly, we will never know because Mullis passed away at the age of 74 on August 7, 2019, just before the outbreak began.
The official cause of death?
Pneumonia.
but we can gather an idea of what Mollis might have said based on what he has said in the past regarding AIDS and
HIV.
The first time I really questioned it, I was working on a project where
we were measuring HIV in people's blood at this place called
Specialty Laboratories in Santa Monica.
I was just a consultant there.
I came in about three days a month and we were working on that and at some point we needed to re-up our grant from the NIH to work on that and I had to write it.
And so the first line of that was, HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
I wrote that, and then I said, well, I need a paper, some kind of scientific paper, to reference that statement.
Because when you make a statement like that, that's like a fact.
You need to say, here's how come I know that.
You put a little one.
If it's the first statement you've made, and then you put down at the bottom of the paper, you have a one, and you say, here's a paper by somebody that describes why that statement's true, right?
And so I said, well, what's that?
I don't even, let me think about, what is that paper?
Who do I go to for that?
And I looked around, I asked a couple of urologists at that company, and they said, no, you don't have to reference.
I said, I have to reference that, because I don't know, I don't know where that came from.
How do I know that?
And it turned out that nobody knew it.
There wasn't a scientific reference, like a paper that somebody had submitted with like experimental data in it and like logical discussion and said, here's how come we know that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
There was nothing out there like that.
Nothing.
Can you talk about your experience when you met Luc Montagnier for the first time and
you questioned him about his...
Well...
Whether he had a reference for HIV since he is the one...
By the time I met Luc Montagnier, I had met a lot of AIDS researchers at meetings and
I had always gone up to them.
If they talked like they knew about HIV and AIDS, I always went up to them afterwards and I said, where can I find A scientific reference that I can use.
Remember I said I had a sentence there.
It said, HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
And I needed to have that backed up by something before I could write it and submit it.
And I went around and I asked a whole lot of people.
I can't find it.
At first I looked for it just in computer searching kind of stuff like that.
But then I said, there's got to be somebody that knows this.
Go to experts and ask them.
And so I asked all these people, one after the other, and none of them had it.
None of them.
And I was getting really freaked about that.
That's when I first started saying, they don't know.
Nobody really knows.
This whole thing is a big sham.
It's ridiculous.
But then finally, Montagnier came to a, there was a special little seminar down in San Diego where an old friend of Robert Gallo's, Flossie Wongstahl, was opening up a department of AIDS research down in San Diego.
They had big, lots of money involved, federal money.
And they had Montagnier come there and give a talk and after that they had a little wine and cheese thing and I went over to Montagnier afterwards and I said, Dr. Montagnier, I can't find a reference.
I can't find a reference to go with the statement, HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
I'm sure you can help me.
He knew that he probably should be able to help me and he said, well why don't you quote this new work, and by new he meant like something that came out this year, this new work about a virus that can kill monkeys.
Or, I think it was not monkeys, it was like something related to monkeys, some kind of a baby, a little ape.
And I had read that and I said, that didn't, it was like supposedly going to be a model system for studying AIDS.
Somebody had figured out some kind of retrovirus that passing it back and forth between various mammals, they could probably, they could finally put it into chimpanzees and kill them.
And it killed them in about a week, and it didn't kill them in any... there was nothing like AIDS there, you know.
It doesn't kill you in a week.
This is totally ridiculous.
None of the symptoms were the same.
And I said, well, you know, I read that paper, and I didn't see any connection between that and AIDS, and I don't think that would be a real... I wouldn't want to use that as a reference.
I don't remember exactly what he said, but I know he walked away.
Oh, no, before he told me about that paper, he said, why don't you use the NIH, like the CDC report?
And I said, well, I looked at that, and that was not a scientific paper.
And then he said, what about this other thing?
This paper that had just come out about a month before, and a lot of fanfare associated with that paper, but it was total crap.
It was like, yeah, if you get two million dollars, you can figure out how to kill a primate with a retrovirus.
So what?
Doesn't have anything to do with AIDS.
It didn't look like AIDS.
It didn't smell like AIDS.
It wasn't AIDS.
It was just a guy with a retrovirus that can kill a chimpanzee.
So what?
I didn't get any more out of him.
He walked away after that.
And the people standing around, by the way, who were his colleagues there, looked at him like they were thinking he should come up with a better answer than that.
But he couldn't, and he just turned around and walked away.
I really thought he'd have an answer.
I really did.
I was right at the edge of my faith in the system, but I thought, Montagnier will know why he thinks HIV causes it, and he'll tell me.
He'll say, because of this study.
But he didn't have that.
None of those guys have that, and that's why they're so weird.
They don't want people like me walking up and asking them those kind of questions, and they're willing to go to great lengths to prevent that.
They're out on a limb.
I wouldn't want to be there with them.
Almost chilling words at the end there from Mullis.
They don't want people like him, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, around asking questions, and that they are willing to go to great lengths to prevent that.
Mullis was indeed a thorn in the side of the establishment during the time of the HIV-AIDS debate.
He was very outspoken towards people like Dr. Fauci.
Here's a quote from Mullis on Fauci from a lengthy but fantastic article called, Was the COVID-19 test meant to detect the virus?
Quote, What ABC needs to do is talk to Fauci and Gallo and show their assholes, which I could do in 10 minutes, end quote.
Now, personally, without knowing Mullis, I have to admit that I like him, and I have little doubt in my mind, from my own point of view, that if he were alive today, the powers that be would not be able to use PCR to perpetuate this manufacturing crisis in the way that they are right now today.
He was a thorn in their side then, and I'm sure he would have been an even bigger thorn in their side now.
Now this raises suspicions with me regarding the timing of his death just weeks before the outbreak.
No disrespect to the family and I have no proof at this point to go off of that but again the timing does raise some questions I think that should be looked into.
Now I'm going to play some more clips here.
Some of these clips were sent to me, some of them were put together by other people doing some great work out there showing how the manipulation is taking place and several examples of doctors calling out the lies.
Good afternoon.
And we're starting off with the overall rates in terms of confirmed cases.
As you can see on this graph, the numbers are now going up and going up really much more rapidly.
The test that we have for the virus Does not tell us whether we have an active virus in a person.
It's been called by the media a case.
The UK has recorded almost 3,000 new cases of coronavirus.
The rise in the number of cases that we've seen today is concerning.
A case is when someone gets sick from a disease.
That's completely different from a positive test.
It's not a case at all.
It's just that we can detect that at some time in the past perhaps there has been viral infection but it's probably been removed now.
Even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory-borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks.
You must not meet socially in groups of more than six, and if you do, you will be breaking the law.
It has what's been calculated as an infection fatality rate.
That is, if you catch the infection, probability of you dying is 0.3%. So that means that 99.7%
of people survive. 80% of people who catch this virus will be completely asymptomatic.
Those people who do catch the virus, many of them the effect will be like a bad flu.
Those people who are actually hospitalised, then we do have very good treatments for these.
And anyone breaking the rules risks being dispersed, fined and possibly arrested. As
your Prime Minister, I must do what is necessary to stop the spread of the virus and to save
lives.
The government reaction is causing more deaths now and will cause far more deaths in the
future than the virus itself.
you Positive tests do not equal cases.
Very important to remember.
And I think that many would agree, the response has been worse than the crisis itself.
Now here is Dr. Thomas Cowan breaking down the PCR test and how it can be used to manipulate the crisis.
The test is called a RT-PCR test.
It's otherwise known as a viral load test.
And the test is a surrogate test.
It was developed by a guy named Kerry Mullis, who was given the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for essentially inventing the technique of this test.
And he said, very specifically, you cannot use this test to either prove infectious etiology or to diagnose an infectious disease.
Which of course is interesting because if you can't use it to diagnose an infectious disease, that of course begs the question of what can you use it for?
But let me back up here and describe what a surrogate test means.
Because this is very important to understanding the situation we're currently in.
A surrogate test means that in a situation where you're trying to prove causation, You have to have a gold standard test.
And those postulates like with meningococcus, that is a gold standard test.
It's reliable 100% of the time.
You cannot use a surrogate test to prove anything.
And that is what is happening with these tests.
So what is the surrogate test?
So remember that we don't have a gold standard.
We don't have Isolation, purification, reinfection.
We don't have viremia.
We don't have millions of copies demonstrated on an electron microscope.
We essentially have no idea who has this coronavirus disease.
So then they take a piece of one of the coronaviruses, the new one that they found.
It has a new RNA sequence that hasn't been found before.
They take one of the sequences, which they say is unique to that particular virus, and they do something called amplify it.
And what that means is you take, in your blood, you'll have one copy of this sequence.
And it's too small, you can't find it.
So you stimulate it, and this is what Carey Mullis came up with.
You stimulate it, it makes two copies.
That's one cycle.
You make four copies, that's two.
You make two to the 20th copies, whatever number that is, that's 20 cycles.
And what you find with this test, Is that once you put it through approximately 36 cycles, then you start to see the color change that tells you it's positive.
So if you do 35 cycles, it's still too small to see.
If you do 36, you start to see it, but you get false negatives, even though you don't really know which is a false negative, because you don't have anything to compare it with.
So then you do 37 and you see it, you know, 5% of the time of people with these symptoms, and you say, that's the number.
But here's where it gets interesting.
If you do it 40 times, you start seeing a lot more positives.
And then here's something else to know.
If you do it 60 times, so if you amplify it over and over and over again, it becomes positive with 100% of the people.
Let me say that again.
If you amplify it 60 times, it will be positive with everybody.
That means that everybody has a piece of this RNA somewhere in their cells, or in their genome, or somewhere in their secretions.
All you have to do is amplify it enough.
And the problem is, we don't know how many false positives or false negatives there are, because we have nothing to compare it to.
And if the, you know, all biological tests have false positives, so if you test 30 million people and you have a 1% false positive rate, then 300,000 people, by definition, will test positive and then you have an epidemic.
And then if you want to demonstrate that the epidemic got better, all you have to do is lower the amplification cycles to 35 and then suddenly your, you know, vitamin C or your vaccine or your chloroquine or whatever you did worked and now there's no more people testing positive.
That is fraught with problems, and that is the problem.
And unfortunately, with every country has their own standard of what kind of cycles they put it through, the number.
So you see very different numbers coming out of very different places, depending on the number of amplification cycles that they're standardizing their tests to.
And I hope everybody is getting the point that this is a crazy situation.
A crazy situation indeed.
A manufactured crisis, in my opinion.
A very astute point made by Dr. Cowan.
Depending on the amount of amplifications, you can affect the positive or negative rates.
So you could have a very high amplification rate in the numbers and therefore would have a very high positivity rate in the cases or the tests, right?
Then you roll out the vaccine and lower the amplification during the tests And then you would get less positive cases, right?
And hey, wouldn't you know it?
Then you have an effective vaccine.
Now, this last clip is from Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, having a conference last week speaking with the doctor about testing, contact tracing, and the lockdowns.
By the way, Governor DeSantis said previously that Florida would never again lock down while he is governor.
I wish my governor would say the same.
Just general testing and PCR testing, whether you should test asymptomatic people, just symptomatic, how many contacts.
Dr. Bhartacharya, what is this asymptomatic testing with PCR, but particularly I think one of the things that's been put out, the New York Times had an article about a month ago Looking at some of the test results in New York and in, I believe, Nevada and Massachusetts, and they found that because the PCR tests are so sensitive that up to 90% of the positives were not identifying live infectious virus.
And then I think there's other studies that have come out.
I know Oxford's Center for Evidence-Based Medicine says that if you have such high sensitivity,
you cannot be any, there's no guarantee you're even identifying live virus.
And I think that, I guess, one, just what does that mean for some of the testing and
the case numbers that we see?
But then two, it seems to me that if you're test positive with no symptoms, with a very
sensitive PCR test, and they can't even tell you if you're infectious, we're quarantining
across the country, probably hundreds of thousands or millions of people who aren't even contagious.
And I think that obviously has a huge cost to society.
Doesn't seem to be getting a lot of discussion though.
The key thing about the PCR technology that I think is important for this discussion is that the the essentially you were doubling the genetic material if it's present of the virus if it's present right.
If you have a very tiny amount of the virus, or if it's a viral fragment that's not actually, that your body has successfully attacked, your immune system has successfully attacked, then what you're amplifying is something that's not going to pose any risk either to you or to others.
So you're asymptomatic, the PCR, you're positive with the PCR, It's not a false positive in a technical sense, but in a functional sense, it's a false positive.
Epidemiologically, it's a false positive, right?
I'm not going to infect you even though I have this, even though I'm PCR positive, because it took so many doublings to reach the point that we can infer that there really wasn't very much genetic material for the virus present to begin with.
I think that you're absolutely right to point out the cost of that when you attach it to a policy of contact tracing and isolation and quarantine.
We effectively are quarantining people on the basis of PCR tests, of functional false positive PCR tests, where it will have no effect on disease spread because they're not infectious.
And at the same time will impose enormous costs on them.
Actually, there's another follow-on cost to that is that it makes people less willing
to cooperate with contact tracers because they know the costs.
If I am contact traced and I'm asked to say who I've interacted with, I know if I say
I interact with my friends, they're going to be facing the same thing.
They might get quarantined.
And if it's likely, if it's possible that it's a false positive, a functional false positive, then I'm imposing costs on them for nothing.
I think in LA County, I saw an LA Times story that 60% of people who are contacted, who are put in touch with contact tracers, they won't cooperate with them.
And you can see why.
The cost of essentially ratting your friends out is enormous.
The cost has been enormous, and it's been affecting billions of people around the world.
There are so many more clips of other doctors and experts that I could have included, but I think you get the point.
Personally, I believe, as I have documented in numerous previous reports, that this is part of a much larger agenda, and this is a manufactured crisis, but it's the mechanism, it's the vehicle to transition from this current system of control into the new and improved digitalized system of control.
The window of opportunity to change course diminishes more and more each passing day.
I truly believe this is the most important time in our lives and a deciding point in history that will determine humanity's future.
I hope you found this report useful.
For ActivistBoast.com, I'm Spiro.
▲
Export Selection