About the PCR test again? Yes, again about the PCR test.
Because Mark Rutte still doesn't understand. "Nobody understands that," according to Mark.
I have serious doubts that Mark really does not understand. The whole PCR story is not a Dutch thing. The failure to answer the parliamentary questions that Wybren van Haga keeps asking over and over again appears to be very much related to the establishment of the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), which clearly states that there is no public interest in clarity .
This test is used all over the world, so it seems more like the PCR test is a secretly imposed method by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and / or WHO to keep the panic button at position 12 and thus to be able to maintain the fear hypnosis in people.
About WEF and WHO, see also my column:
The PCR test is an important link in the worldwide corona hoax and the plandemia.
I can only conclude that the whole PCR event was also meticulously planned in advance. Fortunately, all serious scientists agree that this is wrong. In Portugal, the judge has already ruled on this and stated that the PCR test cannot and may not be used for a diagnosis. Let's hope that many other judges in other countries will follow this wise ruling. If we can take the PCR test out of this dark scheme, their whole house of cards will collapse.
That is why we publish some passages about the PCR scam from the official report of the Extra-Parliamentary Investigation Commission with expert witness Dr. Peter Borger, molecular biologist.
I wantl would like to speak to you now about the PCR test. There is a lot of misunderstanding about this.
The coronavirus is an RNA virus. This means that the hereditary material consists of one strand. Which
we call it RNA. DNA has two strands. The PCR test is based on DNA testing and
can also only detect DNA. In order to detect the coronavirus with PCR, one must first use the
Converting RNA into DNA. This conversion is done by Reverse Transcription. That is a process whereby
RNA is converted into DNA by an enzyme called reverse transcriptase.
I would like to emphasize that it is important that we always start from the right one
terminology and assign it the correct meaning. I notice that even with the government
(the German Ministry of Health) The RT-PCR test is referred to as "real time PCR test."
That is confusing.
I have now described to you how the RNA is converted into DNA. Only then is the molecule
suitable to undergo the PCR. The term PCR stands for polymerase chain reaction. With the PCR
the molecule, which now consists of two strands, is heated to above 92 degrees. That leads to that
those two strands come apart. Then the temperature is allowed to drop again and
one treats those strands with a primer. During that process, the released DNA doubles
strand itself, creating two double strands. We call this process amplification
multiply. This process can be repeated. At the stage of the process just described
one has thus made two DNA molecules from one DNA molecule. When one is the amplification
continues, this leads to an exponential proliferation of the DNA molecules.
The propagation process can be continued indefinitely. More and more will come
the same molecules. One can then start to see things that are not necessary for the diagnosis
have some relevance. After thirty multiplications (cycles) one already has a billion molecules.
From the above you will understand that the term PCR does not stand for a method of testing. PCR is one
method to amplify DNA.
Now I want to talk to you about the PCR test as it is now used in detecting it
coronavirus. This test was first described in a scientific publication in January
- That was in Euro Surveillance volume 25, issue 3, on January 23, 2020. It was an article that
was cooperated by the RIVM and eight other international institutes, mainly in West
European countries. The article was submitted to the magazine on January 21, 2020, it was already on
January 22, and on January 23 it had recognized science status. With the
publication, the PCR test was recognized and became the standard for covid-19 detection. I call that
remarkable. I cannot conclude from the article that the article has been peer reviewed. I am an editor myself
and am familiar with the process. A peer review procedure usually takes weeks to
months. I would say a peer review within a week is extremely fast. I also mention it by the way
extremely fast that the test was already offered by means of this publication, because there were among
my knowledge at that time very few deaths worldwide. I have the impression that the article is not peer
reviewed, because it contains a large number of errors. Some of those mistakes shouldn't have been
occur when the article is peer reviewed by a molecular biologist who is a PCR expert.
I will explain in a moment what those errors are.
Now that you're asking me about that, let me say a little bit more about that article. Among other things, author is one
certainly Adam Meijer of the RIVM. I contacted him in order to ask him a number of questions
to which I also received an answer. But when I asked him if the article was peer reviewed,
he broke off contact. This was done by e-mail, so it is in black and white.
Co-author of the article is Ms Marion Koopmans of Erasmus MC. My conclusion is that
Mrs. Koopmans or has not read the article, or has no knowledge of it. There are in that
article, let me say it again, all errors that are not expected.
Regarding the magazine in which the article was published, I would like to say that until recently I did not
knew. When I contacted the magazine, I was referred to the European Center for
Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). That is an institution affiliated with the European Union.
ECDC declined to answer my question of whether the article had been peer reviewed. They liked me
don't tell, because "disclosure would undermine the purpose of scientific investigations." This is stated in
an email that I received from ECDC on November 18, 2020 from which I read this to you.
Furthermore, the e-mail states “disclosure would seriously undermine the decision making process of the
ECDC. ” Finally, I quote from the email that the ECDC “cannot identify that in this case there is an
overriding public interest in the disclosure (…). ”
I was greatly amazed at this answer. The PCR test is used as a diagnosis, with
far-reaching consequences. After all, when someone tests positive with the PCR test, he has to go in
quarantine. In a diagnostic test it is extremely important to know that it is 100%
is reliable. Peer review is then a prerequisite.
I would like to mention Mario Ortiz, who I am known to have been questioned by you earlier here. In
that LinkedIn group found out that RIVM had changed the test. That became apparent upon closer inspection
research to have indeed been the case. It was also confirmed by an employee
from the RIVM, a certain Koen Berends, a former colleague of mine from Groningen. I have a letter from
seen him with that meaning himself. The change consisted of testing with one
gene, while previously tested with two genes. Thus the test was considerably simplified.
In addition, RIVM has increased the number of cycles (ie the increases) to an irresponsible one
high level. The number of increases used to be 30, and this has been increased to 35. This one
two changes by the RIVM showed very poor scientific practice. If during
a process changes the method, there is no more comparison material. I then thought, “this
can not be true."
After posting my questions and criticisms regarding the PCR test on LinkedIn, I fell for
LinkedIn removed. I asked three times to be re-admitted to LinkedIn, but this
was refused. So I've been banned, I'm no longer on LinkedIn. Asking for motivation
I was told I had violated LinkedIn's internal rules.
So I was scientifically censored.
For those who want to immerse themselves in it:
Here the full official report of expert witness Dr. Peter Borger:
Here is the link to the scientific publication of the PCR, by RIVM and Erasmus, among others, in January 2020 at Eurosurveillance:
And see an interview with Peter Borger at Café Weltschmertz here: