PCR Testing and HIV Misinterpretation

If, 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? I mean, 'cause if you can mol-- a-amplify one single molecule up to a, to something that you can really measure, which PCR can do, then there's just, there's 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, to claim that it's meaningful. But the, the real misuse of it is, is that it d-- you don't need to test for HIV.

You don't need to test for the other ten thousand retroviruses that are unnamed also in the subject. See, somebody that's got HIV generally is gonna have almost anything that you can test for because they have definitely b-- HIV is a fairly rare virus. There's only one million of us out of two hundred fifty, three hundred 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 it, if you have it, there's a good chance you've also got a lot of other ones, 'cause you've been in the, in the market for them.

You've been, it's been possible for you to get a lot of... It's, it's, so 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-

But are they, is it an estimation? It's not an estimation. No, P... It's a real, it's a really quantitative thing. It tells you something about nature and about what's there. But it, it, 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, that, that's not a misuse. That's just sort of a misinterpretation. I read a paper by Deisher in which he said even after all the, these, uh, uh, PCR, this quantitative PCR, that if you just get down to

a basic virological count, it's still one in a thousand to one in ten thousand, uh, HI, HIV in one to one in a thousand, one in five hundred to one in a thousand T cells. It, it is.

And there's- No, there, that, th-there's very little of what they call HIV and what's been brought out here by Philpot and, and, and Isiah already. The measurement for it is not s-- is not exact at

all. It's not, 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 kinda like if you got enough things that look kinda like an apple, and you stick them all together,

you might think of it as an apple. But, and, 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. Also, um, the- But it's not, it doesn't tell you that you're sick, and it doesn't tell you that the thing you ended up with really was gonna hurt you or anything like that.

That's why it's not- 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 involved in this.