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, because 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 you have 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 about that. I read a paper by Duesberg 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, uh, HI,

HIV in one to one in a thousand, one in five hundred to one in a

thousand T cells.

It-

And there's-

It is. No, th-th-there's very little of what they

call HIV and what's been

brought out here by Phil Pot and, and, and he's said it 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 it is an apple. But, and th-- 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, th-

But it's, 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.

Mm-hmm.