Msy91 schrieb am 14.08.2020 17:02:
... Dabei hat der Erfinder dieses Test, Kary Mullis, eindeutig gesagt, dass der Test nicht zur Diagnose geeignet ist. Das ist Basiswissen meine Herren!
Daher zitiert die Webseite mit dem schönen, wertneutralen Namen Impfen-nein-danke Herrn Mullis auch folgendermaßen:
"You stated that PCR cannot be used to prove the existence of a virus, and
that is correct. But the existence of this virus, influenza H5N1, has
already been proven by other means. It has been isolated as a viral
particle and shown to live and reproduce in chicken eggs, which is typical
of flu viruses. From these cultures it can be introduced through the nose
into mice, the airways of chickens, and a number of other animals where it
is quickly lethal. Having been isolated, it's RNA (influenza viruses use
RNA rather than DNA) can be sequenced, and it has been sequenced many times. Once this process has been performed, the PCR reaction becomes a valuable
tool for quickly recognizing the presence of the same nucleic acid sequence. PCR, properly done, has great diagnostic powers - once a particular DNA or RNA sequence has been associated with a particular disease. ... This situation, tragic though it is, does not turn on the use of PCR to diagnose H5N1. PCR is a good way to diagnose any particular form of influenza. What you are possibly confusing in terms of my statements about PCR and the diagnosis of HIV, is that in the case of HIV, no virus has been ever isolated, cultured, re-infected into susceptible experimental animals, and proven thereby, using Koch's principles to be responsible for a disease." https://impfen-nein-danke.de/u/Mullis%20PCR.pdf
Herr Mullis hatte damals mit mehr oder minder guten Argumenten den Zusammenhang zwischen HIV-Infektion und AIDS-Erkrankung abgestritten. (Die Patienten versterben also mit HIV und nicht an HIV, was in gewissem Sinne auch richtig ist.) Die Tauglichkeit von PCR als Mittel zur Diagnose von Virusinfektionen stand für Herrn Mullis nicht zur Debatte.