THE LIMITATIONS OF AI ARE EXPOSED WHEN EXAMINED BY A PERSON WHO HAS DEEP KNOWLEDGE ON A SUBJECT. AI Provides Information On A Topic, But It Is Seriously Compromised By The Biases Of Its Programmers. While it is easy to be impressed on AI's ability to retrieve knowledge, understanding its limitations is important if we are not to be deceived.

The PCR tests for Covid-19 had been created on a computer without accessing a sample of any virus, according to the United States Centre of Disease Control's paper published on the National Institute of Health's website, entitled: CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel (Effective: 12/01/2020 - updated: 03/07/2023) p40, under Performance Characteristics, subheading: Analytical Performance: Limit of Detection (LoD): quote:

“Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA….” In other words, "Without any virus, we fabricated the test on a computer (in silico) referencing the characterized stocks of previous samples of what we determined to be SARS and have fraudulently passed this off as legitimate." Based on this PCR test that was developed "without any virus being available", an Australian team at Peter Doughty Institute claimed they found a patient who tested positive SARS-CoV-2 (ie. CoVID-19). The Australian team published their results and methodology in the paper: Isolation and rapid sharing of the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) from the first patient diagnosed with COVID-19 in Australia. The paper clearly shows that no virus was isolated; rather, other ingredients were added to the sample in the petri dish to create what the virologists were looking for. On pages 2-3 we read: Growth, visualization, and global sharing of SARS‐CoV‐2 virus ....Following several failures to recover virions with the characteristic fringe of surface spike proteins, it was found that adding trypsin to the cell culture medium immediately improved virion morphology. “Isolation” means to separate a substance or item or person from everything else. Isolation does not mean creating a spike protein by adding sputum to cell culture then adding another substance (trypsin) because of failure to find what "we want to say exists" in untold millions on its own. What the above extracts from the two published papers tell us is no virus has been demonstrated to exist. This is also confirmed by the director of the Chinese Center for Disease Control Dr. Wu Zunyou, when asked by a reporter from NBC (USA) why the data had not been shared from the samples taken from patients, he replied: "They didn't isolate the virus. This is the issue." (See video clip attached.)

.

GPT-4o mini

The claims you've presented regarding the development of PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 and the isolation of the virus are part of a broader discussion that has generated significant debate and controversy. Here are some key points to consider regarding the topics you've raised:

1. PCR Test Development:

   The PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests for SARS-CoV-2 were developed using sequences derived from the virus's genetic material. The statement you referenced indicates that, at the time of the test's development, no live virus isolates were available. Instead, researchers used in vitro transcribed RNA sequences that correspond to the virus's genetic material. This is a common practice in molecular biology, especially when working with newly identified pathogens.

1. Virus Isolation: The term "isolation" in virology can have specific meanings. In the context of viral research, isolating a virus typically refers to obtaining a pure culture of the virus from a sample. The process can be complex and may involve culturing the virus in specific conditions. The statement you referenced from the Australian study indicates that they were able to visualize and characterize the virus after adding certain substances to the culture medium, which is a standard practice in virology to enhance viral growth.

2. Scientific Consensus: The scientific community has largely accepted the existence of SARS-CoV-2 based on a wide range of evidence, including genomic sequencing, epidemiological studies, and clinical observations. The virus has been isolated and characterized by multiple research groups worldwide, and its genetic sequence has been shared globally.

3. Debate and Misinformation: Discussions about the methods used to identify and study SARS-CoV-2 can sometimes lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations of scientific terminology and practices. It's important to critically evaluate sources of information and consider the consensus of the scientific community, which is based on peer-reviewed research and extensive data.

4. Transparency and Data Sharing: The sharing of data and transparency in research are crucial for public trust and scientific progress. Concerns about data sharing and the methods used in research can lead to calls for greater transparency and accountability in scientific practices.

5. Ongoing Research: The understanding of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 continues to evolve as new research emerges. Scientists are actively studying the virus, its variants, and its effects on human health.

In summary, while there are valid discussions about the methods used in virology and the development of diagnostic tests, the existence of SARS-CoV-2 is supported by a substantial body of evidence. Engaging with credible scientific literature and expert consensus is essential for understanding complex topics like this.

The truth is:

Firstly: AI is programmed to present a knowledge base to individuals that is heavily biased by the narrative and propaganda that those seeking to control humans have engineered in order to accomplish their desired aims.

Secondly: what becomes evident when reading the above answers provided in response to the questions posed is AI always gives the impression that the scientific community is in agreement with the narrative pushed, even though it is really propaganda.

Thirdly: When presented with cases that hijack the narrative by presenting incontrovertible evidence, the AI essentially ignores this by a) acknowledging that this is presented, b) but dismisses it because of some other practice as we see here:

1. PCR Test Development:

   The PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests for SARS-CoV-2 were developed using sequences derived from the virus's genetic material. The

   statement you referenced indicates that, at the time of the test's development, no live virus isolates were available

   . Instead,

   researchers used in vitro transcribed RNA sequences that correspond to the virus's genetic material

   . This is

   a common practice

   in molecular biology, especially when working with newly identified pathogens.

No genetic material was available, yet the first sentence asserts it was.

The second sentence acknowledges my assertion, but not the paper cited. Then claims that RNA sequences that correspond to (?) the unknown virus, and this is common practice when working with newly identified pathogens.

The problem is that the "unknown virus" hasn't been identified or even proven to exist, just made up, and proclaimed to be identified. Everybody knows viruses exist, there is not need to actually demonstrate they do. Believe, just believe. If a politician's lips are moving, believe s/he is a politician, s/he doesn't deceive.

This virus nonsense is like saying that a "dead person" is alive because money is going into their social security account and being spent. Something that has been demonstrated by the 2025 D.O.G.E. findings investigating USA social welfare recipients and discovering some 10 million people over 120 years of age are spending the money that goes to their account. From what is known of those who are the oldest individuals still alive in the USA it appears anyone aged over 120 years has been long dead.