These two scientists just don't want to give up their attachment to this PCR test by insisting that it is useful at all. His statement that it is looking for fragments of genetic material completely undermines his argument. Why can't it look for the entire Genome of the virus since it is supposedly known? According to one laboratory scientist on a video I saw, one can't even identify nothing is a virus until you're identify at 30000 to 40000 base pairs of DNA, whereas the CDC claims they have identified the Genome of this virus with identification of only something like 20 base pairs, and the PCR test is based on that identification by the CDC. Total garbage.

The more likely answer is that rather than this Coronavirus becoming less deadly is this coronavirus is no longer going through the population and was basically gone after the first peak of and then gradual decline of deaths last year. This is borne out by at least 3 videos of laboratory scientists I have seen that looked at samples of patients that were declared positive for covid-19 with the PCR test under an electron microscope and found only flu viruses. Each of those laboratory scientists looked at 1500 samples and with all samples only found flu viruses and no sars-cov-2 virus.

I don't know why these scientists just cannot let go of the notion that the PCR test has any value in diagnosis whatsoever. Instead, the woman doctor named Claire insist on stating that it is a valuable medical test when in fact the inventor of the PCR categorically stated it is not suitable for diagnosis, and therefore by extension is not suitable to be used as any sort of medical test. In essence, its inventor, Kary Mullis, stated that it is a research tool only.

What I find frustrating about listening to Dr. Mike Yeadon is that he will make many statements and arguments that are perfectly logical and true and one can easily agree with and then he'll make a ridiculous statement like he did on this video of legitimizing the third group of the WHO he talks about whose purpose is to use psychology to create unfounded fear in people by agreeing with the reason for the group's existence. It should be obvious to him that no one is capable of making reasonable decisions when they are put into a state of fear.

The reason it's much easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they've been fooled is that fooling them is invariably done through the use of propaganda and sloganeering while convincing them they've been fooled requires explanation. People these days simply don't have the patience to sit and listen to an explanation. I have personal experience of this, as when I post any videos on Facebook, even though they're only 5 to 10 minutes long, the complaint I hear for people not looking at them is that they are too long. It is not only now but even when people were locked up in their homes and had nothing else to do this was their complaint. One thing I have found is when I find an image that captures a message I want to convey people will invariably look at that.

The reason it's much easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they've been fooled is that fooling them is invariably done through the use of propaganda and sloganeering while convincing them they've been fooled requires explanation. People these days simply don't have the patience to sit and listen to an explanation. I have personal experience of this, as when I post any videos on Facebook, even though they're only 5 to 10 minutes long, the complaint I hear for people not looking at them is that they are too long. It is not only now but even when people were locked up in their homes and had nothing else to do this was their complaint. One thing I have found is when I find an image that captures a message I want to convey people will invariably look at that.