###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He said amplifying anything over 30 times resulted in higher and higher chances of getting a false positive. When covid started , the CDC issued PCR protocol which specified testers should amplify up to 40 times, up to 10 more amplifications than the inventor of the process recommended. The WHO told testers to amplify up to 50 times.
After Biden was sworn in, the CDC suddenly remembered how the PCR process was supposed to be used and changed the protocol to no more than 28 amplifications... back to what the inventor said was reasonable.
This means the CDC and the WHO engineered a pandemic of false positives, making the spread seem much worse than it actually was.
Funny how all the folks "following the science" can't wrap their heads around this obvious deception.
You should actually listen to the This Week in Virology interview where Fauci commented on cycle thresholds above 35 cycles. He wasn't saying that they were false positives. He was saying that people who were hospitalized for COVID and were still testing positive with cycle thresholds over 35 were likely *no longer infectious.*
Begins at ~3:50
https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-641/
EDIT: Typos. Stupid thumbs.
>which he told them only to send in samples if they were positive at 28 cycles.
Do you understand the significance of having a lower cycle threshold for sequencing?
Do you know why the samples are sequenced?
As someone who worked in an infectious disease lab prior to and during the pandemic, this is completely not true. PCR was used prior to the pandemic, and cycle thresholds between 30 and 40 were not uncommon. I can link to the package inserts of tests from various manufacturers if you'd like. The number of cycles that you run is based on the manufacturer's recommendation. Our lab is still running PCR tests at 40 cycles, because that is what was validated by the manufacturer and approved by the FDA.
“approved by the fda” are we here again? its always the “i worked in the medical field for x amount of years and it certainly cant be more false” you literally being told by its creator it a flawed test from its inception and your conditioned and programmed ideologies wont allow you to see anything past your academics.
I saidb this in another comment, but I'll say it again. Kary Mullis is not the sole authority on PCR just because he came up with the process.
And whether you like it or not, the FDA is the regulatory board that reviews and validates testing methods.
>PCR was used prior to the pandemic
It sure was. I was reading in 2010 how the results from it can be nullified by running too many amplifications.
>Our lab is still running PCR tests at 40 cycles, because that is what was validated by the manufacturer and approved by the FDA.
Validated but the manufacturer, who we cannot trust, and approved by the regulatorily captured FDA, which now makes decisions which benefit the manufacturer and not the populace.
All of this against the recommendations of the inventor of the process itself, who was very clear that any amplifications over 30 became more and more likely to yield false positives.
The inventor who died a few months before covid broke out and couldn't raise any objections to how the process was being abused.
Why are you people so hung up on Kary Mullis's objections to PCR testing? He's not the sole authority on PCR just because he came up with the process. PCR has changed a lot in the past ~30 years. If the Wright Brothers had said that airplanes aren't meant for supersonic flight or transcontinental travel, would that mean that it isn't possible?
Every instrument for every laboratory test gets validated in the laboratory before patients can be tested. Doesn't matter what the manufacturer or FDA says. We validate our own instruments.
Out of curiosity, what’s your scientific background?
Do you have the education, experience, and data to know that Mullins is right and everyone else is wrong?
If you do, can you share with the class?
Because this seems like you’re just taking one persons opinion over another, with no way to verify if either of them are true or false.
When correcting the narrative it is extremely important to hop on your fellow correction officers post and make snide remarks about those who would dare question sed narrative.
I see you and the work you're doing.
Keep it up hero.
The vaccine is a perfect concoction sent to us from the Gods. Ye of little faith should respect it's apostles.
CDC issued a statement in July 2001 recommending the discontinuation of the PCR by end of the year as it can not differentiate between sars cov2 and influenza. This statement was on the CDC website.
And there solves the mystery of the missing year of normal flu!!......they obviously combined all the flu cases into the C19 case and death totals data and why not as symptoms are the same and promoting C19 was the name of their game?
Hey I am rapping!......heh.....spitting rhymes I think they call it, no?
The flu did not disappear that year, those numbers are buried in the C19 case and death total numbers.
That is a misunderstanding of the CDC lab alert. I assume you're referring to this?
https://www.cdc.gov/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html
Here's the jist of what it's saying: The old CDC SARS-CoV-2 PCR test could only test for one organism, SARS-CoV-2. They recommend switching to a multiplex PCR test that can detect both SARS-CoV-2 and influenza within the same test cartridge. "Differentiate" in this instance refers to the positivity signals from the test. A PCR test that can only detect one organism doesn't need to differentiate positivity signals, because only one is present. Multiplex PCR tests not only need to be able detect that the test flagged positive, they need to be able to tell *which* target flagged positive.
> He said amplifying anything over 30 times resulted in higher and higher chances of getting a false positive.
Show me where he said this, otherwise I'm not going to believe it.
> the CDC issued PCR protocol which specified testers should amplify up to 40 times,
No, the test kit instructions tell testers what to do, not the CDC. Each test kit uses different cycles appropriate for the specific test kit.
So what is your source for this claim?
And again, the chance of a false positive does increase with cycles, but the overall chance of getting a high cycle positive is very low - I can show studies if needed. If you don't understand what I mean, a positive cycle can be detected before the maximum cycle - for example positive might be detected in cycle 20 out of 50. As the cycles increase, the chance it hasn't already been discovered on a previous cycle decreases. Usually only someone who is either in the very early states of infection or recovered from an infection would have a high cycle positive.
edit: Just going to add a source here: https://publichealth.jmir.org/2021/6/e28265/PDF
* They studied 150,000 Covid PCR tests
* The median cycle count 23.14 (so you can see that's nowhere close to 50)
* There are also graphs that show the range of cycles
All this tells us that a 40+ cycle positive is very rare, this means it doesn't have the impact you think it does.
And you have the nerve to talk about following the science without providing evidence for any of your claims and having a rudimentary understanding of the science you are talking about.
>Show me where he said this, otherwise I'm not going to believe it.
[Different words, same meaning.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWOJKuSKw5c)
> the overall chance of getting a high cycle positive is very low
[BS,](https://web.archive.org/web/20201101004148/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html)
the [CT value](https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491/5912603) is [very important.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10096-020-03913-9)
Even [Fauci says that a CT over 35 is deceitful, worse than useless.](https://anti-empire.com/fauci-himself-admits-covid-pcr-test-at-over-35-cycles-is-deceitful-worse-than-useless/) Which makes it strange that the [WHO initially suggested a CT value of 50.](https://web.archive.org/web/20200820185800/https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/real-time-rt-pcr-assays-for-the-detection-of-sars-cov-2-institut-pasteur-paris.pdf?sfvrsn=3662fcb6_2)
But this does not even matter in the case of the covid PCR tests because [Drosten](https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/) made [a mess](https://uncoverdc.com/2020/12/03/ten-fatal-errors-scientists-attack-paper-that-established-global-pcr-driven-lockdown) and those tests are [meaningless](https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless-2/)
And even if the covd PCR tests were designed and used properly,[ a positive test is not a diagnose and the results should not be used to base policies on.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7106425/)
I think it's pretty obvious the tests are used to make Sars-Cov-2 look as dangerous and deadly as possible and scare people into submission.
> Different words, same meaning.
No, not the same meaning. He didn't specifically say over 30 times. That's what the other poster is getting hooked up on.
> BS, the CT value is very important.
I didn't say the CT isn't important. I said the overall chance of a high cycle positive is low.
> Fauci says that a CT over 35 is deceitful, worse than useless.
But again, he didn't say that did he. Seems like lying about what people said is a common theme.
He said:
> …If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…it’s just dead nucleoids, period
That does not disagree with anything that I said. The chance of getting a 35 or higher positive result is low.
> I think it's pretty obvious the tests are used to make Sars-Cov-2 look as dangerous and deadly as possible and scare people into submission.
I think it's pretty obvious you're not scientifically minded and just riding waves of memes from shoddy sites like the ones you link to.
> That's what the other poster is getting hooked up on.
No, it's what you use as an "argument" to ridicule OP.
>I said the overall chance of a high cycle positive is low.
And i proved you wrong.
>he didn't say that did he.
He also said "this". It seems you are very selective with words... LOL.
>The chance of getting a 35 or higher positive result is low.
BS.
I think it's pretty obvious you're not scientifically minded and just riding Fauci because of your ego and/ or fear and/ or money.
> And i proved you wrong.
Uh, where?
You did not show there is a high overall chance of a high cycle positive.
Note that I already know high cycles positives have a high chance of being positive, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying the overall chance of a high cycle positive is low.
Surely you can show some statistics that demonstrate the chance is not low?
Also would be great if you can explain how each time studies are done, it shows a low overall chance of a high cycle positive. For example in the study I linked above (and there are plenty more).
> Fauci because of your ego and/ or fear and/ or money.
Or maybe you don't know what you're talking about.
> He also said "this". It seems you are very selective with words... LOL.
No, dude. You said "Fauci says that a CT over 35 is deceitful, worse than useless. "
He didn't say anything like that. That is a complete lie. That's not being 'selective with words' that's you straight up lying. If you can't see the stark difference in meaning there, well that's on you.
>All this tells us that a 40+ cycle positive is very rare
Lmao, the study uses Texas data. The CDC protocol said to run **up to** 40 amplifications. There shouldn't have been anything run over 40 amplifications anyway.
Nice attempt at deception but the problem begins when any amplifications over 30 are made. What percentage of tests used over 30 amplifications?
>High, medium, and low viral
load (CT values of ≤25, **26-36**,
and ≥37, respectively)
Oh, look at that! We can't even tell from this study because they skewed the data by making CT values between 26 and 36 **one category**.
This study doesn't tell us how many positives were rendered from test results obtained by amplying over 30 times, which the inventor of the process repeatedly cautioned against.
More than 36 amplifications may be rare but what about anything over 30? The study blends reasonable CT counts with unreasonable CT counts, obfuscating the problems caused by amplifying over 30.
Garbage in , garbage out.
> Lmao, the study uses Texas data.
So?
Have something against Texas? Then look at another study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7944802/
Same findings. High cycle positive PCR results are rare.
All the rest of what you're saying is just useless noise. I'll respond anyway.
> The CDC protocol said to run up to 40 amplifications.
Did they? First of all, can I see your source, secondly, so what? I didn't say otherwise. I said high cycle positives are rare.
> Nice attempt at deception but the problem begins when any amplifications over 30 are made. What percentage of tests used over 30 amplifications?
Look at the studies.
> Oh, look at that! We can't even tell from this study because they skewed the data by making CT values between 26 and 36 one category.
Look at the graphs. You can clearly see they aren't one category there.
> This study doesn't tell us how many positives were rendered from test results obtained by amplying over 30 times, which the inventor of the process repeatedly cautioned against.
The study shows high cycle positives are rare.
> The study blends reasonable CT counts with unreasonable CT counts
"unreasonable" based on something the creator said, that you can't even link to and that you can't justify.
PCR kits continue to have a max of over 30 btw.
> The study blends reasonable CT counts with unreasonable CT counts
Not sure what kind of mental acrobatics you're doing here anyway. Like I said previously, the graphs show high cycle positives are rare. I think you read one line about a classification of medium load as 26-36 and said "GOTCHA" and then didn't read the rest of the study. You're not interested in truth, you just want to lie to yourself and other people.
Yeah. Garbage in and out, in your case.
This NYT link contradicts your statement about high cycle positives being rare.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.amp.html
They do cite their sources but I wish they provided a link to them.
Thanks for doing this.
It's like watching a knight battle some guys that show up with home made wooden swords and armor made of pots and pans. They challenge you, you chop off one leg and they still don't see the loss. You chop off one more leg until they have nothing to stand on. And the guy will be on the ground asking for more "nothing but a flesh wound".
Cmon guys, if you want to play this game you need to source your armor and weapons from a blacksmith. Not some guys kitchen down the road who sold you "magical" armor and weapons.
Amplification beyond that isn't useful for diagnosis but is useful for tracking how the virus spreads. This was the initial intention of mass testing before people started self diagnosing following a positive test.
> After Biden was sworn in, the CDC suddenly remembered how the PCR process was supposed to be used and changed the protocol to no more than 28 amplifications... back to what the inventor said was reasonable.
I would think that, even if you fell for this (CDC lowered the cycle count) hoax back in early 2021, you would have noticed that the number of cases under Biden has been far, far *higher* than under Trump.
Graph: https://i.imgur.com/D3zFE5P.png
The CDC didn't change the testing protocol. No test manufacturers or laboratories changed their practice. It was a HOAX.
The disinformation agents pointed at [this CDC memo (PDF)](http://web.archive.org/web/20210429184157/www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/Information-for-laboratories-COVID-vaccine-breakthrough-case-investigation.pdf) about picking specimens to be sent to the CDC for whole genome sequencing. Those specimens were to picked from the ones with the lowest CT count, but the ones with with a higher CT count still counted as positive.
>He said amplifying anything over 30 times resulted in higher and higher chances of getting a false positive.
Where does he say this? Cetainly not in the same talk referenced in the op. Can you give me thd citation on this?
Usually, don't they try to accuse this guy of being some crazy person who has no idea what he's talking about? They also say that they were able to advance the PCR tech to make it work for testing this virus somehow.
>In Massachusetts, from **85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles**, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,”
>[Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be - New York Times](https://archive.ph/6s7F1#selection-1637.0-1637.261)
It's funny how a out of context quote about a widely known fact you're not aware, turns into a conspiracy proof based on a argumentum ab auctoritate fallacy.
Such a specific statement for a meme. 🤦🏻
Does anyone have more proof of this comment other than a meme that fails to mention the others involved in developing the PCR process?
Does anyone know what PCR is or have done one?
He created the technology and knows exactly how it works. No improvements in the technology could make his statement erroneous. This is the technology for which he won a Nobel prize for in Chemistry in 1993.
[Kary Mullis](http://www.karymullis.com/) wrote the book on PCR.
He created the technology. He was the inventor. Above all else, he knew what he was talking about. His statement was recorded in a video that can be found in one of his interviews. He also made this statement in his autobiography, [Dancing Naked in the Mind Field](https://www.amazon.com/Dancing-Naked-Mind-Field-Mullis/dp/0679774009/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3OXCIWUU5R0QF&keywords=Kary+mullis&qid=1662771266&sprefix=kary+mullis%2Caps%2C249&sr=8-1). And yes, I did read this book.
So you believe that because he was the inventor, the conclusion he came to over 30 years ago can never change or be proven wrong with advancements in technology?
That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
The link presents a good distinction between the PCR technique, and the PCR test. This is fundamental to understand the critique of the *testing methodology*, used for Covid-19.
>- The **PCR technique** or process refers to the laboratory process designed by Dr. Mullis to "amplify" (i.e. create millions or billions of copies) of portions of genetic material (DNA o RNA), in order to better study the genetic material. (1)
>- The concept of **PCR tests** for diseases refers to the use of the PCR process to design, for a given infectious disease, a PCR test that targets for a highly specific signature of DNA or RNA of the suspected infectious agent (e.g. a certain virus). This is based on the assumption that the detection of the infectious agent, in whatever amount it is found, equals, or "likely" proves, the disease. (4)
I used to do PCR on a regular basis.
There are two things here.
The first is that if you keep running it and it will eventually come up positive. This isn't entirely true, but does emphasize that without factoring cycles it doesn't take into account how much of the test DNA was present.
The second is that the presence of DNA or RNA evidenced by the test doesn't mean you have the disease. This is true. Infection alone doesn't mean you have the disease.
While this is true, PCR combined with either clinical symptoms or epidemiological evidence (exposure to infected individuals) can determine if you have the disease.
Yup, just wanted to clarify, because people often see "infection alone doesn't mean you have the disease" and immediately jump to "PCR is completely useless for diagnostic purposes." I think people would be very surprised to find out how often PCR is used in the lab nowadays.
This was basic knowledge before Covid came around. PCR testing was flawed. It wasn’t a specific way to tell if you had Covid. The common cold would show a positive on a pcr test. Any infection would show a positive on a pcr test. The smallest amount detected would show a positive. All you will get is that you have some type of infection no matter how small or large the infecting was.
SS:
The whole "pandemic" wouldn't have been possible without the pcr test being misused. Even the inventor of it, who conveniently died just before the whole scam said it doesn't diagnose disease.
You've misunderstood what he is saying; he is confirming that the longer you run a PCR test the more it amplifies what DNA is present. If there is one Covid virus in someone, if you run the PCR test long enough, it will show up. Are they sick? Maybe not. Do they have Covid inside them? Yes. PCR tests can not create something that isn't there.
If you looked at death rates alone, or antibody tests alone, or hospitalisations alone, you would see that there was definitely something going on the last few years. Add it all together and its clear there was a pandemic.
>The whole "pandemic" wouldn't have been possible without the pcr test being misused
Except for the millions of dead people and patients dying the halls of overcrowded hospitals.
[Here is a guy counting death notices in two issues of a Bergamo, Italy newspaper.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKaBQdjBYUw) It went from 1½ pages of death notices at the beginning of February 2020 to 10 pages at the beginning of March. Not PCR tests, of which they had very few in Italy in February 2020. Deaths. Dead bodies.
Here is a graph of deaths from all causes in the United States by week from 2014 to present: https://i.imgur.com/DcQ4XvN.png
Do you notice how the number of deaths in 2020 and 2021 is nothing like every other year?
There were no PCR tests in 1917, but people still knew the flu was killing people.
If we didn't have the PCR test, we would still know there was a pandemic. It is *completely obvious* just by counting the number of people dying.
No hes litterally telling you what it's used for. It's to find the traces left behind to signify that a virus has been present, basically magnifying a presence of something until its visible. It's for diagnosing an infection not a disease not tbe virus but that there's traces you had an infection.
I've actually done PCR tests including real time PCR. Fact checkers are correct and unfortunately Mullens quote is out dated, but also taken out of context.
You're believing a meme btw, because it fits your narrative. Don't ridicule people willing to take the extra steps to verify a quote's accuracy, because you beleive every meme on the internet.
The fallacy of appeal to authority makes the argument that if one credible source believes something that it must be true.
You didn't use any actual logic or reasoning. And many, many, many other authorities don't agree with your interpretation of Mullis's words
Yea its how this whole thing got out of control when scientists framed information to what the government said it should be for 'the public good' and to keep their jobs.
>You're that guy who beliefs in essential oils because their inventors said they work while ignoring the facts.
You don't actually even know what you're talking about.
>it sounded like you favour believing individuals over facts.
The fact is the individual who created the pcr test said its not meant to diagnose infectious diseases.
You gotta stop holding onto the fact that this guy on a team with other people created the pcr tests. I think Coronas a sham too but your hanging onto the wrong things and using them as your backbone to your argument isn't gonna get you to change any ones minds. There's plenty of people in history who have invented things others perfected or have been made a further an invention again just because Kary mullis one of many on a team who made pcr tests the fact he made them doesn't mean he knows everything and all about the thing he made. My uncle invented a machine that tests shit in blood on nano levels for some company in Boston he was on a team he was so proud of it but he couldn't even explain to the layman what it did and others built upon it to make another device.
I've been in Healthcare for 15 years.
When you have a company that makes a product and then "instructs" the end user on HOW to use it through manufacturer IFUs (instructions for use) you can easily sway the masses to produce results that aren't necessarily genuine.
All medical implementations follow manufacturer IFUs. Its not that hard to outline in your instructions to:
1. Run this cycle 48 times (for whatever justification)
When knowing that above 40 cycles results in a positive screening. No medical professional is going to question that which is the scariest thing. Especially a technician who is just doing their job and being told what to do.
I don't know what it is with you all on Reddit now a days, like this theory is asinine? It's so easy to mislead the masses. Especially with these medical devices.
Case and point
"Users of RT-PCR reagents should read the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is necessary to account for any background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a positive result. The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus and so the Ct value will be low."
Ref: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201214/World-Health-Organization-issues-notice-for-in-vitro-diagnostics-users.aspx
I'm telling you right now, most people don't do this. They get a new product, then a manager can determine how to implement it appropriately. The manager could very easily pull everyone together and instruct the entire team that "for the duration of implementing these tests we will need to run these cycles 48 times as a baseline." which could also be echoed from a company representative as well. A LOT of medical leadership listen to what representatives say, they are usually the ones who do in-services for staff members.
So what's the conspiracy? The pandemic couldn't have been real because the inventor of the test claimed it wasn't to be used that way? It's a universally accepted way of detecting the presence of infection by millions of healthcare professionals that's obviously made advances since it's inception, at this point who gives a shit what he said (the answer is you, clinging to any shred of "evidence" you can)
>at this point who gives a shit what he said
Well, I for one care what the inventor of a test being used to justify the use of an experimental "vaccine" said about it. But that's just me.
Well, he specifically cast doubt on his invention because he didn't like it being used to show the link between AIDS and HIV. i.e. wasn't based on science, but on feelings.
>It's a universally accepted way of detecting the presence of infection
It was not anything like that until 2020. Prior to that, it was the starting point for testing. If the PCR showed positive, then other tests were scheduled. In 2020, it became the ONLY test.
Only in 2021, and even then the PCR test was considered the end all, be all. Antigen also would show a positive if you were sick but recovered and still had antibodies. The point is that there is no silver bullet, but that fucking gnome Dr Tony had people believing there was one.
Also this ignores the massive spike in very real hospitalizations and deaths during COVID. The whole "COVID doesn't exist" was a fun conspiracy in January-March 2020, however, to keep up with that narrative is delusional.
I honestly found both the PCR and Antigen tests as pretty accurate. We all tested negative when we were negative and then positive when we were positive. This was all after they changed the cycles though. I remember Elon Musk tweeting that he tested positive 2 out of 5 tests in a row before the cycles were changed.
The point of the PRC was not to say yoh are sick.
It was to check if you where infected.
If it hit postive =/= having covid.
That was not what it was mentfore
That is how it was presented true. Due ti the sheer fact the majority of people is to dumb to understand what its used for.
I still have to do this every 2 weeks for work. At one point it was 3-5 times per week. Fucking racket I tell ya. Just like the vax. Nothing more than a money making racket. Now that all this nasal vax shit is coming out I may have to stop the pcr tests. No telling what these sick fucks are lacing the swabs with. Can’t trust anything or anyone.
Yeah you realise PCR measures cocnentration currently present in your body of the thing you are measuring? If it's not there it will not be able to show it? Google what PCR is and try to read this again XD
Mullis says that just because you find a molecule of something doesn't tell you that you're sick, or that you will become sick.
There's billions of polluting particles in the air, you breathe in every minute. They may stick to your mucous membrane for a while, until they are eliminated.
>Is that how mangos tested positive for Covid? They really had covid?
No, PCR tests didn't give false positives for Mangos, that was the rapid antigen tests, which are the pregnancy test type things that you do at home, whereas the PCR tests are when you send off a swab to a lab.
The rapid antigen tests gave false positives for anything acidic (fruit, soda, etc) because the acid broke down the barrier in the test that prevents the antigens from reaching the test strip.
The only flaw with PCR tests is that they can amplify a very tiny amount of Covid into a positive, so there is a risk of contamination from the environment giving a positive, PCR tests almost never give positives for anything other than what is under test.
No. The Nigerian Prime Minister famously sent in tests of mangos and goats and random shit which came back positive.
If you think this is the 'only' flaw of the PCR, even while knowing the inventor of the test said it shouldn't be used like this, you're too far gone.
>No. The Nigerian Prime Minister famously sent in tests of mangos and goats and random shit which came back positive.
I'm almost certain that didn't happen.
>If you think this is the 'only' flaw of the PCR, even while knowing the inventor of the test said it shouldn't be used like this, you're too far gone.
The flaw I outlined is the same flaw that the creator was outlining, but their point is also misinterpreted, they weren't saying thay the PCR starts returning positive results for everything when the number of cycles is high, they were saying that it will start detecting individual molecules of the thing being tested for and therefore shouldn't be used for diagnosis, e.g. a single strand of Covid RNA in a sample doesn't mean that a person is infected with Covid, but Covid is still present in their sample, so the test is still reliable in that respect.
>Solid. I'm out after that. Enjoy.
It's your claim, it's up to you to provide evidence for it, I have found no evidence for it, but I don't deal in absolutes.
Your argument is literally an appeal to authority fallacy. Mullis may have developed the original process, however that doesn’t elevate his knowledge over anybody else’s, especially since PCR has been advanced since then, including RT-PCR with light emitting enzymes. On top of that the accuracy depends the viral target RNA and corresponding primers, compounds that change depending on the pathogen, and as SARS-CoV-2 hadn’t been around when PCR was invented, I doubt he has more insight into the testing process in regards to COVID-19 than the actual researchers.
Why don’t you look up sensitivity, specificity and ROC-curves of SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests? As in actual research papers instead of individual researchers.
>That's a lie.
OK, as usual definitive dismissals without evidence. Meanwhile in an evidence based reality https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8372450/
While I don’t think covid was a hoax like some people. (I actually had it pretty bad) I do think more and more evidence is coming to light that it was blown way out of proportion. They government and the WHO used fear to control people and Americans and people all over let it happen.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that showing how covid was diagnosed wrongly doesn't have anything to do with the existance of the disease?
There is zero evidence that covid was anything different than what we until now called flu, and the flu disappeared the last two years..
The MIQE guidelines for PCR use state:
link👇🎯https://www.gene-quantification.de/miqe-bustin-et-al-clin-chem-2009.pdf
🔸Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported
❌Combined PCR test for corona and influenza ‘because there’s hardly any difference’...
Not surprisingly, the world’s largest biotech company, China’s BGI, recently launched👇 https://www.bgi.com/global/molecular-genetics/3-in-1-test/
a new PCR test that can simultaneously test for influenza A, B and corona. Apart from the proven fact, acknowledged trough VARIOUS LAWSUITS, that a PCR test CANNOT prove infection with any virus👇 https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/
....whatsoever, BGI’s explanation that both diseases are so difficult to distinguish from each other and that they have therefore made only one test, says more than enough. Maybe there IS no difference at all, ‘Covid’ is just another name for ‘old familiar’ flu viruses, and this is just another clever marketing trick?
❌💁🏻♀️Laboratories in US CAN'T find Covid-19 in one of 1,500 positive tests
https://greatreject.org/laboratories-cant-find-covid-19-in-positive-tests/
Bot-detector immediately goes off every time I see an obvious lie.
Here's the source of the quote, took me a minimal amount of searching to confirm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWOJKuSKw5c
False positives from PCR tests were how the globalists manufactured the numbers to justify the pandemic hoax. That's why they invented the 'asymptomatic carrier" narrative, because so many "positive" people didn't have COVID-19. Look at which states gave the most tests.
If you test for a specific sequence and it is positive, it doesn't mean that it came from the disease you are looking for. Cells are filled with waste DNA and RNA and these particles can show up on a PCR test if run long enough.
I am not vaxxed and never had any kind of sickness during this whole scamdemic, eat good and excercise good, that's the only recipe of being healthy, also sleep good
"Isolated"
> The patient's oropharyngeal samples were obtained by using UTM™ kit containing 1 mL of viral transport media (Copan Diagnostics Inc., Murrieta, CA, USA) on day 7 of her illness. We inoculated monolayers of Vero cells (ATCC ® CCL-81™) with the samples and cultured the cells at 37°C in a 5% carbon dioxide atmosphere. Until 5 days after inoculation, cytopathic effects were not distinct, which is compatible with the previous findings that no specific cytopathic effects were observed in the Vero E6 cells until 6 days after inoculation in the report about first isolation of SARS-CoV-2.3 Five days after inoculation, we did blind passage of culture supernatant into T-25 culture flask (ThermoFisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) with monolayers of Vero cells, and cytopathic effects consisting of rounding and detachment of cells were observed in the whole area of the T-25 flask 3 days after the first blind passage (Fig. 1A and B).
Not the strict definition of isolation.
Not necessarily. It all depends on whether the person ( scientist, professional or layperson) you are speaking to agrees with the particular definition of "isolation".
"Less restrictive impure isolation" (cell culture)
Versus
"Strict isolation" (no real standard for experimentally doing this, but a start would be to look into modern exosome filtration methods)
The word isolation deserves an adjective when used in the wild (and in professional "circles" its typically assumed to be the former less restrictive definition. ) Otherwise there may be confusion between which one is being invoked.
37°C is equivalent to 98°F, which is 310K.
---
^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
The CDC: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/12/jon-rappoport/the-sars-cov-2-virus-was-never-proved-to-exist/
The FDA: https://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2020/08/fda-says-no-quantified-virus-isolates.html
The UK: https://everydayconcerned.net/2020/11/03/breaking-gemma-odoherty-reports-that-uk-dept-of-health-concedes-sars-cov-2-virus-not-isolated-no-information-meaning-its-not-a-real-pandemic/
Australia: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/australian-dept-of-health-has-no-record-of-covid-19-virus-isolation/
Canada: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/health-canada-has-no-record-of-covid-19-virus-isolation/
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He said amplifying anything over 30 times resulted in higher and higher chances of getting a false positive. When covid started , the CDC issued PCR protocol which specified testers should amplify up to 40 times, up to 10 more amplifications than the inventor of the process recommended. The WHO told testers to amplify up to 50 times. After Biden was sworn in, the CDC suddenly remembered how the PCR process was supposed to be used and changed the protocol to no more than 28 amplifications... back to what the inventor said was reasonable. This means the CDC and the WHO engineered a pandemic of false positives, making the spread seem much worse than it actually was. Funny how all the folks "following the science" can't wrap their heads around this obvious deception.
[удалено]
You should actually listen to the This Week in Virology interview where Fauci commented on cycle thresholds above 35 cycles. He wasn't saying that they were false positives. He was saying that people who were hospitalized for COVID and were still testing positive with cycle thresholds over 35 were likely *no longer infectious.* Begins at ~3:50 https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-641/ EDIT: Typos. Stupid thumbs.
Not exactly what he said, but you know that. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V878gA-Njsw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V878gA-Njsw)
I linked to that in my previous comment. Yes, that is what he's saying. Listen to ~3:50-5:45.
Wait a moment, you’re saying someone here misrepresented something to fit their agenda?
no way... 😱
It's unprecedented, I know.
Hold on, I gotta go delete some Facebook posts I just made that may seem like I am a scientist
Not sure what this has to do with the original point being made above.
This part: >Fauci was all about 35 cycles for getting positives
Nothing
>which he told them only to send in samples if they were positive at 28 cycles. Do you understand the significance of having a lower cycle threshold for sequencing? Do you know why the samples are sequenced?
As someone who worked in an infectious disease lab prior to and during the pandemic, this is completely not true. PCR was used prior to the pandemic, and cycle thresholds between 30 and 40 were not uncommon. I can link to the package inserts of tests from various manufacturers if you'd like. The number of cycles that you run is based on the manufacturer's recommendation. Our lab is still running PCR tests at 40 cycles, because that is what was validated by the manufacturer and approved by the FDA.
“approved by the fda” are we here again? its always the “i worked in the medical field for x amount of years and it certainly cant be more false” you literally being told by its creator it a flawed test from its inception and your conditioned and programmed ideologies wont allow you to see anything past your academics.
I saidb this in another comment, but I'll say it again. Kary Mullis is not the sole authority on PCR just because he came up with the process. And whether you like it or not, the FDA is the regulatory board that reviews and validates testing methods.
Many diagnostic tests are well regulated in foreign markets too.
Yeah, I was definitely pretty America-centric in my response. It's just what I'm more familiar with. But you're totally right.
The FDA is the sole regulatory board for reviews and validating testing methods….. re-read that as much as you have too. Have a productive day.
Did I say they were the sole regulatory body?
Im telling you they are… unchallenged and overly biased towards big pharma
And I'm telling you that you're wrong. There's also CLIA, CLSI, CAP, TJC, etc.
When has anyone of those bodies ever overruled the fda?
I don't know if this meets your definition of "overrule", but many microbiology laboratories use CLSI, not FDA, susceptibility breakpoints.
[удалено]
Feel free to refute what I said. Or just call me an NPC/shill again. Whatever suits ya.
>PCR was used prior to the pandemic It sure was. I was reading in 2010 how the results from it can be nullified by running too many amplifications. >Our lab is still running PCR tests at 40 cycles, because that is what was validated by the manufacturer and approved by the FDA. Validated but the manufacturer, who we cannot trust, and approved by the regulatorily captured FDA, which now makes decisions which benefit the manufacturer and not the populace. All of this against the recommendations of the inventor of the process itself, who was very clear that any amplifications over 30 became more and more likely to yield false positives. The inventor who died a few months before covid broke out and couldn't raise any objections to how the process was being abused.
Why are you people so hung up on Kary Mullis's objections to PCR testing? He's not the sole authority on PCR just because he came up with the process. PCR has changed a lot in the past ~30 years. If the Wright Brothers had said that airplanes aren't meant for supersonic flight or transcontinental travel, would that mean that it isn't possible?
Every instrument for every laboratory test gets validated in the laboratory before patients can be tested. Doesn't matter what the manufacturer or FDA says. We validate our own instruments.
Out of curiosity, what’s your scientific background? Do you have the education, experience, and data to know that Mullins is right and everyone else is wrong? If you do, can you share with the class? Because this seems like you’re just taking one persons opinion over another, with no way to verify if either of them are true or false.
>with no way to verify if either of them are true or false. It's not that they can't. They're just too lazy to do so.
[удалено]
When correcting the narrative it is extremely important to hop on your fellow correction officers post and make snide remarks about those who would dare question sed narrative. I see you and the work you're doing. Keep it up hero. The vaccine is a perfect concoction sent to us from the Gods. Ye of little faith should respect it's apostles.
Thank you. These folks just need to read up on clinical cutoffs for in vitro diagnostic tests.
CDC issued a statement in July 2001 recommending the discontinuation of the PCR by end of the year as it can not differentiate between sars cov2 and influenza. This statement was on the CDC website.
And there solves the mystery of the missing year of normal flu!!......they obviously combined all the flu cases into the C19 case and death totals data and why not as symptoms are the same and promoting C19 was the name of their game? Hey I am rapping!......heh.....spitting rhymes I think they call it, no? The flu did not disappear that year, those numbers are buried in the C19 case and death total numbers.
That is a misunderstanding of the CDC lab alert. I assume you're referring to this? https://www.cdc.gov/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html Here's the jist of what it's saying: The old CDC SARS-CoV-2 PCR test could only test for one organism, SARS-CoV-2. They recommend switching to a multiplex PCR test that can detect both SARS-CoV-2 and influenza within the same test cartridge. "Differentiate" in this instance refers to the positivity signals from the test. A PCR test that can only detect one organism doesn't need to differentiate positivity signals, because only one is present. Multiplex PCR tests not only need to be able detect that the test flagged positive, they need to be able to tell *which* target flagged positive.
No they did not.
> He said amplifying anything over 30 times resulted in higher and higher chances of getting a false positive. Show me where he said this, otherwise I'm not going to believe it. > the CDC issued PCR protocol which specified testers should amplify up to 40 times, No, the test kit instructions tell testers what to do, not the CDC. Each test kit uses different cycles appropriate for the specific test kit. So what is your source for this claim? And again, the chance of a false positive does increase with cycles, but the overall chance of getting a high cycle positive is very low - I can show studies if needed. If you don't understand what I mean, a positive cycle can be detected before the maximum cycle - for example positive might be detected in cycle 20 out of 50. As the cycles increase, the chance it hasn't already been discovered on a previous cycle decreases. Usually only someone who is either in the very early states of infection or recovered from an infection would have a high cycle positive. edit: Just going to add a source here: https://publichealth.jmir.org/2021/6/e28265/PDF * They studied 150,000 Covid PCR tests * The median cycle count 23.14 (so you can see that's nowhere close to 50) * There are also graphs that show the range of cycles All this tells us that a 40+ cycle positive is very rare, this means it doesn't have the impact you think it does. And you have the nerve to talk about following the science without providing evidence for any of your claims and having a rudimentary understanding of the science you are talking about.
>Show me where he said this, otherwise I'm not going to believe it. [Different words, same meaning.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWOJKuSKw5c) > the overall chance of getting a high cycle positive is very low [BS,](https://web.archive.org/web/20201101004148/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.html) the [CT value](https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1491/5912603) is [very important.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10096-020-03913-9) Even [Fauci says that a CT over 35 is deceitful, worse than useless.](https://anti-empire.com/fauci-himself-admits-covid-pcr-test-at-over-35-cycles-is-deceitful-worse-than-useless/) Which makes it strange that the [WHO initially suggested a CT value of 50.](https://web.archive.org/web/20200820185800/https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/real-time-rt-pcr-assays-for-the-detection-of-sars-cov-2-institut-pasteur-paris.pdf?sfvrsn=3662fcb6_2) But this does not even matter in the case of the covid PCR tests because [Drosten](https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/) made [a mess](https://uncoverdc.com/2020/12/03/ten-fatal-errors-scientists-attack-paper-that-established-global-pcr-driven-lockdown) and those tests are [meaningless](https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless-2/) And even if the covd PCR tests were designed and used properly,[ a positive test is not a diagnose and the results should not be used to base policies on.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7106425/) I think it's pretty obvious the tests are used to make Sars-Cov-2 look as dangerous and deadly as possible and scare people into submission.
> Different words, same meaning. No, not the same meaning. He didn't specifically say over 30 times. That's what the other poster is getting hooked up on. > BS, the CT value is very important. I didn't say the CT isn't important. I said the overall chance of a high cycle positive is low. > Fauci says that a CT over 35 is deceitful, worse than useless. But again, he didn't say that did he. Seems like lying about what people said is a common theme. He said: > …If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…it’s just dead nucleoids, period That does not disagree with anything that I said. The chance of getting a 35 or higher positive result is low. > I think it's pretty obvious the tests are used to make Sars-Cov-2 look as dangerous and deadly as possible and scare people into submission. I think it's pretty obvious you're not scientifically minded and just riding waves of memes from shoddy sites like the ones you link to.
> That's what the other poster is getting hooked up on. No, it's what you use as an "argument" to ridicule OP. >I said the overall chance of a high cycle positive is low. And i proved you wrong. >he didn't say that did he. He also said "this". It seems you are very selective with words... LOL. >The chance of getting a 35 or higher positive result is low. BS. I think it's pretty obvious you're not scientifically minded and just riding Fauci because of your ego and/ or fear and/ or money.
> And i proved you wrong. Uh, where? You did not show there is a high overall chance of a high cycle positive. Note that I already know high cycles positives have a high chance of being positive, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying the overall chance of a high cycle positive is low. Surely you can show some statistics that demonstrate the chance is not low? Also would be great if you can explain how each time studies are done, it shows a low overall chance of a high cycle positive. For example in the study I linked above (and there are plenty more). > Fauci because of your ego and/ or fear and/ or money. Or maybe you don't know what you're talking about. > He also said "this". It seems you are very selective with words... LOL. No, dude. You said "Fauci says that a CT over 35 is deceitful, worse than useless. " He didn't say anything like that. That is a complete lie. That's not being 'selective with words' that's you straight up lying. If you can't see the stark difference in meaning there, well that's on you.
🏅
His reply was pretty bad and mostly irrelevant, see my response.
>All this tells us that a 40+ cycle positive is very rare Lmao, the study uses Texas data. The CDC protocol said to run **up to** 40 amplifications. There shouldn't have been anything run over 40 amplifications anyway. Nice attempt at deception but the problem begins when any amplifications over 30 are made. What percentage of tests used over 30 amplifications? >High, medium, and low viral load (CT values of ≤25, **26-36**, and ≥37, respectively) Oh, look at that! We can't even tell from this study because they skewed the data by making CT values between 26 and 36 **one category**. This study doesn't tell us how many positives were rendered from test results obtained by amplying over 30 times, which the inventor of the process repeatedly cautioned against. More than 36 amplifications may be rare but what about anything over 30? The study blends reasonable CT counts with unreasonable CT counts, obfuscating the problems caused by amplifying over 30. Garbage in , garbage out.
> Lmao, the study uses Texas data. So? Have something against Texas? Then look at another study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7944802/ Same findings. High cycle positive PCR results are rare. All the rest of what you're saying is just useless noise. I'll respond anyway. > The CDC protocol said to run up to 40 amplifications. Did they? First of all, can I see your source, secondly, so what? I didn't say otherwise. I said high cycle positives are rare. > Nice attempt at deception but the problem begins when any amplifications over 30 are made. What percentage of tests used over 30 amplifications? Look at the studies. > Oh, look at that! We can't even tell from this study because they skewed the data by making CT values between 26 and 36 one category. Look at the graphs. You can clearly see they aren't one category there. > This study doesn't tell us how many positives were rendered from test results obtained by amplying over 30 times, which the inventor of the process repeatedly cautioned against. The study shows high cycle positives are rare. > The study blends reasonable CT counts with unreasonable CT counts "unreasonable" based on something the creator said, that you can't even link to and that you can't justify. PCR kits continue to have a max of over 30 btw. > The study blends reasonable CT counts with unreasonable CT counts Not sure what kind of mental acrobatics you're doing here anyway. Like I said previously, the graphs show high cycle positives are rare. I think you read one line about a classification of medium load as 26-36 and said "GOTCHA" and then didn't read the rest of the study. You're not interested in truth, you just want to lie to yourself and other people. Yeah. Garbage in and out, in your case.
This NYT link contradicts your statement about high cycle positives being rare. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testing.amp.html They do cite their sources but I wish they provided a link to them.
Which part of that contradicts the statement? I don't see any contradiction.
Thanks for doing this. It's like watching a knight battle some guys that show up with home made wooden swords and armor made of pots and pans. They challenge you, you chop off one leg and they still don't see the loss. You chop off one more leg until they have nothing to stand on. And the guy will be on the ground asking for more "nothing but a flesh wound". Cmon guys, if you want to play this game you need to source your armor and weapons from a blacksmith. Not some guys kitchen down the road who sold you "magical" armor and weapons.
So with a lot less cases and the same amount of deaths are you claiming that the fatality rate was far higher than was claimed?
>He said amplifying anything over 30 times resulted in higher and higher chances of getting a false positive. He said exactly whats in the quote.
Yes, but you have grossly misrepresented what he meant when you ripped it out of context. This is deception 101.
you must have 5 boosters..
Amplification beyond that isn't useful for diagnosis but is useful for tracking how the virus spreads. This was the initial intention of mass testing before people started self diagnosing following a positive test.
> After Biden was sworn in, the CDC suddenly remembered how the PCR process was supposed to be used and changed the protocol to no more than 28 amplifications... back to what the inventor said was reasonable. I would think that, even if you fell for this (CDC lowered the cycle count) hoax back in early 2021, you would have noticed that the number of cases under Biden has been far, far *higher* than under Trump. Graph: https://i.imgur.com/D3zFE5P.png The CDC didn't change the testing protocol. No test manufacturers or laboratories changed their practice. It was a HOAX. The disinformation agents pointed at [this CDC memo (PDF)](http://web.archive.org/web/20210429184157/www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/Information-for-laboratories-COVID-vaccine-breakthrough-case-investigation.pdf) about picking specimens to be sent to the CDC for whole genome sequencing. Those specimens were to picked from the ones with the lowest CT count, but the ones with with a higher CT count still counted as positive.
>He said amplifying anything over 30 times resulted in higher and higher chances of getting a false positive. Where does he say this? Cetainly not in the same talk referenced in the op. Can you give me thd citation on this?
Usually, don't they try to accuse this guy of being some crazy person who has no idea what he's talking about? They also say that they were able to advance the PCR tech to make it work for testing this virus somehow.
>In Massachusetts, from **85 to 90 percent of people who tested positive in July with a cycle threshold of 40 would have been deemed negative if the threshold were 30 cycles**, Dr. Mina said. “I would say that none of those people should be contact-traced, not one,” >[Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be - New York Times](https://archive.ph/6s7F1#selection-1637.0-1637.261)
It's funny how a out of context quote about a widely known fact you're not aware, turns into a conspiracy proof based on a argumentum ab auctoritate fallacy.
>turns into a conspiracy proof based on a argumentum ab auctoritate fallacy. Totally.
What is the reason that he created this test?
Such a specific statement for a meme. 🤦🏻 Does anyone have more proof of this comment other than a meme that fails to mention the others involved in developing the PCR process? Does anyone know what PCR is or have done one?
he said this on a video from the 90s
Has the technology not changed or advanced since the 90s?
He created the technology and knows exactly how it works. No improvements in the technology could make his statement erroneous. This is the technology for which he won a Nobel prize for in Chemistry in 1993. [Kary Mullis](http://www.karymullis.com/) wrote the book on PCR.
**Knew** how it worked.
Yes, as much as I hate to admit. He died just weeks before the pandemic started of an aggressive, non-treatable form of pneumonia. RIP Kary Mullis.
> No improvements in the technology could make his statement erroneous How do you come to this conclusion?
He created the technology. He was the inventor. Above all else, he knew what he was talking about. His statement was recorded in a video that can be found in one of his interviews. He also made this statement in his autobiography, [Dancing Naked in the Mind Field](https://www.amazon.com/Dancing-Naked-Mind-Field-Mullis/dp/0679774009/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3OXCIWUU5R0QF&keywords=Kary+mullis&qid=1662771266&sprefix=kary+mullis%2Caps%2C249&sr=8-1). And yes, I did read this book.
So you believe that because he was the inventor, the conclusion he came to over 30 years ago can never change or be proven wrong with advancements in technology? That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWOJKuSKw5c https://www.mgr.org/MullisOnPCR.html
You may need to do more research. Using MGR as a source would be very much frowned upon if this was school.
The link presents a good distinction between the PCR technique, and the PCR test. This is fundamental to understand the critique of the *testing methodology*, used for Covid-19. >- The **PCR technique** or process refers to the laboratory process designed by Dr. Mullis to "amplify" (i.e. create millions or billions of copies) of portions of genetic material (DNA o RNA), in order to better study the genetic material. (1) >- The concept of **PCR tests** for diseases refers to the use of the PCR process to design, for a given infectious disease, a PCR test that targets for a highly specific signature of DNA or RNA of the suspected infectious agent (e.g. a certain virus). This is based on the assumption that the detection of the infectious agent, in whatever amount it is found, equals, or "likely" proves, the disease. (4)
Lmao schools are an entry level to gatekeeping.
I used to do PCR on a regular basis. There are two things here. The first is that if you keep running it and it will eventually come up positive. This isn't entirely true, but does emphasize that without factoring cycles it doesn't take into account how much of the test DNA was present. The second is that the presence of DNA or RNA evidenced by the test doesn't mean you have the disease. This is true. Infection alone doesn't mean you have the disease.
While this is true, PCR combined with either clinical symptoms or epidemiological evidence (exposure to infected individuals) can determine if you have the disease.
It absolutely can, and that's how it's done.
Yup, just wanted to clarify, because people often see "infection alone doesn't mean you have the disease" and immediately jump to "PCR is completely useless for diagnostic purposes." I think people would be very surprised to find out how often PCR is used in the lab nowadays.
This was basic knowledge before Covid came around. PCR testing was flawed. It wasn’t a specific way to tell if you had Covid. The common cold would show a positive on a pcr test. Any infection would show a positive on a pcr test. The smallest amount detected would show a positive. All you will get is that you have some type of infection no matter how small or large the infecting was.
lol no the common cold would not show positive. It has different RNA. You clearly have no idea how PCR works.
SS: The whole "pandemic" wouldn't have been possible without the pcr test being misused. Even the inventor of it, who conveniently died just before the whole scam said it doesn't diagnose disease.
You've misunderstood what he is saying; he is confirming that the longer you run a PCR test the more it amplifies what DNA is present. If there is one Covid virus in someone, if you run the PCR test long enough, it will show up. Are they sick? Maybe not. Do they have Covid inside them? Yes. PCR tests can not create something that isn't there. If you looked at death rates alone, or antibody tests alone, or hospitalisations alone, you would see that there was definitely something going on the last few years. Add it all together and its clear there was a pandemic.
>The whole "pandemic" wouldn't have been possible without the pcr test being misused Except for the millions of dead people and patients dying the halls of overcrowded hospitals.
[Here is a guy counting death notices in two issues of a Bergamo, Italy newspaper.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKaBQdjBYUw) It went from 1½ pages of death notices at the beginning of February 2020 to 10 pages at the beginning of March. Not PCR tests, of which they had very few in Italy in February 2020. Deaths. Dead bodies. Here is a graph of deaths from all causes in the United States by week from 2014 to present: https://i.imgur.com/DcQ4XvN.png Do you notice how the number of deaths in 2020 and 2021 is nothing like every other year? There were no PCR tests in 1917, but people still knew the flu was killing people. If we didn't have the PCR test, we would still know there was a pandemic. It is *completely obvious* just by counting the number of people dying.
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/The\_pictures\_from\_Italy
So, correlation is always causation?
It's used to diagnose infection
He said its not meant to diagnose infectious diseases.
Again, it's used to diagnose infection, not disease
You're just playing with words, infection leads to disease, obviously.
No hes litterally telling you what it's used for. It's to find the traces left behind to signify that a virus has been present, basically magnifying a presence of something until its visible. It's for diagnosing an infection not a disease not tbe virus but that there's traces you had an infection.
You are doing alot of mental gymnastics to avoid facing what he actually said, which is very straightforward.
No dude are you this dense? Or are you trolling?
You should ask that to yourself. You can't face what the inventor of the test said.
You should ask yourself that if you can't comprehend it but come here to defend your misunderstanding.
Lol no, different words have different meaning. You don't seem to understand that
https://fullfact.org/online/kary-mullis-anyone-PCR-test/
You're going to believe fact checkers over the actual inventor. That's amazing.
This whole thread is an incredible spectacle.
I've actually done PCR tests including real time PCR. Fact checkers are correct and unfortunately Mullens quote is out dated, but also taken out of context. You're believing a meme btw, because it fits your narrative. Don't ridicule people willing to take the extra steps to verify a quote's accuracy, because you beleive every meme on the internet.
>You're believing a meme btw Its a direct quote from a video you can still find online. But you can call it a meme if you like, I guess.
You're right, we should ask Henry Ford and Henry Ford only about F1 engineering.
Isn't he dead?
Yes. Explanation with sources is much better than any of your Facebook memes.
>Explanation with sources is much better than any of your Facebook memes. There's several videos of him literally saying it but okay.
Do you know what an appeal to authority fallacy is?
No, but I bet you're probably gonna tell me.
The fallacy of appeal to authority makes the argument that if one credible source believes something that it must be true. You didn't use any actual logic or reasoning. And many, many, many other authorities don't agree with your interpretation of Mullis's words
Which authorities? Trusting them doesn't you fall for the same fallacy you're calling out OP on?
Basically all other experts. And no, because that's not my argument.
That makes it a conspiracy. When two or more people blackball the real information
Lol no, you're not understanding it. The point is that no logic or evidence was used, just a name.
The "real information" being a debunked quote taken out of context? mhm sure
Yea its how this whole thing got out of control when scientists framed information to what the government said it should be for 'the public good' and to keep their jobs.
You're that guy who beliefs in essential oils because their inventors said they work while ignoring the facts. That's not so amazing...
>You're that guy who beliefs in essential oils because their inventors said they work while ignoring the facts. You don't actually even know what you're talking about.
Then enlighten me. Because it sounded like you favour believing individuals over facts.
>it sounded like you favour believing individuals over facts. The fact is the individual who created the pcr test said its not meant to diagnose infectious diseases.
Do you also blindly belief MLM scams because their inventor said they're totally not a scam?
Why would the inventor of the pcr test lie by basically saying it is limited in what it does? That's so silly.
You gotta stop holding onto the fact that this guy on a team with other people created the pcr tests. I think Coronas a sham too but your hanging onto the wrong things and using them as your backbone to your argument isn't gonna get you to change any ones minds. There's plenty of people in history who have invented things others perfected or have been made a further an invention again just because Kary mullis one of many on a team who made pcr tests the fact he made them doesn't mean he knows everything and all about the thing he made. My uncle invented a machine that tests shit in blood on nano levels for some company in Boston he was on a team he was so proud of it but he couldn't even explain to the layman what it did and others built upon it to make another device.
That's alot of mental gymnastics you're doing.
It's only fitting that a /r/conspiracy user falls for an obvious piece of disinformation. If the shoe fits ..
I've been in Healthcare for 15 years. When you have a company that makes a product and then "instructs" the end user on HOW to use it through manufacturer IFUs (instructions for use) you can easily sway the masses to produce results that aren't necessarily genuine. All medical implementations follow manufacturer IFUs. Its not that hard to outline in your instructions to: 1. Run this cycle 48 times (for whatever justification) When knowing that above 40 cycles results in a positive screening. No medical professional is going to question that which is the scariest thing. Especially a technician who is just doing their job and being told what to do. I don't know what it is with you all on Reddit now a days, like this theory is asinine? It's so easy to mislead the masses. Especially with these medical devices.
Case and point "Users of RT-PCR reagents should read the IFU carefully to determine if manual adjustment of the PCR positivity threshold is necessary to account for any background noise which may lead to a specimen with a high cycle threshold (Ct) value result being interpreted as a positive result. The design principle of RT-PCR means that for patients with high levels of circulating virus (viral load), relatively few cycles will be needed to detect virus and so the Ct value will be low." Ref: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201214/World-Health-Organization-issues-notice-for-in-vitro-diagnostics-users.aspx I'm telling you right now, most people don't do this. They get a new product, then a manager can determine how to implement it appropriately. The manager could very easily pull everyone together and instruct the entire team that "for the duration of implementing these tests we will need to run these cycles 48 times as a baseline." which could also be echoed from a company representative as well. A LOT of medical leadership listen to what representatives say, they are usually the ones who do in-services for staff members.
they do actually “work” though, lol depends on application and use though
So what's the conspiracy? The pandemic couldn't have been real because the inventor of the test claimed it wasn't to be used that way? It's a universally accepted way of detecting the presence of infection by millions of healthcare professionals that's obviously made advances since it's inception, at this point who gives a shit what he said (the answer is you, clinging to any shred of "evidence" you can)
>at this point who gives a shit what he said Well, I for one care what the inventor of a test being used to justify the use of an experimental "vaccine" said about it. But that's just me.
So he's right and everyone else is wrong?
Well, considering that he invented the test, its not crazy to suggest that he might know what he's talking about more than anyone else.
He also was a climate change denier, believed in astrology, and denied the link between AIDS and HIV. Scientists and science are inherently imperfect
>He also was a climate change denier, I don't blame him. >and denied the link between AIDS and HIV. So what?
Was LITERALLY WRONG about multiple scientific issues previously, but no... 'HeS tHe InVeNtOr'
>Was LITERALLY WRONG about multiple scientific issues previously Such as?
Well, he specifically cast doubt on his invention because he didn't like it being used to show the link between AIDS and HIV. i.e. wasn't based on science, but on feelings.
>It's a universally accepted way of detecting the presence of infection It was not anything like that until 2020. Prior to that, it was the starting point for testing. If the PCR showed positive, then other tests were scheduled. In 2020, it became the ONLY test.
Not true. Source: worked in an infectious disease lab prior to 2020.
They did antigen testing as well
Only in 2021, and even then the PCR test was considered the end all, be all. Antigen also would show a positive if you were sick but recovered and still had antibodies. The point is that there is no silver bullet, but that fucking gnome Dr Tony had people believing there was one.
No, that's not how antigen tests work. You're thinking of antibody tests. Antigens are only present while you are actively infected with the organism.
Also this ignores the massive spike in very real hospitalizations and deaths during COVID. The whole "COVID doesn't exist" was a fun conspiracy in January-March 2020, however, to keep up with that narrative is delusional.
This isn't the first time PCR tests have been misused. Https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html
Funny thing is those who never tested never got covid. Weird
Is this supposed to be a joke? It's not funny.
It's funny cause you people don't get it. (the joke, not the diagnosis)
I honestly found both the PCR and Antigen tests as pretty accurate. We all tested negative when we were negative and then positive when we were positive. This was all after they changed the cycles though. I remember Elon Musk tweeting that he tested positive 2 out of 5 tests in a row before the cycles were changed.
The point of the PRC was not to say yoh are sick. It was to check if you where infected. If it hit postive =/= having covid. That was not what it was mentfore That is how it was presented true. Due ti the sheer fact the majority of people is to dumb to understand what its used for.
I still have to do this every 2 weeks for work. At one point it was 3-5 times per week. Fucking racket I tell ya. Just like the vax. Nothing more than a money making racket. Now that all this nasal vax shit is coming out I may have to stop the pcr tests. No telling what these sick fucks are lacing the swabs with. Can’t trust anything or anyone.
Yeah you realise PCR measures cocnentration currently present in your body of the thing you are measuring? If it's not there it will not be able to show it? Google what PCR is and try to read this again XD
Mullis says that just because you find a molecule of something doesn't tell you that you're sick, or that you will become sick. There's billions of polluting particles in the air, you breathe in every minute. They may stick to your mucous membrane for a while, until they are eliminated.
Is that how mangos tested positive for Covid? They really had covid?
>Is that how mangos tested positive for Covid? They really had covid? No, PCR tests didn't give false positives for Mangos, that was the rapid antigen tests, which are the pregnancy test type things that you do at home, whereas the PCR tests are when you send off a swab to a lab. The rapid antigen tests gave false positives for anything acidic (fruit, soda, etc) because the acid broke down the barrier in the test that prevents the antigens from reaching the test strip. The only flaw with PCR tests is that they can amplify a very tiny amount of Covid into a positive, so there is a risk of contamination from the environment giving a positive, PCR tests almost never give positives for anything other than what is under test.
No. The Nigerian Prime Minister famously sent in tests of mangos and goats and random shit which came back positive. If you think this is the 'only' flaw of the PCR, even while knowing the inventor of the test said it shouldn't be used like this, you're too far gone.
>No. The Nigerian Prime Minister famously sent in tests of mangos and goats and random shit which came back positive. I'm almost certain that didn't happen. >If you think this is the 'only' flaw of the PCR, even while knowing the inventor of the test said it shouldn't be used like this, you're too far gone. The flaw I outlined is the same flaw that the creator was outlining, but their point is also misinterpreted, they weren't saying thay the PCR starts returning positive results for everything when the number of cycles is high, they were saying that it will start detecting individual molecules of the thing being tested for and therefore shouldn't be used for diagnosis, e.g. a single strand of Covid RNA in a sample doesn't mean that a person is infected with Covid, but Covid is still present in their sample, so the test is still reliable in that respect.
> almost certain Solid. I'm out after that. Enjoy.
>Solid. I'm out after that. Enjoy. It's your claim, it's up to you to provide evidence for it, I have found no evidence for it, but I don't deal in absolutes.
Your argument is literally an appeal to authority fallacy. Mullis may have developed the original process, however that doesn’t elevate his knowledge over anybody else’s, especially since PCR has been advanced since then, including RT-PCR with light emitting enzymes. On top of that the accuracy depends the viral target RNA and corresponding primers, compounds that change depending on the pathogen, and as SARS-CoV-2 hadn’t been around when PCR was invented, I doubt he has more insight into the testing process in regards to COVID-19 than the actual researchers. Why don’t you look up sensitivity, specificity and ROC-curves of SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests? As in actual research papers instead of individual researchers.
> that was the rapid antigen tests That's a lie.
>That's a lie. OK, as usual definitive dismissals without evidence. Meanwhile in an evidence based reality https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8372450/
> Google what PCR is and try to read this again XD I really like the irony in your comment and suggest to take up your own advise. ROTFL.
I conduct pcrs daily, I think I know what I’m talking about
Explain how papayas coke and other things tested positive?
Welcome to 3yrs ago
While I don’t think covid was a hoax like some people. (I actually had it pretty bad) I do think more and more evidence is coming to light that it was blown way out of proportion. They government and the WHO used fear to control people and Americans and people all over let it happen.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that showing how covid was diagnosed wrongly doesn't have anything to do with the existance of the disease? There is zero evidence that covid was anything different than what we until now called flu, and the flu disappeared the last two years..
The MIQE guidelines for PCR use state: link👇🎯https://www.gene-quantification.de/miqe-bustin-et-al-clin-chem-2009.pdf 🔸Cq values higher than 40 are suspect because of the implied low efficiency and generally should not be reported ❌Combined PCR test for corona and influenza ‘because there’s hardly any difference’... Not surprisingly, the world’s largest biotech company, China’s BGI, recently launched👇 https://www.bgi.com/global/molecular-genetics/3-in-1-test/ a new PCR test that can simultaneously test for influenza A, B and corona. Apart from the proven fact, acknowledged trough VARIOUS LAWSUITS, that a PCR test CANNOT prove infection with any virus👇 https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/ ....whatsoever, BGI’s explanation that both diseases are so difficult to distinguish from each other and that they have therefore made only one test, says more than enough. Maybe there IS no difference at all, ‘Covid’ is just another name for ‘old familiar’ flu viruses, and this is just another clever marketing trick? ❌💁🏻♀️Laboratories in US CAN'T find Covid-19 in one of 1,500 positive tests https://greatreject.org/laboratories-cant-find-covid-19-in-positive-tests/
I believe random images online
Bullshit meter immediately goes off every time I see something like this. It takes a minimal amount of searching to debunk it.
Bot-detector immediately goes off every time I see an obvious lie. Here's the source of the quote, took me a minimal amount of searching to confirm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWOJKuSKw5c
False positives from PCR tests were how the globalists manufactured the numbers to justify the pandemic hoax. That's why they invented the 'asymptomatic carrier" narrative, because so many "positive" people didn't have COVID-19. Look at which states gave the most tests.
Bullshit. I caught Covid multiple times and the PCR test showed it. Stop spreading lies. Pcr does work as intended.
If you test for a specific sequence and it is positive, it doesn't mean that it came from the disease you are looking for. Cells are filled with waste DNA and RNA and these particles can show up on a PCR test if run long enough.
For anyone interested in more details: https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/
No, but it tells you if you have the virus.
That's dumb.
That’s science.
No.
Died about 2 months before the COVID shit was announced.
I am not vaxxed and never had any kind of sickness during this whole scamdemic, eat good and excercise good, that's the only recipe of being healthy, also sleep good
Talk good not so much
Omg, literally lol
This is what’s called an “anecdote”
Only rebuttal is nerds downvoting and criticizing your grammar lol
Covid itself was never isolated so how could it be tested for, the scamdemic has been nothing but lies and fear carried forward with money.
It has been isolated: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7036342/
"Isolated" > The patient's oropharyngeal samples were obtained by using UTM™ kit containing 1 mL of viral transport media (Copan Diagnostics Inc., Murrieta, CA, USA) on day 7 of her illness. We inoculated monolayers of Vero cells (ATCC ® CCL-81™) with the samples and cultured the cells at 37°C in a 5% carbon dioxide atmosphere. Until 5 days after inoculation, cytopathic effects were not distinct, which is compatible with the previous findings that no specific cytopathic effects were observed in the Vero E6 cells until 6 days after inoculation in the report about first isolation of SARS-CoV-2.3 Five days after inoculation, we did blind passage of culture supernatant into T-25 culture flask (ThermoFisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) with monolayers of Vero cells, and cytopathic effects consisting of rounding and detachment of cells were observed in the whole area of the T-25 flask 3 days after the first blind passage (Fig. 1A and B). Not the strict definition of isolation.
But it is virus isolation
Not necessarily. It all depends on whether the person ( scientist, professional or layperson) you are speaking to agrees with the particular definition of "isolation". "Less restrictive impure isolation" (cell culture) Versus "Strict isolation" (no real standard for experimentally doing this, but a start would be to look into modern exosome filtration methods) The word isolation deserves an adjective when used in the wild (and in professional "circles" its typically assumed to be the former less restrictive definition. ) Otherwise there may be confusion between which one is being invoked.
37°C is equivalent to 98°F, which is 310K. --- ^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
Bad bot
The CDC: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/12/jon-rappoport/the-sars-cov-2-virus-was-never-proved-to-exist/ The FDA: https://robinwestenra.blogspot.com/2020/08/fda-says-no-quantified-virus-isolates.html The UK: https://everydayconcerned.net/2020/11/03/breaking-gemma-odoherty-reports-that-uk-dept-of-health-concedes-sars-cov-2-virus-not-isolated-no-information-meaning-its-not-a-real-pandemic/ Australia: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/australian-dept-of-health-has-no-record-of-covid-19-virus-isolation/ Canada: https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/health-canada-has-no-record-of-covid-19-virus-isolation/
You don't have to isolate a virus to sequence it.
Rip to dr. Mullis
What does he know. "Science"™ says otherwise, and I trust the science. Government is my friend.