Request for information from anons educated in PCR test.
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
My wife is required to submit to weekly testing for the coof. I asked the testing facility what Cycle Threshold they use for their tests. Here is the response:
**Our test does not use cycle thresholds (Ct). Ct is used for a qPCR test method, whereas we perform rRT-PCR. Our detection is given by flourescently tagged molecules that generate Median Fluorescent Intensity (MFI) based on the viral load of the collected sample. We test for multiple genes within the SARS-CoV-2 genome and have a different threshold for each. I hope that answers your question. **
I 'think' I understand but perhaps there is an anon in here that can give a brief explanation regarding accuracy etc.
All PCR uses cycles. rRT-PCR cycles until it finds something or it washes out (no signal from background noise).
This is a brief description of rRT-PCR
So in this case the Ct is wherever they get the signal strength they are looking for. It is difficult to imagine the number of false positives from this method.
From this report on problems with rRT-PCR from last year:
So its basically useless. They go on to say:
So its useful for making sure if you have disease symptoms that you have a certain virus, or a related virus, depending on the probes used since it should show up at a very low cycle threshold.
What does it mean "related virus?" Here's an example; doing a PCR with the a probe for the N-protein of SARS might find H1N1, since the sequence is similar enough that if you cycle it high enough you will likely get H1N1 regardless (since they both have similar N-proteins). You also might get a cold virus for the same reason. You also might get a bacteria that has incorporated a similar protein, or a cell in your own body that did the same last time you got a cold, etc. That is why Ct is so important here, and why rRT-PCR is so ridiculous since the Ct is basically "whatever it takes to get a signal until we are 100% sure there isn't one".
The fact that they look at multiple sequences should help reduce false positives, but without looking at the protocol and mapping the probes to all viral, human, and bacterial genomes there is no way to know how accurate it might be.
Of course, the problem with this is: Just because there might have been more of the "target DNA" in the sample, does not mean this has anything to do with making a person sick. The idea that one causes the other is a GUESS.
I disagree with this entire line of thinking. There is substantial evidence that damage from a virus causes sickness. You can see it when a cell is infected and lyses due to viral damage from replication and cell wall destruction.
This is imo the same misinformation as the "Koch's principles" argument of isolation, that says if it isn't completely isolated it can't be tested. That is simply not true from a biological standpoint. I have done many tests on cellular isolates done using the same fractionation techniques and subsequent whole genome sequencing. I haven't done it on viruses that I can remember, but I have done it many times for other cell fractions, such as specific organelles or looking for specific proteins or RNA in certain fractions, etc.. Imo the whole "Koch's principles" argument is controlled opposition disinformation, designed to make arguments against the SARS narrative look weak.
While there may not be a direct correlation between viral load and disease severity, there is a likely correlation (even if not perfect) between viral load and being sick at all.
I disagree. I want proof, not probabilities that are hypothetical. In vitro does not necessarily match up with in vivo.
We could start by doing autopsies of people who died "with Covid" or "of Covid" and see what we find. But that is not possible because, unlike most normal situations, the NIH/CDC declared that no autopsies should be done.
Transparency, not obfuscation, should be the rule of the day.
Proof is a decision. It says, "This evidence meets a standard sufficient for me as proof." That is fine if the evidence is insufficient for you. I have done too many similar experiments and have read and analyzed too many reports on experiments on SARS-CoV-2 to think it has not been sufficiently isolated for all the requirements of doing experiments on it, getting the RNA code, etc.. It meets my experiential evidence requirements having done the same experiments myself numerous times.
All biology, indeed every single field of scientific study, or even the larger scope of debate is based on probabilities. There is nothing that is certain. "Eye witness accounts" in court can vary wildly because whatever the truth is, it filters through the beliefs of the observer. All measurements have an element of uncertainty. Analyses on those measurements can increase the uncertainty due to injection of dogma (bias) by the analyst. Variables can be hidden in "common sense" (incorrectly applied axioms) for example.
That is why discernment is necessary. In my discernment and experience, I think that the reports that have been done, and the experiments that have been done on the virus are sufficient to meet the requisite standard of proof for me. If there is ever any evidence to the contrary I will be happy to look at it. All evidence that has been presented to me so far does not survive the first round of debate.
This is true, but there is no evidence that it does not match up, therefore imo to assume that it is different in this case, without evidential support, is an injection of desire, and not a "reasonable doubt."
As for the rest, I agree 100%. I too would like to see autopsies. I too demand transparency (though no one but the choir listens to that demand).
Kary Mullis said that was bogus, too. He said that not 1 in 10,000 doctors even knows what a Western Blot Test is, much less what it does or what a result means.
Yes. Doctors know shit about experimental biology (or biology at all at the molecular or cellular level). I am writing a report that includes a section on the Rockefeller takeover of medicine and education. It's really quite revealing on exactly how it is we are in the state we are in with regards to medicine and doctors.
Yes, the same is true of law schools, and which universities, departments, and professors gets grants for a variety of subjects (such as journalism), etc. Almost like somebody is ... conspiring ... or something.
Can you point to evidence of Rockefeller influence on Law schools? I have a lot on medical schools, general education, grants, biology research, but none on the law schools.
Any specifics on journalism grants would also be very helpful.
So, they are using cycles, but they are not claiming that they have a specific threshold number of cycles at which they will stop the cycles. They just keep going, based on the dye colors they see.
Right?
Exactly. It is just a matter of changing the "florescent strength" they claim is relevant -- but without any scientific basis for the claim.
It could be yes. That is the criticism. Without seeing their protocol there is no way to know for sure, but I think this is likely.
Yes, it is a method that is ripe for abuse, even unintentionally. If one is told to "err on the side of caution" the number of false positives is incalculable. Imo you are probably better off flipping a coin to see if you have covid.