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.
I am not an expert, but I think they are blowing smoke up your ass. Here is an explanation of differences in testing procedures:
https://www.enzolifesciences.com/science-center/technotes/2017/march/what-are-the-differences-between-pcr-rt-pcr-qpcr-and-rt-qpcr?/
My understanding is this: The original PCR methodology was used on DNA, since that is what Mullis was using it for. Over time, somebody came up with a method to take RNA material and supposedly "reverse it" back into DNA. Once they do that, they call it cDNA, but the PCR process from there is the same.
The tagged molecules are used in both cases, when someone is (fraudulently) attempting to use it for "diagnosis." Remember, Mullis said PCR canNOT be used to diagnose. So, what they are doing is using PCR to amplify (i.e. multiply) the amount of material, and then from there, adding to that a technique where they CLAIM that if the flourescent activity is "high enough" then they will conclude "positive" for the test.
But it is a SCAM. The problem is, at this point there are multiple mixed issues that need to be unraveled in order to see the scam.
Multiple problems:
Also note: They cannot perform a medical procedure on you UNLESS they get fully informed consent from you (or in this case, from your wife), and they can only do that if they provide FULL INFORMATION. So, asking questions until you get complete answers that you can reasonably understand is your right, and they cannot coerce you into doing the procedure without informed consent.
My response would be something like this:
Thank you for your response. However, your response has raised more questions. Please provide me with the following information:
You state, "Our detection is ... based on the viral load of the collected sample." How is the viral load obtained, upon which you perform your detection? Do you take a nasal swab and only use that material? Or, do you perform some additional process that increases (amplifies or multiples) the amount of material you have available upon which you can perform your method?
You state that you "... have a different threshold for each [genome]." What do you mean by the word "threshold" if, as you stated, you do not use cycle thresholds? How are these thresholds determined? What scientific studies are these thresholds based on?
It is my understanding that PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) is a mechanical process used to multiply ("amplify") a sample of material into more of that material, so that it can be used for various research. The inventor of the technique, Dr. Kary Mullis, stated, "It can make a whole lot of something out of a little bit of something, but it cannot tell you if what you started with can make you sick." He invented the PCR method. He should know what it is, what it does, and what it cannot do. It is my understanding that RT-PCR is the same or a variation of this same technique, but starting with RNA rather than DNA. How does your technique differ, fundamentally, from the original PCR methodology that Dr. Mullis invented?
How do you determine a "positive" or "negative" diagnosis or other outcome in your results, once you have completed your procedure on a sample? Please provide me with any scientific studies that show that such a diagnosis is scientifically valid.
Please provide me with a list of the specific gene sequences you utilize in your testing and/or procedures.
Are any of these gene sequences RNA fragments?
Are any of these gene sequences identical to any human chromosome genes or RNA?
As I am sure you are well aware, I must be provided with full information about a medical procedure in order to give my informed consent to that procedure. No medical procedure can be mandated without informed consent.
Thank you for your prompt response to my questions.
“I am not an expert…” and then proceeds to provide expert testimony. Outstanding, fren. You must be tremendous on matters where you are an expert!
Sounds like its just a qualitative PCR test. Why not simply do an antigen if all youre looking for is whether the virus exists or not?
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).
Two thoughts:
The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive.
I'm not so interested in watching the shadows on Plato's cave; I want to see the real thing.
I hate this statement. It is always a cop out. The burden of proof in the search for the truth is on all who seek it. In this case there is substantial evidence of something happening. In vitro translates to in vivo between "somewhat" to "very well" in most cases. To assume it does not in this case, without any supporting evidence, is to me an injection of desire, a bias. Even if it is an injection of bias that doesn't make your assertion untrue or my assertion true. I have no idea what the truth is, and I don't think anyone else does either. But it is imo unreasonable because there is no evidence to support it, and there is substantial evidence to support the opposite conclusion, even if you believe the evidence that does exist doesn't meet your particular demands of proof (which I do not blame you for, even if I disagree).
The moment a person speaks it is a narrative. The "truth" (the real meaning of that word) can't be described at all, by anyone, ever because the moment anyone tries, they are filtering it through their matrix, their belief system. It's all shadows on the cave wall as soon as it is filtered through a person. Just sometimes the shadows descriptions more closely align with the truth than others.
First off, I don't hate you. Just sayin' because my comments are intended with the intention of good debate. I see your comments the same, and I just want to put this out there, since we are communicating only online, not in person.
So ...
"The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive" goes back to Aristotle. You can't prove a negative. This is an important fundamental of logic because the human mind can come up with all sorts of theoritical ideas (square circle, pink unicorns). We don't need to waste our time on every concept someone could dream up with their fertile imagination. If someone wants to claim that SARS-CoV-2 exists and is the thing causing people to be sick, then I want to see PROOF.
What we have instead are derivatives of derivatives, masquerading as some sort of proof. Prove that the virus can be inserted into an animal and cause it to be sick, then we can talk. Nobody on your side of this debate seems to have even thought of doing such a thing. Seems odd to me. Seems like one of the first things you do. In fact, that is what animal trials for the vaxx were all about. But nobody thought to do it for the virus itself. Very odd. Until this happens, it is all hypothesis.
The burden of proof is on those on your side making the claims -- and providing the justification for a tyrannical takeover. This is not a small issue. What if you are wrong?
There have been plenty of in vitro experiments that did not pan out in vivo. Moderna has tried for years to create a coronavirus vaccine, and never been able to accomplish it. I assume (have not specifically researched it) that they have had plenty of in vitro evidence that cell cultures showed some sort of promise. They used that to go in vivo in animals, and all the animals died.
That is evidence that can't just be ignored or dismissed out-of-hand.
That is a profound statement. We are not talking about philosophical ideas, such as what is the meaning of life. We are talking about science -- or at least, we are supposed to be talking about science. That means the Scientific Method. Hypothesis > Experiment > Observation > Conclusion > Reconsider Hypothesis.
You are basically saying that this has not been done. I agree. Our difference is that you seem to think that is OK and I do not.
Upthread, you said:
That is NOT the Scientific Method. Your statement is purely subjective. The Scientific Method is NOT subjective. It is entirely objective.
"Proof" is determined when ALL of the evidence supports ONE hypothesis, and NONE of it refutes the hypothesis, AND multiple individuals have been able to reproduce the experiments that show these results.
This is NOT what has happened with SARS-CoV-2, or the "vaccines." In fact, Pfizer had been unwilling to release all raw data so that others could verify.
That is a BIG problem.
"Isolated" has been bastardized to mean "taken from one individual." But it is still mixed in with kidney cells or other material. That is NOT isolated in any meaningful sense.
You have never taken DNA or even RNA directly from SARS-CoV-2. Never. Nobody has.
You may have taken material from a mix of things, but never from this virus itself.
It must be isolated and purified of ANYTHING ELSE to do so, and nobody has done that.
This is WHY the vaxx makers have not taken dead virus samples for their so-called vaccines. They can't.
The mRNA concept is NOT PROVEN, but is a great setup to future claims of "vaccines" that will supposedly solve all sorts of problems.
ALL mRNA experiments in the past, no matter what the in vitro experiments showed ... KILLED ALL THE ANIMALS ... when they went in vivo.
Why do you ignore that?
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.
I don't have specific references, just information I've picked up from various sources.
There was a change in the law school curriculum sometime around the 1920's - 1930's. They have a specific name for the change, but I don't remember off hand.
Today, the way I would describe it (to my layman's understanding) is that they teach there is no such thing as right/wrong or even so much as justice. The words are sometimes used, but the ideas behind them are not considered.
They will discuss a court case in class. Prof will say, "If you were defending Roe, how would you argue it?" Once the student comes up with an answer, the prof will say, "OK, if you were defending Wade, how would you defend it?"
There is no consderation for which side might be right or wrong, morality, ethics, or even common sense. They also rarely discuss constitutional principles, which is really talking about fundamental rights.
The end result of this is that law school students come out with the idea that it there is no such thing as right or wrong, or that justice should be an end goal. Instead, they only seek to find the "angle" or the "tactical advantage" to win the case. Winning at all cost is the name of the game.
This difference results in a massive shift in what happens in the law. The judges and politicians come from the law schools, and they don't think about right, wrong, morality, natural rights, etc.
These are useful thoughts. They give me ideas on where to look. Thank you.
I think the change that happened was that they no longer taught the other systems of law (Natural Law, Common Law, etc.) and focused solely on Statutory Law. This aligns with the rest of what you said. I will look into when that change happened. Maybe I can trace it back to the Rockefellers from there.
BTW, Slyver --
Have you read through this info on this topic?
https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/07/19/the-scam-has-been-confirmed-pcr-does-not-detect-sars-cov-2-but-endogenous-gene-sequences/
Would like to know your feedback.
I don't have time atm, but I will read it later.
I have been meaning to do a deep dive into the primers and how they might match with other organisms or viruses (H1N1, other coronaviruses, etc.). I know that the N-proteins that some of the PRC tests look at (per the CDC guidelines) are almost the same size across the board of these related RNA viruses. Close enough that on a gel they will easily be confused, especially when one "errs on the side of caution." The same errors would occur with the rRT-PCR if the primers were close enough and the cycling high enough. If there is a close enough primer match with some of these other viruses it could be a smoking gun. I haven't seen anyone else do that analysis.
I think you will find the article interesting. I realize it takes more than 30 seconds to get through it. ;-)
Catch you later.
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.
It's bullshit.
PCR = multiplying DNA
RT-PCR = multiplying RNA
qRNA = RT-PCR + dye so you can watch it happen as it goes on.
https://www.enzolifesciences.com/science-center/technotes/2017/march/what-are-the-differences-between-pcr-rt-pcr-qpcr-and-rt-qpcr?/
I'd like some info on this too. My wife is a CNA and she had a fake ass test and got a fake ass positive test and how to shoot this garbage down would be super helpful. Now, because of this fake ass test, her nursing home locks down all those poor elderly for another like 3 months or something. This is stupid.
I am certified molecular technologist, I perform rRT-PCR,
They danced around your question, I have seen a test that is <40 Ct cutoff for SARS and <38 Ct cutoff for Internal control
All these tests should test multiple gene targets, and each may have a predetermined (supposedly through validation processes) to be acceptable Ct for that gene,
The <40 act is a pretty iron clad rule as the upper limit just do to the nature of the reaction which involves multiple cycles of heating and cooling so each time the machine heats and cools the reaction plate that is one cycle and this occurs repeatedly over many cycles like 45 cycles for example
The threshold for each test is actually kind of an arbitrary value that is set independently in the analysis process, it’s supposed to be determined by comparing the negative controls to the patient samples, this establishes a line or threshold
When a gene target is present in sample this causes amplification or copying of the dna in the sample and this increases fluoresce which the machines detect
So where does cycle threshold come from? It’s the cycle at which point the fluorescent signal from a target in a sample crosses the threshold this is generally represented by an exponential increase in signal
Graphically exponential increases can be thought of as a vertical line so raising the threshold shouldn’t alter Ct of a true strong amplification signal
The issue is when you have poor or weak signals that raising or lowering the threshold can have a drastic effect
Additionally the process of heating and cooling over repetitive cycles is highly stressful on the enzymes that perform the reactions, eventually they make mistakes and you get amplification of molecules that are not true signals and this is where raising the Ct as the WHO and CDC demanded causes issues because after 40 it’s likely background signal but it can be made to cross the threshold so it’s being counted as a positive because they raised the cutoff on whats an acceptable value range
So in summary she told you part truths and danced around the question which was what their ct testing cut off is for each gene target
You should follow up and ask:
If you know where they got accredited from Then if they give you a hard time say you’re going to report them to CLIA, COLA, or CAP or whatever company handled their accreditation say you’re going to file a complaint and report because you do not feel confident they are keeping up with the LAW: CLIA
And if they answer your questions it’ll probably at least at face value appear to be ok, it’s not hard to lie and give acceptable ranges even if they don’t use them...
good luck hope i was able to help in some way
Pcr doesn't find covid its a waste of time.
Cdc already told them to stop using it but will allow it until December. Why? Because Americans are morons and can't critically come to the conclusion if there is no test there has never been a positive covid test result. All made up. So there u have it.
They will multiply the genetic material by heating and cooling for multiple cycles until they get a positive result is what it sounds like. They should report that number, but they don’t seem to want to.
Can't say it better than this: http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-rt-pcr-and-qpcr/
Reverse Transcription PCR (RT-PCR) versus Real Time PCR (qPCR).
Other things you need to check for are the actual protocol that is being used. There are many protocols that used a mix of influenza, human cells, and a sample thought to include COVID19. These tests are the exact ones that the CDC is trying to phase out but is still allowing until December - meaning that false positives have been rampant because the test is picking up almost anything without even discussing the cycle threshold issue.
1.QPCR and RT-PCR are both terms used in biotechnology and utilized for the production of multiple copies of DNA. 2.RT-PCR is used to amplify the reversed transcription of the DNA code; QPCR measures the amplification. 3.RT-PCR is for amplification, while qPCR is for quantification. 4.QPCR is quantitative in nature, while RT-PCR is not.
Ask for the threshold used to test for each gene. They gave you no reason to trust the accuracy of their test.
They both use cycles. They are trying to "gobbledygook" you.
"The first step of RT-PCR is the synthesis of a DNA/RNA hybrid. [...] The efficiency of the first-strand reaction can affect the amplification process. From here on, the standard PCR procedure is used to amplify the cDNA." https://www.enzolifesciences.com/science-center/technotes/2017/march/what-are-the-differences-between-pcr-rt-pcr-qpcr-and-rt-qpcr?/
"The Ct value is defined as the number of cycles of amplification (using rRT-PCR) required for the fluorescence of a PCR product (i.e. the target/amplicon) to be detected crossing a threshold, which is above the background signal (a low level signal that is present in the assay regardless of whether target is present). When rRT-PCR is performed, a predetermined number of cycles (rounds) of amplification of target (e.g. SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid occur. If target is present in the specimen then each round of amplification results in a doubling of the amount of target present. As a result, amplification occurs exponentially, producing an exponential curve of amplification" https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/main/2020/09/cycle-threshold-values-sars-cov2-pcr.pdf?la=en&sc_lang=en&hash=A11E2007A9FA1383556DEF1DBF0F68AB
You can't trust ANY OF THE 409 (+ or -) tests. There are numerous biologic entities/companies making tons of $$$$. This link demonstrates the complete absurdity of testing. JUST SAY NO to testing, no matter the outcome, because it is the safest thing to do and it just might save your life. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19-emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics-euas
I know there is an instant PCR test and a lab test. They may be talking about the instant test, I have heard there are more false negatives with the instant, which isn't a bad thing if you think the lab test has more false positives.
Genetic test. It's illegal to discriminate based on results from a genetic test.
rRT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2: Analytical considerations
“The amplification curves are important to determine exact baseline and threshold. RRT-PCR results for positive COVID-19 should have a CT less than 40, and the results more than 40 should be considered as negative result. Samples with a CT values of 37–40 must be re-sampled.“
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33485902/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7826022/pdf/main.pdf
I'm still stuck back at "we don't have the genetic sequence of sars-cov-2" I haven't be able to find it. No sequence, no primers* for a PCR test. Last I read, CDC has proprietary primers for the PCR test, and they're not telling us what they are. EVERYONE who is running the PCR test has to get the priming agents from CDC (no conflict of interest there - kek) So not only were the (40) PCR cycles too high, we don't actually know what the primers are finding in the sample.
We always ran a positive control, and two negative controls: pure water source, and reagents only without sample. If you run those controls, you will see artificial ghosting/false positive. (research and development background, not clinical). I'm thinking the primers probably were designed to pick up any of the 7 common corona viruses...and possibly some influenza stuff too. Who knows? Only the crooks at CDC. This whole mess has been planned/executed with high level military precision by evil satanists IMO. So yes, the 'new' tests are probably bogus too. SHOW US THE PRIMERS so we can find what they attach to!!!
*Note: PCR test requires two primers to attach to (both ends of) a very specific region of the DNA. designing primers is not always simple thing. They must be exact, and only target a unique piece of the organism and not match up with other stuff floating in the sample.
Wow! Thank you pedes!! You are all such an important resource. I am proud to be a member of this community.
The RT PCR test was revoked by the FDA - Why? It cannot tell the difference between influenza/ covid and the common cold. Although they revoked its use, they are allowing it to be used until Dec 31,2021. The real question is what is on the end of the swab they are collecting your sample with? If it is EO or Ethylene oxide - that is certainly not something you want to keep repeating.
Pcr test smashes shit and looks for fragmented RNA. The new one you're describing seems to actually look for covid.
People keep saying it hasn't been isolated, but they're misinformed and never bothered to read the articles (and the sources) claiming as much.
Duckduckgo it, you can find the CDC or NIH website for researchers to request the virus for testing.
People are fucking retarded and REFUSE to think
A petri dish of viral soup and growth medium is NOT an isolated sample.
and Every. Single. "Photo" of it is computed-generated. Why don't YOU think?
That is not correct. Nobody has isolated AND purified it so that SARS-CoV-2 is the ONLY thing being looked at. All those so-called "isloated" samples are called isolated because they come from one patient, but they are mixed in with kidney cells and other material that are not SARS-CoV-2. So, there is no way to say you ONLY have the virus to look at. That is the point of "isolated AND purified."
You want to separate it from everything else so that you are ONLY looking at and analyzing SARS-CoV-2, and nothing else. This has NEVER been done. Therefore, there is NO WAY to know that what you are analyzing is the virus versus the other things mixed in with it.
Then how did they make a vaccine for it Mr. Smarty Pants! /s