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 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.