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. 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?