Is Polymerase Chain Reaction a diagnostics instrument?

no. that wasn't anything to do with the gold standard.

they ran 40 cycles to get false positives.

Sorry, I think I misunderstood you original comment.

in college, doing undergrad stuff we call it Probably Contaminated Reaction.

yes it’s diagnostic but you gotta be good and careful. it certainly isnt good for what the fauci brigade uses it for.

of course they perverted and manipulated it for false positives

with 40 cycles you could test pos for being a newt.

Last Edited by MCX on 03/18/2022 06:31 PM

The PCR test also doesn't tell you whether or not you are currently infected with the virus. It can multiply inert pieces of any coof as easily as live strains of the virus.

The WHO stated that a positive test is useless without the appearance of symptoms and confirmation via blood test. I doubt that most of the reported numbers were subjected to this degree of rigour.

It can diagnose if you are the daddy or if you were at the murder scene. That is about the best it can do.

Yes that is true. It depends on diagnostic for *what*.

It is *not* diagnostic for providing an active acute infection.

It *is* diagnostic for showing their is a specific unique signature of RNA or DNA that matches that exact sequence. It's nearly 99% specific.

Look, how many people do you know who test weekly and have negative, negative, negative and then get a positive at the same time they have the unique Covid symptoms (loss of taste/smell, headache, extreme fatigue), etc.

It happened to Trump, much of his cabinet and circle.
It happened to people we all know, every day.

There's also the factor that it is diagnostic when you test sick people, when you test healthy people - the false positive rate is high enough to generate a skewed percentage of positive/false positive ; therefore there is a consideration that it may be best not to blanket test everyone repeatedly - because there will be people who get false positives in large enough numbers when you test everyone all the time.

I used to get saliva drug tests and they used the PCR method

I'd tend to agree, except with virus in '' ''

I'd be curious to know the scientific intricacies of this process

The guy that invented it says no ... So I'll pick no fucking way for $500 alex

[link to twitter.com (secure)]

The Facebook people are smarter than the ' yes' people

No it amplifies exact matches. So if you have a small amount of dead RNA it will replicate it and test positive. The specificity (how accurate it is) is always close to 99%.

a Quantitative Real-Time PCR can give more data and infer viral load (qRT-PCR).


Quotes from Kary on PCR and Fauci:

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

"PCR if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anyone"

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Here's a fact check on the subject, which got most right except they couldn't seem to find the "anything in anyone" quote which I posted as video


[link to fullfact.org (secure)]

That's not exactly what he said. I posted the full link.
It's about proper use and interpretation.

Exact matches? Are you sure? (Might be a silly question, but seems odd to me that there would be no degradation)

Maybe i'll check the fact check later, not too keen on those sites after seeing so much propaganda on them.

YT links fixed
RIP Kary

Last Edited by We Are Slaves on 03/18/2022 08:52 PM

PCR is an amplifier, not to be used to diagnose illness per the inventor.

Since the creation of PCR, Mullis says that it can’t be used for diagnostics. It’s simply a process to amplify nucleotides to create a sample large enough to study. An organic entity might have 40000 base pairs of nucleotides, while a sample from PCR might contain 40 base pairs of nucleotides. Simply put, we don’t know enough about DNA to associate a small amount of base pairs to an organism. In other words, base pairs of the nucleotides will not represent one certain organism, but they can be present in all living things. DNA is still a mystery, even though scientists who have studied in the field of DNA analysis have determined their own truths. The study of DNA is still evolving, just as the universe is too large externally to comprehend, so is the study of DNA as this is an ever expanding universe internally.

No.
It is merely a chemistry procedure to amplify (multiply)
the numbers of DNA strands in a study sample, in
order to make it easier to handle the sample for study in the lab.

If you factor in that PCR has been used to produce DNA from the so called “memory of water”, it can be certainly said that the PCR can’t be used as a diagnostic tool.

No it’s a bread spread

We live in Hawaii, at least for two more months- we're moving to TX. Why is my current state important information, because my stupid state makes one test, if not vaxxed, to come I to the state to avoid mandatory quarantine.

We've spent the last week between FL & TX looking at universities that our son was accepted to to help him make a decision.

We had our COVID tests to go home, but our daughter tested positive. We all actually had COVID last month as confirmed by COVID tests; we all tested positive on 21 Feb. We tested because I have to test for work since I'm not vaxxed. I was positive and we had the whe family tested since the kids also need testing for public school sports.

Bottom line, the PCR is a shitty diagnostic tool. Even the CDC doesn't recommend testing within 90 days of a positive test due to possible false positives with the PCR post infection. Then again Hawaii has the lowest IQs in the nation...look it up.

<sarcasm >guess we just didn't get our daughter's test back on time from Walgreens as we process back to Hawaii.
</sarcasm >

That said, she's going to school Monday. The state can nope A1 Steak Sauce soaked balls.

Last Edited by DevilDog1775 on 03/18/2022 10:35 PM

its a Midi-chlorian test to find the one with the force

To the twit who gave me red, i don't come from fakebook, i use it for counter-propaganda...GLP is where it's at

Yes you can get copy errors which is one reason it is 99% specific and not 100% specific and 80% sensitive.

Here's a technical article on PCR copy errors.

A QUANTITATIVE MODEL OF ERROR ACCUMULATION DURING PCR AMPLIFICATION

[link to www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (secure)]

The bottom line though is PCR is the sequence of RNA they are searching for is large enough that it will not misidentify other sequences in the body. If that were the case everyone would test positive and not test negative->negative->negative-***SICK***-positive.

PCR will not misidentify influenza and Covid because they are completely totally different viruses and no amount of PCR error copies would ever get anywhere like that.

PCR may amplify 'dead' virus - therefore a person may be recovered, or be fighting it off naturally and not be symptomatic or contagious yet may still post a positive.

I posted the fact-check link along with others; because as much as some fact-check sites are misleading the best way to understand what is going on is to look at *all* sides and make an informed decision.

I understand how PCR actually works and what proper use, mis-use and overall context of how to interpret results.

Here is the *best* way to understand the mathematics of false positives:

"In the diagnostic example, for every 10,000 individuals there will be 1000 infected and 9000 uninfected persons. Of the infected persons, 950 will be detected by the test (true positives) and 50 will be missed (false negatives). For the 9000 uninfected people, 8820 will correctly have negative tests (true negatives) and 180 will be positive (false positive). The positive predictive value (PPV) is the proportion of all positive tests that are true positives, in this case 950/(950 + 180) or 84%. Thus, most of the positive tests are true positives."

When you test everyone, routinely there *will* be some false positives. As long as we are in the pre-endemic and transitioning to endemic phase ; that is ok. Eventually when we are fully endemic (probably after Q1 2023) we should only test sick people.

Even now - home test is probably enough for screening and PCR should be used to confirm if someone is sick.

I know someone that just tested positive on home test and the PCR actually confirmed it was negative and she did *not* have Covid.

[link to journals.lww.com (secure)]

Last Edited by chrion777 on 03/19/2022 08:06 PM

I have a big problem considering something this fallible a diagnostic tool

Last Edited by We Are Slaves on 03/20/2022 01:32 AM

The example attempts to make a demonstration for an assumed 'infection' rate of 10% (which may not be viral), a pretty hard number to maintain. With a low 'infection' rate, it's worthless and dangerous (misinfo) to use PCR imo

It's used in whatever field you need to produce a fake predetermined result especially in over diagnosis systems where they scam people in fake free diagnosis to then get out thousands of dollars in fake therapies or unnecessary surgeries.