Kary Mullis inventor of PCR test - Covid19 false positives

[surfdesigner]

https://youtu.be/-y5cjyitnoo

Depending on how PCR amplification is configured, it can find any molecule in anyone.

[Scota4570]

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/pcr-positives-what-do-they-mean/

Here is a better explanation of PCR for covid. They say that PCR is a very sensitive screening test that needs to be confirmed. Also that a person will be PCR positive long after they recover and are not able to spread the infection.

[sd_shooter]

https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/pcr-po...-do-they-mean/

Here is a better explanation of PCR for covid. They say that PCR is a very sensitive screening test that needs to be confirmed. Also that a person will be PCR positive long after they recover and are not able to spread the infection.

Take a PCR test daily for the next few weeks after having covid and you'll generate 20 new 'cases'

[surfdesigner]

http://youtu.be/a_Vy6fgaBPE

Dr. Faux-ci himself stating 35 cycles or more will lead to a false positive. FDA runs 40 PCR cycles.

“…If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…it’s just dead nucleoids, period.”

Each “cycle” of the test is a quantum leap in amplification and magnification of the test specimen taken from the patient.

Too many cycles, and the test will turn up all sorts of irrelevant material that will be wrongly interpreted as relevant.

That’s called a false positive.

What Fauci failed to say on the video is: the FDA, which authorizes the test for public use, recommends the test should be run up to 40 cycles.

[duenor]

http://youtu.be/a_Vy6fgaBPE

Dr. Faux-ci himself stating 35 cycles or more will lead to a false positive. FDA runs 40 PCR cycles.

“…If you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more…the chances of it being replication-competent are miniscule…you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle…even 36…it’s just dead nucleoids, period.”

Each “cycle” of the test is a quantum leap in amplification and magnification of the test specimen taken from the patient.

Too many cycles, and the test will turn up all sorts of irrelevant material that will be wrongly interpreted as relevant.

That’s called a false positive.

What Fauci failed to say on the video is: the FDA, which authorizes the test for public use, recommends the test should be run up to 40 cycles.

You're spreading misinformation, based on a poor understanding of how it works or a desire to doubt the pretty crummy situation that we've in. As with any test, the PCR can have weaknesses under certain circumstances. However, a sample from someone who has never been infected is not going to suddenly "turn positive" even if you run it 100 times.

[five.five-six]

You're spreading misinformation, based on a poor understanding of how it works or a desire to doubt the pretty crummy situation that we've in. As with any test, the PCR can have weaknesses under certain circumstances. However, a sample from someone who has never been infected is not going to suddenly "turn positive" even if you run it 100 times.

You obviously dont understand how PCR amplification works.

[surfdesigner]

I design PCR machines for a living so I understand very well how they work.

PCR can isolate a small number of infected cells and multiply them exponentially through a process of raising/lowering temperatures. Small amounts of infected cells doesn't mean we are sick. Our immune system fights off infection all the time.

Artificially amplifying the number of infected cells outside the body and then branding someone as sick of a disease is a misuse of the PCR process as Kary Mullis states himself.

[eaglemike]

The testing method of nasal swabbing is so inconsistent that it's leading to distrust of the system, and the situation, IMHO. My S/O had 2 negatives, even though she had all the symptoms, and I'd had it for a few days and tested positive. She then tested positive several days later, but by then had pneumonia. Then there's well publicized stories of Musk and others, tested on the same day, with a mix of negative and positive. We need to be able to trust a test, otherwise it's just a guess. Causes people to lose faith. Right now we need to be able to trust!

[five.five-six]

It’s a virus.

Why is everybody so shocked when a virus does virus things?

[five.five-six]

I design PCR machines for a living so I understand very well how they work.

PCR can isolate a small number of infected cells and multiply them exponentially through a process of raising/lowering temperatures. Small amounts of infected cells doesn't mean we are sick. Our immune system fights off infection all the time.

Artificially amplifying the number of infected cells outside the body and then branding someone as sick of a disease is a misuse of the PCR process as Kary Mullis states himself.

[freespool]

https://youtu.be/-y5cjyitnoo

Depending on how PCR amplification is configured, it can find any molecule in anyone.

But yet, they are somehow able to avoid this with almost 100% success for 30+ years now, and probably literally millions of applications. Multi-billion dollar industries are built on this not happening. Amazing, what?

http://youtu.be/a_Vy6fgaBPE

That's not what he said, and you're garbling both the terminology and performance characteristics of the tests.

I don't know if the tests are being diabolically jiggered and run so as to fool everyone (I lie, I do know the answer to that question), but the problems you suggest are not common with properly designed and controlled assays. In fact that's the whole point of the design and validation stage of test-making, and the regulations surrounding approval for use in human diagnostics. If bad data is coming out, it would have to be willful at the execution or reporting level. That would mean thousands of labs all deliberately ****ing it up the same way.

Most of these methods have been published in one context or another. If you've got a peer-reviewed paper or even pre-print that shows these problems with the Covid-19 PCR tests, let's see it. Some of those papers will no doubt also show the sample results as a function of cycle number, so you should have no problem proving your case.

[balgor]

You know Kari Mullins was certifiably insane, right?

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/10/151005-nobel-laureates-forget-racist-sexist-science/

Kary Mullis, the 1993 winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, revels in his reputation as a "maverick." In his autobiography, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, he extols the virtues of astrology, describes a possible encounter with aliens (which appeared to him in the form of a talking, glowing raccoon), and cheerfully admits his repeated use of LSD.

Unfortunately, Mullis’ maverick theories also include AIDS denialism. He has lent his Nobel Laureate star power to endorsing the theories of molecular biologist Peter Duesberg, who asserts—despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary—that the HIV virus is harmless and that AIDS is actually caused by recreational drug use and anti-HIV pharmaceuticals.

[five.five-six]

I always fall back to ad hominem attacks when I have nothing also, It’s a great tactic..... until someone notices.

[Epaphroditus]

I design PCR machines for a living so I understand very well how they work.

PCR can isolate a small number of infected cells and multiply them exponentially through a process of raising/lowering temperatures. Small amounts of infected cells doesn't mean we are sick. Our immune system fights off infection all the time.

Artificially amplifying the number of infected cells outside the body and then branding someone as sick of a disease is a misuse of the PCR process as Kary Mullis states himself.

I worked a number of years at Cetus and then Roche on PCR, RT-PCR and qPCR instrumentation. Your comments show you actually have a number of serious gaps in understanding of the process.

Also, there are many different RT-PCR based tests being used for COVID detection so expect variations.

I would be far more concerned about false negatives than false positives in these cases.

[therealnickb]

I would be far more concerned about false negatives than false positives in these cases.