Unfit For Purpose PCR Tests To Be Abandoned
Scientists the world over have known throughout the pandemic that the PCR Test Kits used to supposedly identify Covid illness cases are simply unfit for purpose and generate ridiculous numbers of false positives resulting in Covid Case numbers being massively inflated and people being told to quarantine unnecessarily and unjustly. The PCR Tests have never been able to specifically identify Covid and this was recognised formally by the Portuguese Courts in a landmark case here:
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507937-covid-pcr-test-fail/
and here:
https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/20/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful/
"Four German holidaymakers who were illegally quarantined in Portugal after one was judged to be positive for Covid-19 have won their case, in a verdict that condemns the widely-used PCR test as being up to 97-percent unreliable. " "They were also scathing about the reliability of the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test, the most commonly used check for Covid. The conclusion of their 34-page ruling included the following: “In view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.” In the eyes of this court, then, a positive test does not correspond to a Covid case. The two most important reasons for this, said the judges, are that, “the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used’’ and that “the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.’’ In other words, there are simply too many unknowns surrounding PCR testing." "This is not the first challenge to the credibility of PCR tests. Many people will be aware that their results have a lot to do with the number of amplifications that are performed, or the ‘cycle threshold.’ This number in most American and European labs is 35–40 cycles, but experts have claimed that even 35 cycles is far too many, and that a more reasonable protocol would call for 25–30 cycles. (Each cycle exponentially increases the amount of viral DNA in the sample). Earlier this year, data from three US states – New York, Nevada and Massachusetts – showed that when the amount of the virus found in a person was taken into account, up to 90 percent of people who tested positive could actually have been negative, as they may have been carrying only tiny amounts of the virus."
Now all of this PCR scandal appears to be confirmed because the CDC have now issued an early warning to laboratories that the PCR tests are to be abandoned after Dec 31st 2021. The CDC release states:
"After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives."
"CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses"
This appears to me to imply that the existing PCR Tests were incapable of distinguishing between SARS-COV-2 and Influenza which probably explains how and why Influenza cases seemed to magically disappear last year. They were probably recorded as Covid instead of Flu.
This entire PCR Test scandal is imo appalling and people should be doing jail time for persisting with the use of these totally unfit for purpose tests.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/507937-covid-pcr-test-fail/
and here:
https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/20/portuguese-court-rules-pcr-tests-unreliable-quarantines-unlawful/
"Four German holidaymakers who were illegally quarantined in Portugal after one was judged to be positive for Covid-19 have won their case, in a verdict that condemns the widely-used PCR test as being up to 97-percent unreliable. " "They were also scathing about the reliability of the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test, the most commonly used check for Covid. The conclusion of their 34-page ruling included the following: “In view of current scientific evidence, this test shows itself to be unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that such positivity corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.” In the eyes of this court, then, a positive test does not correspond to a Covid case. The two most important reasons for this, said the judges, are that, “the test’s reliability depends on the number of cycles used’’ and that “the test’s reliability depends on the viral load present.’’ In other words, there are simply too many unknowns surrounding PCR testing." "This is not the first challenge to the credibility of PCR tests. Many people will be aware that their results have a lot to do with the number of amplifications that are performed, or the ‘cycle threshold.’ This number in most American and European labs is 35–40 cycles, but experts have claimed that even 35 cycles is far too many, and that a more reasonable protocol would call for 25–30 cycles. (Each cycle exponentially increases the amount of viral DNA in the sample). Earlier this year, data from three US states – New York, Nevada and Massachusetts – showed that when the amount of the virus found in a person was taken into account, up to 90 percent of people who tested positive could actually have been negative, as they may have been carrying only tiny amounts of the virus."
Now all of this PCR scandal appears to be confirmed because the CDC have now issued an early warning to laboratories that the PCR tests are to be abandoned after Dec 31st 2021. The CDC release states:
"After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives."
"CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses"
This appears to me to imply that the existing PCR Tests were incapable of distinguishing between SARS-COV-2 and Influenza which probably explains how and why Influenza cases seemed to magically disappear last year. They were probably recorded as Covid instead of Flu.
This entire PCR Test scandal is imo appalling and people should be doing jail time for persisting with the use of these totally unfit for purpose tests.
(edited 2 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
The inventor of PCR, Dr Kary Mullis, who got the Nobel Prize for this discovery, was arguing that PCR Tests were unfit for purpose long time ago and they should not be used the way they have been used in Virology & Medicine.
When the guy who discovered it says so then there is no space for much debate.
When the guy who discovered it says so then there is no space for much debate.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
The PCR Tests have never been able to specifically identify Covid and this was recognised formally by the Portuguese Courts in a landmark case here
The PCR Tests have never been able to specifically identify Covid and this was recognised formally by the Portuguese Courts in a landmark case here
So you are now deferring to a regional law Judge in Portugal to back your claims. A new low! By all means put forward an argument that PCR tests are not great but surely you can do better than this?
BTW - The study presented has the title "Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates"
Even noddy science observers like me know that correlation is not equal to causation.
Original post by Lucifer323
The inventor of PCR, Dr Kary Mullis, who got the Nobel Prize for this discovery, was arguing that PCR Tests were unfit for purpose long time ago and they should not be used the way they have been used in Virology & Medicine.
Care to substantiate this claim?
https://fullfact.org/online/pcr-test-mullis/
Not saying PCR tests are perfect or fit-for-purpose. Just that this specific claim is false based on the evidence I can find.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by hotpud
So you are now deferring to a regional law Judge in Portugal to back your claims. A new low! By all means put forward an argument that PCR tests are not great but surely you can do better than this?
BTW - The study presented has the title "Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates"
Even noddy science observers like me know that correlation is not equal to causation.
Care to substantiate this claim?
https://fullfact.org/online/pcr-test-mullis/
Not saying PCR tests are perfect or fit-for-purpose. Just that this specific claim is false based on the evidence I can find.
BTW - The study presented has the title "Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates"
Even noddy science observers like me know that correlation is not equal to causation.
Care to substantiate this claim?
https://fullfact.org/online/pcr-test-mullis/
Not saying PCR tests are perfect or fit-for-purpose. Just that this specific claim is false based on the evidence I can find.
Have a look at what Dr Mullis was saying about PCR long time ago. How it should be used and how it shouldn't be used. Mullis wasn't saying you can't detect viruses, and neither do I, by using the PCR method but that PCR can reveal many false positives and can be misused. Also by amplifying genetic material we can show that there might have been a past infection but not necessarily a current one.
Mullis did criticise the way PCR was used regardless of what the fullfact article says. But the article says something else than what we have discussed here. We have never said that it cannot detect viruses (as the article discusses). But rather than it is often revealing false positives, it is misused, and by amplifying genetic material we can't prove current infection but rather than a past infection.
You may have also to see what he was saying in relation to HIV. He did criticise the way PCR was used also in this case.
Dr Mullis said many times, and the article agrees at least with this, that PCR shouldn't be used the way it is used as it has certain limitations. Hence the unfit for purpose comment.
In this case given that the CDC recognises the limitations of PCR it shows clearly that PCR are often unfit for purpose and they shouldn't be used the way they are used. Just as Dr Mullis said long time ago. I repeat that your claim that we say PCR can't detect viruses or that I have said something similar by referring to Mullis, isn't correct. I have never said anything like that and the fullfact article discusses something different. Hence you are wrong about this matter.
An article online, generally speaking, is not evidence of anything. It could be a good and accurate article on some occasions but exactly the opposite on many other occasions.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by hotpud
So you are now deferring to a regional law Judge in Portugal to back your claims. A new low! By all means put forward an argument that PCR tests are not great but surely you can do better than this?
BTW - The study presented has the title "Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates"
Even noddy science observers like me know that correlation is not equal to causation.
Care to substantiate this claim?
https://fullfact.org/online/pcr-test-mullis/
Not saying PCR tests are perfect or fit-for-purpose. Just that this specific claim is false based on the evidence I can find.
BTW - The study presented has the title "Correlation Between 3790 Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction–Positives Samples and Positive Cell Cultures, Including 1941 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Isolates"
Even noddy science observers like me know that correlation is not equal to causation.
Care to substantiate this claim?
https://fullfact.org/online/pcr-test-mullis/
Not saying PCR tests are perfect or fit-for-purpose. Just that this specific claim is false based on the evidence I can find.
You say that @PilgrimOfTruth should put a better argument down but he has already stated and analysed why the PCR Tests may not be fit for purpose and the fact that the CDC itself recognises the limitations and problems with the PCR Tests that can reveal many false positives.
"CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses"
I don't think there is more to add in this case. It is very clear, at least to me, what they are proposing to do and that they have recognised what many scientists have discussed and criticised over a long period in relation to PCR Tests for a variety of viruses not just for Sars-Cov-2.
Original post by Lucifer323
Have a look at what Dr Mullis was saying about PCR long time ago.
I did and all I found were articles and fact checking websites countering this claim. Could you please point out the "right" sites I should be looking at? Are there some videos of Mr Mullis making this claim?
So far, I have your word vs. many fact checking websites suggesting your are incorrect.
Original post by Lucifer323
You say that @PilgrimOfTruth should put a better argument down but he has already stated and analysed why the PCR Tests may not be fit for purpose and the fact that the CDC itself recognises the limitations and problems with the PCR Tests that can reveal many false positives.
"CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses"
I don't think there is more to add in this case. It is very clear, at least to me, what they are proposing to do and that they have recognised what many scientists have discussed and criticised over a long period in relation to PCR Tests for a variety of viruses not just for Sars-Cov-2.
"CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses"
I don't think there is more to add in this case. It is very clear, at least to me, what they are proposing to do and that they have recognised what many scientists have discussed and criticised over a long period in relation to PCR Tests for a variety of viruses not just for Sars-Cov-2.
Again, this is just your word. There are many arguments for and against. The "best" test is not always the most practical / cost effective / mass available test. I don't see any of your arguments taking into account the bigger picture.
Like I say, I am not saying the PCR test is perfect, but I reckon there must be something about it if it has been rolled out across the world. Sorry.
Original post by hotpud
I did and all I found were articles and fact checking websites countering this claim. Could you please point out the "right" sites I should be looking at? Are there some videos of Mr Mullis making this claim?
So far, I have your word vs. many fact checking websites suggesting your are incorrect.
So far, I have your word vs. many fact checking websites suggesting your are incorrect.
You need to check yourself and possibly listen to the interviews of Mullis himself which I think are available online. Especially the ones involving his criticisms about HIV.
Providing a fullfact article says nothing about what we claimed here and what Mullis has said in the past. In this case the article says something very different which has already been explained to you and nobody has claimed that PCR can't detect viruses or fragments of the viruses.
Read about Mullis, his criticisms about the use ofPCR, listen to his interviews and then you can come back with a better understanding of the situation.
There is a serious issue with how reliable and accurate the fact checking websites are.
Here you have misunderstood and misinterpreted what has been said and provided an article about whether PCR can detect viruses or not. Nobody has claimed such thing.
The no fit for purpose claim doesn't mean that PCR cannot detect viruses or fragments of viruses. You seem not to understand what has been said.
I am against providing random links from the web and this is my standard position. Make some reading yourself, it takes time unfortunately, listen to his interviews, and then come back making some claims or discussing the matter.
Don't ask to be directed if you haven't done your homework first.
Original post by hotpud
Again, this is just your word. There are many arguments for and against. The "best" test is not always the most practical / cost effective / mass available test. I don't see any of your arguments taking into account the bigger picture.
Like I say, I am not saying the PCR test is perfect, but I reckon there must be something about it if it has been rolled out across the world. Sorry.
Like I say, I am not saying the PCR test is perfect, but I reckon there must be something about it if it has been rolled out across the world. Sorry.
When the CDC has recognised the limitations of PCR Tests and recommends alternatives then there is some serious issue. This is not my word as you say. I haven't made it up. I am just discussing the reality of the situation.
Here is an article that I found easily on the web although I am much against providing links. You rather do your own reading and research on this matter.
https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/
It makes references and discussion about Mullis.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by hotpud
Again, this is just your word. There are many arguments for and against. The "best" test is not always the most practical / cost effective / mass available test. I don't see any of your arguments taking into account the bigger picture.
Like I say, I am not saying the PCR test is perfect, but I reckon there must be something about it if it has been rolled out across the world. Sorry.
Like I say, I am not saying the PCR test is perfect, but I reckon there must be something about it if it has been rolled out across the world. Sorry.
Yes using the PCR method scientists take a very small piece of genetic material and make full or partial copies, usually millions of copies or even billions of copies in order to examine it and one of the users is to identify infectious agents. Hence the purpose of PCR is amplifying genetic material for research and identification of infectious agents. It is a good tool but it cannot be used as a diagnostic tool and hence the various criticisms by many.
Given that it is already known that the PCR has certain limitations, it can reveal false positives, and by amplification of DNA sequences we can't prove current infection but rather then past infection, the CDC has recommended alternative ways to detect and differentiate Sars-Cov-2 from influenza viruses. That says it all.
Original post by Lucifer323
You need to check yourself and possibly listen to the interviews of Mullis himself which I think are available online. Especially the ones involving his criticisms about HIV.
Providing a fullfact article says nothing about what we claimed here and what Mullis has said in the past. In this case the article says something very different which has already been explained to you and nobody has claimed that PCR can't detect viruses or fragments of the viruses.
Read about Mullis, his criticisms about the use ofPCR, listen to his interviews and then you can come back with a better understanding of the situation.
There is a serious issue with how reliable and accurate the fact checking websites are.
Here you have misunderstood and misinterpreted what has been said and provided an article about whether PCR can detect viruses or not. Nobody has claimed such thing.
The no fit for purpose claim doesn't mean that PCR cannot detect viruses or fragments of viruses. You seem not to understand what has been said.
I am against providing random links from the web and this is my standard position. Make some reading yourself, it takes time unfortunately, listen to his interviews, and then come back making some claims or discussing the matter.
Don't ask to be directed if you haven't done your homework first.
Providing a fullfact article says nothing about what we claimed here and what Mullis has said in the past. In this case the article says something very different which has already been explained to you and nobody has claimed that PCR can't detect viruses or fragments of the viruses.
Read about Mullis, his criticisms about the use ofPCR, listen to his interviews and then you can come back with a better understanding of the situation.
There is a serious issue with how reliable and accurate the fact checking websites are.
Here you have misunderstood and misinterpreted what has been said and provided an article about whether PCR can detect viruses or not. Nobody has claimed such thing.
The no fit for purpose claim doesn't mean that PCR cannot detect viruses or fragments of viruses. You seem not to understand what has been said.
I am against providing random links from the web and this is my standard position. Make some reading yourself, it takes time unfortunately, listen to his interviews, and then come back making some claims or discussing the matter.
Don't ask to be directed if you haven't done your homework first.
With the greatest respect, full fact at the very least bother to do a search and have concluded there is no evidence to support your claims. It therefore stands head and shoulders above your claims. I have asked you to post a link or article to back up your claims and all you can retort is "look for yourself". I have looked there is nothing to see.
Original post by Lucifer323
When the CDC has recognised the limitations of PCR Tests and recommends alternatives then there is some serious issue. This is not my word as you say. I haven't made it up. I am just discussing the reality of the situation.
Here is an article that I found easily on the web although I am much against providing links. You rather do your own reading and research on this matter.
https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/
It makes references and discussion about Mullis.
Here is an article that I found easily on the web although I am much against providing links. You rather do your own reading and research on this matter.
https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/
It makes references and discussion about Mullis.
I fully agree. But similarly, you are still missing the point. The best scientific test is not necessarily a test that can be rolled out to the masses. If "the best" test takes a week to do and requires 100 people to administer one test, is that the "best test"?
Lateral flow tests are terrible in terms of reliability. But they are still better than nothing at all and they cost bobbins and anyone can do them at home or wherever. When you look at the bigger picture, they are actually quite good.
Original post by hotpud
With the greatest respect, full fact at the very least bother to do a search and have concluded there is no evidence to support your claims. It therefore stands head and shoulders above your claims. I have asked you to post a link or article to back up your claims and all you can retort is "look for yourself". I have looked there is nothing to see.
I have already posted you a link.
However I am not in favour of posting links.
It is well known what the limitations of PCR are and the article you have provided has nothing to do with what we have discussed here. Nobody has ever discussed that PCR cannot detect viruses. Hence the article is irrelevant to our conversation.
The issues with PCR are the false positives it can reveal, its limitations, and that by amplifying genetic material doesn't prove you have a current and active infection.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by hotpud
I fully agree. But similarly, you are still missing the point. The best scientific test is not necessarily a test that can be rolled out to the masses. If "the best" test takes a week to do and requires 100 people to administer one test, is that the "best test"?
Lateral flow tests are terrible in terms of reliability. But they are still better than nothing at all and they cost bobbins and anyone can do them at home or wherever. When you look at the bigger picture, they are actually quite good.
Lateral flow tests are terrible in terms of reliability. But they are still better than nothing at all and they cost bobbins and anyone can do them at home or wherever. When you look at the bigger picture, they are actually quite good.
According to the CDC, not myself, there are issues with these Tests and how reliable they are and there are recommendations for better approaches and techniques.
I repeat that the CDC thinks differently in this case in terms of how reliable and good they are.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by Lucifer323
I have already posted you a link.
However I am not in favour of posting links.
It is well known what the limitations of PCR are and the article you have provided has nothing to do with what we have discussed here. Nobody has ever discussed that PCR cannot detect viruses. Hence the article is irrelevant to our conversation.
The issues with PCR are the false positive it can reveal, its limitations, and that by amplifying genetic material doesn't prove you have a current active infection.
However I am not in favour of posting links.
It is well known what the limitations of PCR are and the article you have provided has nothing to do with what we have discussed here. Nobody has ever discussed that PCR cannot detect viruses. Hence the article is irrelevant to our conversation.
The issues with PCR are the false positive it can reveal, its limitations, and that by amplifying genetic material doesn't prove you have a current active infection.
My apologies. I obviously missed it. Could you make just one reply each time? It is rather overwhelming to have to deal with 4 posts for every one of mine.
The link you posted is not relevant to my point. You said
The inventor of PCR, Dr Kary Mullis, who got the Nobel Prize for this discovery, was arguing that PCR Tests were unfit for purpose long time ago and they should not be used the way they have been used in Virology & Medicine.
Could you please send an article from a trustworthy source that validates this? Unfortunately all I can find is fact checking websites and urban myth busting websites that contradict the point in italics above.
I don't really have the patience to argue the toss over whether the PCR test is good or not. The point above is the only point of contention I have.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by hotpud
My apologies. I obviously missed it. Could you make just one reply each time? It is rather overwhelming to have to deal with 4 posts for every one of mine.
The link you posted is not relevant to my point. You said
The inventor of PCR, Dr Kary Mullis, who got the Nobel Prize for this discovery, was arguing that PCR Tests were unfit for purpose long time ago and they should not be used the way they have been used in Virology & Medicine.
Could you please send an article from a trustworthy source that validates this? Unfortunately all I can find is fact checking websites and urban myth busting websites that contradict your.
I don't really have the patience to argue the toss over whether the PCR test is good or not. The point above is the only point of contention I have.
The link you posted is not relevant to my point. You said
The inventor of PCR, Dr Kary Mullis, who got the Nobel Prize for this discovery, was arguing that PCR Tests were unfit for purpose long time ago and they should not be used the way they have been used in Virology & Medicine.
Could you please send an article from a trustworthy source that validates this? Unfortunately all I can find is fact checking websites and urban myth busting websites that contradict your.
I don't really have the patience to argue the toss over whether the PCR test is good or not. The point above is the only point of contention I have.
The link I gave given you is trustworthy and relevant to what I have said, and it's much better than what you have provided me with.
It makes reference to Kary Mullis and you can easily see it. Other than that you need to read quite a lot in order to get a better idea.
The person who first criticised the way PCR is used was Kary Mullis himself.
Other than that I cannot help you further. You have my link. Read it and read the links within this article. And make further reading on your own.
The CDC already recognised the limitations and issues with the PCR Tests and they are looking to alternatives. Hence that is more then enough and does answer your question whether the PCR Tests are accurate and reliable. Clearly they are not and you cannot argue against it.
That's all from me.
Original post by Lucifer323
According to the CDC, not myself, there are issues with these Tests and how reliable they are and there are recommendations for better approaches and techniques.
I repeat that the CDC thinks differently in this case in terms of how reliable and good they are.
I repeat that the CDC thinks differently in this case in terms of how reliable and good they are.
The CDC is replacing it's own rt-pcr method developed in the early days of covid with it's own high throughput rt-pcr multiplex technology. The issue is not reliability, the issue is processing volume. It is also a fairly redundant change as most labs already use more high throughput rt-pcr technologies than those used 12-16 months ago.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by hotpud
The link you posted is not relevant to my point. You said
The inventor of PCR, Dr Kary Mullis, who got the Nobel Prize for this discovery, was arguing that PCR Tests were unfit for purpose long time ago and they should not be used the way they have been used in Virology & Medicine.
The inventor of PCR, Dr Kary Mullis, who got the Nobel Prize for this discovery, was arguing that PCR Tests were unfit for purpose long time ago and they should not be used the way they have been used in Virology & Medicine.
I wouldn't bother with Mullis. The man's great contribution to science was his role in developing PCR. I can not understate what a valuable tool it is.
Unfortunately, he has spent the rest of his life propagating crank theories about a range of topics. Citing him is like citing David Icke.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by Lucifer323
The person who first criticised the way PCR is used was Kary Mullis himself.
Ah yes. I had a more thorough read. Just like you, it is words. I would have to take the word of the author from that cutting edge organisation - the mighty Bulgarian Pathology Association that what you said is true. I'll stick with full fact thank you very much.
Sadly, most of the references on that page take you to conspiricy sites. I have no idea who the Bulgarian Pathology Association are, mostly likely just a website for advertising jobs or something, but they certainly aren't a serious journal.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by Trilobite.
The CDC is replacing it's own rt-pcr method developed in the early days of covid with it's own high throughput rt-pcr multiplex technology. The issue is not reliability, the issue is processing volume. It is also a fairly redundant change as most labs already use more high throughput rt-pcr technologies than those used 12-16 months ago.
Look, lucifer, I appreciate you don't have a scientific background so it is understandable how you misinterpreted material not aimed for the lay reader, but I'm sure you can find some popular science articles to help you. May I suggest you do your homework next time?
Look, lucifer, I appreciate you don't have a scientific background so it is understandable how you misinterpreted material not aimed for the lay reader, but I'm sure you can find some popular science articles to help you. May I suggest you do your homework next time?
The issue is reliability and accuracy given the amount of false positives.
If you had bothered to read what I have said: Better approaches and techniques
Never said replacing entirely the PCR method.
It is you unfortunately you who is misinterpreting me in this case.
The issues with PCR are known already and for a long period of time. False positives, and the inability of the amplification technique to tell you whether you have a current & active infection.
You say I don't have a scientific background. Since you are the one who has then please enlighten us with your knowledge of PCR.
And have a good day.
(edited 2 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
