But looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2.... the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.

Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University says in her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”

But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, “pragmatically” COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, “may be the best available ‘gold standard’.” But this is not scientifically sound. ( it's actually ludicrous) Watson overlooks the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.

PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from. That has to be determined beforehand.

And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed. (And it hasn't) There is no scientific proof that those RNA sequences are the causative agent of what is called COVID-19.

Even Wang Chen, president of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, conceded in February that the PCR tests are “only 30 to 50 per cent accurate”; while Sin Hang Lee from the Milford Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory sent a letter to the WHO’s coronavirus response team and to Anthony S. Fauci on March 22, 2020, saying that:

It has been widely reported in the social media that the RT-qPCR [Reverse Transcriptase quantitative PCR] test kits used to detect SARSCoV-2 RNA in human specimens are generating many false positive results and are not sensitive enough to detect some real positive cases.”


In the “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel“ file from March 30, 2020, for example, it says:

Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms”

And: This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens.”

And the FDA admits that:positive results […] do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease.”

Remarkably, in the instruction manuals of PCR tests we can also read that they are not intended as a diagnostic test.

To quote another one, in the product announcement of the LightMix Modular Assays produced by TIB Molbiol — which were developed using the Corman et al. protocol — and distributed by Roche we can read:

These assays are not intended for use as an aid in the diagnosis of coronavirus infection” And:For research use only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.”

Regarding amplication: a Cq in the 20s to 30s should be aimed at and there is concern regarding the reliability of the results for any Cq over 35.

If the Cq value gets too high, it becomes difficult to distinguish real signal from background, for example due to reactions of primers and fluorescent probes, and hence there is a higher probability of false positives. DSHS didn't answer me about how many cycles of amplification they use on their samples and if there is a statewide standard at the labs.
https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/27/covi...ly-meaningless/

We are at the mercy of fools in power who are misusing technology and basing executive orders on junk science regarding magic masks and magic six feet.

@austingirl I posted the linked article on Facebook and immediately Got the following message :

Quote

---

"This has been fact checked by Politifact and found to be untrue. Do you still want to post it?"

---

I went ahead and posted it and said the following in my post:

Quote

---

"Politifact rates this as False! I do not trust Politifact as much as I do my pet rattlesnake. YOU decide."

---

I certain no one else will be allowed to see it there.

Quote: Tinker wrote in post #2

---

@austingirl I posted the linked article on Facebook and immediately Got the following message :

Quote

---

"This has been fact checked by Politifact and found to be untrue. Do you still want to post it?"

---

I went ahead and posted it and said the following in my post:

Quote

---

"Politifact rates this as False! I do not trust Politifact as much as I do my pet rattlesnake. YOU decide."

---

I certain no one else will be allowed to see it there.

---

Fascistbook censors anything that goes against their agenda. There was a photo of a drywaller who took off his mask and his face and moustache was covered with dust. The picture was dimmed out with a notice that just because he had dust on his face-dust pariticles that are thousands of times larger than a virus-didn't mean a mask didn't stop a virus. It would be laughabel if it weren't so egregiously stupid and evil.

Quote: austingirl wrote in post #3

---

Quote: Tinker wrote in post #2

---

@austingirl I posted the linked article on Facebook and immediately Got the following message :

Quote

---

"This has been fact checked by Politifact and found to be untrue. Do you still want to post it?"

---

I went ahead and posted it and said the following in my post:

Quote

---

"Politifact rates this as False! I do not trust Politifact as much as I do my pet rattlesnake. YOU decide."

---

I certain no one else will be allowed to see it there.

---

Fascistbook censors anything that goes against their agenda. There was a photo of a drywaller who took off his mask and his face and moustache was covered with dust. The picture was dimmed out with a notice that just because he had dust on his face-dust pariticles that are thousands of times larger than a virus-didn't mean a mask didn't stop a virus. It would be laughabel if it weren't so egregiously stupid and evil.

---

Yeah! I saw that one as well.