Ed Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories....

Status
Not open for further replies.
btw, the inventor of the PCR-Test, Kary Mullis (died 2019), who got a Nobel prize for it and saw the vision for it on LSD, said that it is not meant to be used for diagnostics.

Look him up, you will love the wikipedia article and never take a PCR-Test again. :D
 
zooterkin said:
That's a theme I see from a number of covidiots, that the amount of replication needed to get enough material to detect on the PCR test means they are unreliable. They quote some old document, presumably from before the tests were perfected?
Click to expand...
Actually no, they seem to have found some recent crank science. The interviewee, apart from rambling on about conspiracies and things not adding up, mentions a website that contains a rebuttal to the legitimate paper "Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR"

This rebuttal is an "External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SARS-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results." and has the names of 22 scientists attached to it.

I note that a cursory Google search reveals one of the scientists to be a Radiotherapist, another a Chemist, another a cancer specialist.

It can be found here:

https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

Now, I'm no expert in PCR or viral genomics, and couldn't follow the main arguments in any detail, but note that if the science of the original paper was so flawed why is this group of people the only scientists in the world to spot these errors?

Also, the above website is filled with the usual green ink and paranoid rantings.
 
TheSupermeerkat said:
The interviewee [...] mentions a website [...]
Click to expand...


The interviewee created the website. Among the authors of the rebuttal paper are the former chief scientist of Pfizer, Michael Yeadon, and the man in my signature, Wolfgang Wodarg, who almost single-handedly busted the 2009 Swineflu hoax where Dr. Osten was already in the same role he is in now (there's a great arte documentary about the 2009 events, in German: Profiteers of Fear, strong deja-vu factor).
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
btw, the inventor of the PCR-Test, Kary Mullis (died 2019), who got a Nobel prize for it and saw the vision for it on LSD, said that it is not meant to be used for diagnostics.

Look him up, you will love the wikipedia article and never take a PCR-Test again. :D
Click to expand...

Here's a Reuters fact check on that very quote.

To summarise, the quote you are talking about is not directly from Mullis, rather an article written by John Lauritsen in December 1996 about HIV and AIDS, not COVID-19. Lauritsen clarifies that PCR identifies substances qualitatively not quantitatively, detecting the genetic sequences of viruses, but not the viruses themselves.

If a PCR test indicates genetic material asdociated with COVID is present, further virological culturing is required to determine if the virus is present.

Here's a link to the article: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pcr-idUSKBN24420X

Here are relevant highlights:

Social media users have been sharing a quote attributed to the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test, currently being used to detect COVID-19, which says “PCR tests cannot detect free infectious viruses at all”. This quote appears not to be a direct quote from the inventor, Kary Mullis, has lost some context and does not mean COVID-19 testing is fraudulent
Click to expand...

the quote is actually from an article written by John Lauritsen in December 1996 about HIV and AIDS, not COVID-19
Click to expand...

The context around the quote shows Lauritsen is not saying PCR tests do not work. Instead, he is clarifying that PCR identifies substances qualitatively not quantitatively, detecting the genetic sequences of viruses, but not the viruses themselves: “PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers.Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.”
Click to expand...

And finally goes on to note that:

It is important to note that detecting viral material by PCR does not indicate that the virus is fully intact and infectious, i.e. able to cause infection in other people. The isolation of infectious virus from positive individuals requires virus culture methods. These methods can only be conducted in laboratories with specialist containment facilities and are time consuming and complex
Click to expand...

Now why don't you provide your sources that statement?
 
Childlike Empress said:
This is specifically about Dr. Osten's test, which was the first that got a WHO recommendation and was the blueprint for all other Western "new Corona" PCR-Tests. The "self-taught nut" has a number of not-self-taught allies.



Dr. Osten is likely the first Domino to fall.
Click to expand...
Why is it always the self taught nuts that blab and not the credentialed scientists?
 
TheSupermeerkat said:
Now why don't you provide your sources that statement?
Click to expand...


It's not necessary. You and your "fact-checkers" have proved the point already. The PCR-Test cannot detect if a person is infectious. It can only detect protein chains, the more repetition circles, the broader the brush gets. Dr. Osten recommends 45 in his paper IIRC, while "experts" say that this is a ridiculously high number.
 
Childlike Empress said:
It's not necessary. You and your "fact-checkers" have proved the point already. The PCR-Test cannot detect if a person is infectious. It can only detect protein chains, the more repetition circles, the broader the brush gets. Dr. Osten recommends 45 in his paper IIRC, while "experts" say that this is a ridiculously high number.
Click to expand...


The article acknowledges that it doesn't test for infectious viruses and specifically quotes a spokesperson for Public Health England who says: "It is important to note that detecting viral material by PCR does not indicate that the virus is fully intact and infectious"

It is a reasonable assumption that the presence of nuclear material associated with a respiratory tract infecting virus is an reasonable indicator that such a virus is present.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Because with "credentialed scientists" having the only say, the earth would still be flat.
Click to expand...
Bwahahahaha
929dc3581f7fd3599ac012a3187e7c77.gif
 
Steve said:
Sounds interesting. When was the world flat? And who changed it?
Click to expand...
The world stopped being flat after the downfall of Numenor hear the end of the second age, and it was at the behest of the god Ilúvatar.

Although, I'm confused as to how credentialed scientists could prevent a diety from changing the shape of the world.
 
The alternate reality occupied by CTists is one thing. Add to that the smug, illusory superiority. And add to that the sniveling cowardice. Unwilling/unable to stand by their convictions. Unwillling/unable to even attempt to support the drivel they foist.
 
Here's a good discussion of false positive Covid-19 RT-PCR tests

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30453-7/fulltext

Although false-negative tests have until now had priority due to the devastating consequences of undetected cases in health-care and social care settings, and the propagation of the epidemic especially by asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic patients,1 the consequences of a false-positive result are not benign from various perspectives (panel), in particular among health-care workers.
...
RT-PCR tests to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA are the operational gold standard for detecting COVID-19 disease in clinical practice. RT-PCR assays in the UK have analytical sensitivity and specificity of greater than 95%, but no single gold standard assay exists
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom