On Friday, 29 July 2022 at 00:22:57 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 5:50:00 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
> > On Thursday, 28 July 2022 at 20:53:13 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 8:00:06 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 6:42:24 PM UTC+10, Martin Brown wrote:
> > > > > On 27/07/2022 02:39, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 4:45:47 AM UTC+10, a a wrote:
> > > > > >> On Tuesday, 26 July 2022 at 17:31:55 UTC+2, amdx wrote:
> > > > > >>> On 7/25/2022 8:27 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > >>>> On Monday, July 25, 2022 at 9:00:59 PM UTC+10, Jasen Betts wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> On 2022-07-22, Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> PCR test generates false-positive results in 90% of cases
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It doesn't. The polymerase chain reaction test just produces multiple copes of any RNA sequence it gets exposed to. It doesn't generate novel sequences.
> > > > >
> > > > > PCR test generates about 20% of false negatives though - variously
> > > > > attributed to effects of inadequate sample taking and contamination of
> > > > > samples by home users (samples taken by medic do slightly better)..
> > > > >
> > > > > PCR test is inclined to pick up fragments of smashed up Covid DNA in
> > > > > people who have already recovered from Covid which means that as an
> > > > > assay of how many people currently have Covid it reads high by an
> > > > > unknown factor but unlikely to be more than a factor of two.
> > > > There isn't any DNA in Covid-19. It is an RNA virus. The PCR test goes through a DNA stage
> > > >
> > > > https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Understanding-COVID-19-PCR-Testing
> > > >
> > > > but it is aimed picking up relatively short DNA sequences that would be present in the DNA produced after exposure to Covid-19 RNA. Fragments of smashed up Covid-19 RNA will produce some of these short DNA sequences. It's not a "false positive" - the test is doing exactly what it was intended to do - but if you don't understand what the test is intended to do, and how it works, you may miss this.
> > > PCR does not work with RNA fundamentally because RNA is a single stranded polymer. PCR is based upon the principle of heating the DNA double strand to the point of breaking the amino acid bonds of the so-called double helix strand right down the middle of the two halves yielding two single strands. This behavior is a discovery, not an invention of mankind, and a fortuitous discovery at that. The sample is then cooled while immersed in medium of amino acids and polymerase enzyme (the P in PCR) that will bind with original DNA halves in only one way, and that way is identical to the originally coupled half of the helix. So there you have it, two DNA polymers from one.
> > >
> > > https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/genomics/pcr/polymerase-chain-reaction
> > >
> > > Since PCR works only for double stranded entities like DNA, they have to convert the test sample RNA into DNA with high fidelity. The reverse transcriptase enzyme is used for this, hence the name RT for reverse transcriptase, does not mean real time. The resulting DNA is termed complementary DNA or cDNA. The test sample is almost at the point of being suitable for PCR amplification. Before this can happen the sample must be purified so that the only DNA present is that of the virus under study. The video linked below is a very good presentation of the fundamentals of the purification and sensitization process, slightly dated, but should be accessible even to someone with your limited intelligence. These days the testing is complicated by probing for specific strains and obtaining higher accuracy estimates of viral loading and quantification. Note that this type of testing requires very detailed knowledge of the virus RNA, the probes aren't just pulled out of a hat.
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4C5p8m-f14
> > >
> > Never fool us with your fake links
> >
> >
> > In 1985, Kary Mullis invented the process known as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), in which a small amount of DNA can be copied in large quantities over a short period of time. By applying heat, the DNA molecule's two strands are separated and the DNA building blocks that have been added are bonded to each strand.
> > Kary B. Mullis – Facts - NobelPrize.org
> > www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1993/mullis/facts/
> > www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1993/mullis/facts/
> >
> >
> > What is Kary Mullis PCR?
> > is a revolutionary method developed by Kary Mullis in the 1980s. PCR is based on using the ability of DNA polymerase to synthesize new strand of DNA complementary to the offered template strand. Because DNA polymerase can add a nucleotide only onto a preexisting 3'-OH group, it needs a primer to which it can add the first nucleotide.
> >
> > Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)
> > www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/probe/docs/techpcr/
> > Wyszukaj dla:What is Kary Mullis PCR?
> > What is the polymerase chain reaction?
> > In 1985, Kary Mullis invented the process known as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), in which a small amount of DNA can be copied in large quantities over a short period of time. By applying heat, the DNA molecule\'s two strands are separated and the DNA building blocks that have been added are bonded to each strand.
> >
> > Kary B. Mullis - Facts - NobelPrize.org
> > www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1993/mullis/facts/
> > Wyszukaj dla:What is the polymerase chain reaction?
> > Did Kary Mullis use LSD to develop polymerase chain reaction?
> > During a press conference on Friday, Hofmann revealed that he was told by Nobel-prize-winning chemist Kary Mullis that LSD had helped him develop the polymerase chain reaction that helps amplify specific DNA sequences. ^ Carlson, Peter (November 3, 1998). "Nobel Chemist Kary Mullis, Making Waves as a Mind Surfer".
> >
> > Kary Mullis - Wikipedia
> > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis
> >
> > What did Kary Mullis invent?
> > In 1985, Kary Mullis invented the process known as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), in which a small amount of DNA can be copied in large quantities over a short period of time.
> >
> > Kary B. Mullis - Facts - NobelPrize.org
> > www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1993/mullis/facts/
> >
> > Polymerase Chain Reaction - Kary Mullis
> > www.karymullis.com/pcr.shtml
> >
> > Dr. Kary Banks Mullis Polymerase Chain Reaction Making DNA accessible Most people in molecular biology today are not old enough to remember pre-PCR. But try to do your job without it, and you will see what a difference that simple little …
> >
> > Contact
> > Science
> > Lectures
> > Books
> > Biography
> > Altermune
> >
> > Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)
> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/probe/docs/techpcr
> >
> > 09.11.2017 · PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) is a revolutionary method developed by Kary Mullis in the 1980s. PCR is based on using the ability of DNA polymerase to synthesize new strand of DNA complementary to the offered …

you are stupid dog

PCR test is not fit for any commercial use.

PCR detects dead, segmented, digested coronaviruses in wastewater,
on the surfaces of vegetables grown
in greenhouses fed with wastewater from human septic tanks (Holland)
called organic farming, gardening, organic greenhousing

Digested coronaviruses, segments of coronaviruses are detected as the whole, active viruses
in human urine, human feces

On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 8:06:23 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
> On Friday, 29 July 2022 at 00:22:57 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 5:50:00 PM UTC-4, a a wrote:
> > > On Thursday, 28 July 2022 at 20:53:13 UTC+2, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 8:00:06 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 6:42:24 PM UTC+10, Martin Brown wrote:
> > > > > > On 27/07/2022 02:39, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 4:45:47 AM UTC+10, a a wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Tuesday, 26 July 2022 at 17:31:55 UTC+2, amdx wrote:
> > > > > > >>> On 7/25/2022 8:27 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> On Monday, July 25, 2022 at 9:00:59 PM UTC+10, Jasen Betts wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>> On 2022-07-22, Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> PCR test generates false-positive results in 90% of cases
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It doesn't. The polymerase chain reaction test just produces multiple copes of any RNA sequence it gets exposed to. It doesn't generate novel sequences.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PCR test generates about 20% of false negatives though - variously
> > > > > > attributed to effects of inadequate sample taking and contamination of
> > > > > > samples by home users (samples taken by medic do slightly better).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PCR test is inclined to pick up fragments of smashed up Covid DNA in
> > > > > > people who have already recovered from Covid which means that as an
> > > > > > assay of how many people currently have Covid it reads high by an
> > > > > > unknown factor but unlikely to be more than a factor of two.
> > > > > There isn't any DNA in Covid-19. It is an RNA virus. The PCR test goes through a DNA stage
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Understanding-COVID-19-PCR-Testing
> > > > >
> > > > > but it is aimed picking up relatively short DNA sequences that would be present in the DNA produced after exposure to Covid-19 RNA. Fragments of smashed up Covid-19 RNA will produce some of these short DNA sequences.. It's not a "false positive" - the test is doing exactly what it was intended to do - but if you don't understand what the test is intended to do, and how it works, you may miss this.
> > > > PCR does not work with RNA fundamentally because RNA is a single stranded polymer. PCR is based upon the principle of heating the DNA double strand to the point of breaking the amino acid bonds of the so-called double helix strand right down the middle of the two halves yielding two single strands. This behavior is a discovery, not an invention of mankind, and a fortuitous discovery at that. The sample is then cooled while immersed in medium of amino acids and polymerase enzyme (the P in PCR) that will bind with original DNA halves in only one way, and that way is identical to the originally coupled half of the helix. So there you have it, two DNA polymers from one.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/technical-documents/technical-article/genomics/pcr/polymerase-chain-reaction
> > > >
> > > > Since PCR works only for double stranded entities like DNA, they have to convert the test sample RNA into DNA with high fidelity. The reverse transcriptase enzyme is used for this, hence the name RT for reverse transcriptase, does not mean real time. The resulting DNA is termed complementary DNA or cDNA. The test sample is almost at the point of being suitable for PCR amplification. Before this can happen the sample must be purified so that the only DNA present is that of the virus under study. The video linked below is a very good presentation of the fundamentals of the purification and sensitization process, slightly dated, but should be accessible even to someone with your limited intelligence. These days the testing is complicated by probing for specific strains and obtaining higher accuracy estimates of viral loading and quantification. Note that this type of testing requires very detailed knowledge of the virus RNA, the probes aren't just pulled out of a hat.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4C5p8m-f14
> > > >
> > > Never fool us with your fake links
> > >
> > >
> > > In 1985, Kary Mullis invented the process known as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), in which a small amount of DNA can be copied in large quantities over a short period of time. By applying heat, the DNA molecule's two strands are separated and the DNA building blocks that have been added are bonded to each strand.
> > > Kary B. Mullis – Facts - NobelPrize.org
> > > www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1993/mullis/facts/
> > > www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1993/mullis/facts/
> > >
> > >
> > > What is Kary Mullis PCR?
> > > is a revolutionary method developed by Kary Mullis in the 1980s. PCR is based on using the ability of DNA polymerase to synthesize new strand of DNA complementary to the offered template strand. Because DNA polymerase can add a nucleotide only onto a preexisting 3'-OH group, it needs a primer to which it can add the first nucleotide.
> > >
> > > Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)
> > > www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/probe/docs/techpcr/
> > > Wyszukaj dla:What is Kary Mullis PCR?
> > > What is the polymerase chain reaction?
> > > In 1985, Kary Mullis invented the process known as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), in which a small amount of DNA can be copied in large quantities over a short period of time. By applying heat, the DNA molecule\'s two strands are separated and the DNA building blocks that have been added are bonded to each strand.
> > >
> > > Kary B. Mullis - Facts - NobelPrize.org
> > > www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1993/mullis/facts/
> > > Wyszukaj dla:What is the polymerase chain reaction?
> > > Did Kary Mullis use LSD to develop polymerase chain reaction?
> > > During a press conference on Friday, Hofmann revealed that he was told by Nobel-prize-winning chemist Kary Mullis that LSD had helped him develop the polymerase chain reaction that helps amplify specific DNA sequences. ^ Carlson, Peter (November 3, 1998). "Nobel Chemist Kary Mullis, Making Waves as a Mind Surfer".
> > >
> > > Kary Mullis - Wikipedia
> > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis
> > >
> > > What did Kary Mullis invent?
> > > In 1985, Kary Mullis invented the process known as polymerase chain reaction (PCR), in which a small amount of DNA can be copied in large quantities over a short period of time.
> > >
> > > Kary B. Mullis - Facts - NobelPrize.org
> > > www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1993/mullis/facts/
> > >
> > > Polymerase Chain Reaction - Kary Mullis
> > > www.karymullis.com/pcr.shtml
> > >
> > > Dr. Kary Banks Mullis Polymerase Chain Reaction Making DNA accessible Most people in molecular biology today are not old enough to remember pre-PCR. But try to do your job without it, and you will see what a difference that simple little …
> > >
> > > Contact
> > > Science
> > > Lectures
> > > Books
> > > Biography
> > > Altermune
> > >
> > > Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)
> > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/probe/docs/techpcr
> > >
> > > 09.11.2017 · PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) is a revolutionary method developed by Kary Mullis in the 1980s. PCR is based on using the ability of DNA polymerase to synthesize new strand of DNA complementary to the offered …
> you are stupid dog
>
> PCR test is not fit for any commercial use.
>
> PCR detects dead, segmented, digested coronaviruses in wastewater,
> on the surfaces of vegetables grown
> in greenhouses fed with wastewater from human septic tanks (Holland)
> called organic farming, gardening, organic greenhousing
>
> Digested coronaviruses, segments of coronaviruses are detected as the whole, active viruses
> in human urine, human feces

That's all well and good, but we're still waiting for some kind of authoritative substantiation of your 90% false alarm rate claim.

On 28/07/2022 19:11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 4:42:24 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 27/07/2022 02:39, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 at 4:45:47 AM UTC+10, a a wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 26 July 2022 at 17:31:55 UTC+2, amdx wrote:
>>>>> On 7/25/2022 8:27 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, July 25, 2022 at 9:00:59 PM UTC+10, Jasen Betts
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2022-07-22, Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> PCR test generates false-positive results in 90% of cases
>>>
>>> It doesn't. The polymerase chain reaction test just produces
>>> multiple copes of any RNA sequence it gets exposed to. It doesn't
>>> generate novel sequences.
>> PCR test generates about 20% of false negatives though - variously
>> attributed to effects of inadequate sample taking and contamination
>> of samples by home users (samples taken by medic do slightly
>> better).
>>
>> PCR test is inclined to pick up fragments of smashed up Covid DNA
>> in people who have already recovered from Covid which means that as
>> an assay of how many people currently have Covid it reads high by
>> an unknown factor but unlikely to be more than a factor of two.
>>
>> The stats were derived from the Liverpool mass testing programme
>> back when they were trying to calibrate the new quick LF home tests
>> for efficacy when compared to the gold standard PCR test. LF did
>> better than the initial evidence implied because PCR was picking up
>> people still shedding DNA fragments but were well past the
>> infective stage. The difficulty being that with 20-30% showing no
>> symptoms at all you are entirely reliant on the tests to know who
>> should be isolating.
>>
>> Correspondingly the PCR test only really detects people who are
>> shedding enormous amounts of virus and are an immediate danger to
>> others. It's false positive rate is about 0.1% which is a nuisance
>> when applied for mass screening. PCR testing was used as definitive
>> in such edge cases back when the pandemic was running wild in the
>> UK (but then you have the problem of about 20% of those LF
>> positives and with all the symptoms really being Covid positive but
>> testing negative).
>>
>> People I know who have had Covid were still testing positive for
>> Covid on LF more than a week after first showing symptoms so it is
>> by no means clear when infectivity ceases from a specific infected
>> individual.
>>
>> Testing negative two days running is generally accepted as an all
>> clear.
>
> When you see outrageously large false negative rates like 20% it
> means there are major systemic errors in the system. It is

No that is the accepted number. I personally know individuals who had
*all* the symptoms of Covid and tested negative on PCR and were told in
no uncertain terms that they must isolate for 10 days *despite* their
apparent negative PCR result. This was early in the pandemic when the
tests were as rare as hens teeth and no-one ever got a retest.

> scientifically impossible for the laboratory test to be that bad all
> by itself. Field workers are not handling and storing their swabs
> properly, and probably taking inadequate swabs, same goes for the
> whole lab chain from manufacture and delivery of materials, storing
> materials, using materials, and conducting the actual instrumentation
> centric process. The false negatives in UK probably translates to
> less than 1% in places like Germany with a much more intelligent,
> conscientious, and superior workforce....

The 20% false positive number comes from fairly early in the pandemic
and originally from Switzerland rather than the UK. My 20% is probably
slightly conservative more recent BMJ papers put it at 30% in the real
world allowing for home user errors and fatigue of medical testers.

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n287/rr

I reckon they would have got better results if they had included 2 swabs
in the home testing kits since it is all too easy to contaminate it by
accidentally touching your teeth.

Debate about the impact of false positives and negatives on the testing
and verification of lateral flow tests was a hot topic a while back.

Your faith in the Covid testing labs labs is sadly misplaced. They were
all in it for the loadsa money and many were *NOT* properly qualified to
even do the work. Beggars can't be choosers so they still got work even
when their standards were demonstrably way below par.

In the rush to jump on the extremely profitable bandwagon corners were
cut and cheap unskilled labour was used working two to a laminar flow
cabinet and breaking an insane number of QC and safety rules.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54552620

One glaring example was a company that told over 40k people they were
negative when the result was positive. Profit motive means that they
really didn't care! They still got additional work for over a month
after the huge problem with their testing regime was identified!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-60940877

You really couldn't make it up.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown