1)Warning, long thread about the inappropriate use of rtPCR technique in diagnosing infectious disease in modern medicine as supported by the inventor himself, #DrKaryMullis. @Thomas_Binder @NikolovScience @CDC @NIH We (hubs and I, both scientists) think what keeps bringing

2) us back to this is from extensive research into HIV. It is a eerily similar pattern.

We will here use some of our own inane analogies in an effort to simplify/decipher some overtly complex assay/testing idiosyncrasies. You get a swab for RT-PCR analysis.

3) It collects (or doesn’t) viral fragments in your sinuses or wherever they collect from. The sample is treated with reverse transcriptase to create the complimentary DNA fragment to this RNA (think opposite side of a zipper- this is immaterial, but nice to be accurate).

4) Now comes our psychotic analogy. This fragment is like reflective filler for or shiny surface and the PCR is going to amplify it, or make enough reflective filler to fill a hole that your kids made from going nuts in quarantine. You have enough “filler” ....

5) when a certain amount of light (wavelength) is reflected back (that’s why we had to make it reflective). Anyway, the PCR makes “passes” to add to your seed/sample filler. The PCR uses “known” viral fragments of SARS-CoV2 (DNA called primers) to add to (amplify) the sample.

6) They then assign (yes, it is arbitrary) a number of passes that anything less than is considered a “positive” result (37 in the attached is mentioned) and if it is not shiny and filled by that pass, it is considered “negative”. So, if you do have a lot of viral fragments...

7) (again, could be a different virus) and 10 passes later light reflects back, this would be “positive” for the virus…In this example, your sample was pretty close to filling the hole…it only took 10 passes or swipes of DNA “primer” to fill the hole and reflect the light back.

8) But say you have a tiny amount of fragments, and you don’t fill the hole until 50 passes with your PCR filler…This would be a “negative” for the virus if the cut-off (again arbitrary, 37) was below how many passes it took. The real issue is, different geographic areas, labs,

9) risk groups, "tracing results”, etc… will use different cut-off points to delineate positive or negative. This is how a papaya (pawpaw) can test positive… The sample could literally have ZERO fragments, but if the PCR is allowed to make enough passes, say 48 or 50,

10) you can build a “viral” strand just from the primers…so, say they cut-off normally at 37 b/c it’s believed the primer fragments can build up enough to return light soon thereafter no matter what is in the sample, and this lab put it’s cut-off at 52 passes...

11) well, the papaya (pawpaw) is positive (this just happened in Tanzania…and a goat tested positive as well). https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/coronavirus-tanzania-test-kits-suspicion-goat-pawpaw-positive-a9501291.html Below, from: https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/?fbclid=IwAR1wx2aMf_jAp8yVfrRlL4FHyIU1atLLAfzcemZbZBYaM_8Rnht72JAc60c

12) “PCR detects a very small segment of the nucleic acid which is part of a virus itself**. The specific fragment detected is determined by the somewhat arbitrary choice of DNA primers used which become the ends of the amplified fragment. “ -K.Mullis (inventor of PCR, Nobel ’93)

13) *** Part of “a virus itself”…not necessarily THE virus you are "looking for” but a virus. We are loaded with harmless viruses, helpful viruses and fragments of viruses. Our note “PCR is really a manufacturing technique,” Crowe explained. “You start with one molecule...

14) You start with a small amount of DNA and on each cycle the amount doubles, which doesn’t sound like that much, but if you, if you double 30 times, you get approximately a billion times more material than you started with. So as a manufacturing technique, it’s great!

15) What they do is they attach a fluorescent molecule to the RNA as they produce it. You shine a light at one wavelength, and you get a response, you get light sent back at a different wavelength. So, they measure the amount of light that comes back and that’s their surrogate

16) for how much DNA there is. I’m using the word DNA. There’s a step in RT- PCR test which is where you convert the RNA to DNA. So, the PCR test is actually not using the viral RNA. It’s using DNA, but it’s like the complimentary RNA. So logically it’s the same thing,

17) but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there’s a certain number of cycles.”
This is where it gets wild....

18) “In one paper,” Crowe says, “I found 37 cycles. If you didn’t get enough fluorescence by 37 cycles, you are considered negative. In another, paper, the cutoff was 36. Thirty-seven to 40 were considered “indeterminate.” And if you got in that range, then you did more testing.

19) I’ve only seen two papers that described what the limit was. So, it’s quite possible that different hospitals, different States, Canada versus the US, Italy versus France are all using different cutoff sensitivity standards of the Covid test.

20) So, if you cut off at 20, everybody would be negative. If you cut off a 50, you might have everybody positive.” Does this, or should it replace #KochsPostulates? The inventor NEVER thought so, nor should scientists in the field of infectious disease. #controltestcotrolresult.

@threader_app please compile and unroll this mess :)