Jump to content

Thanks for visiting BtownBanners.com!  We noticed you have AdBlock enabled.  While ads can be annoying, we utilize them to provide these forums free of charge to you!  Please consider removing your AdBlock for BtownBanners or consider signing up to donate and help BtownBanners stay alive!  Thank you!

Class of '66 Old Fart

Coronavirus and Its Impact

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:


At the risk of over-generalization, I believe that far too many testing and protocol issues are attributed to bad intentions, when the real cause of most testing and protocol issues is...

incompetence.

 

Possibly but the leader of the country did say that we should stop testing then cut the number of sites doing testing.  Methinks there might be a connection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brass Cannon said:

Possibly but the leader of the country did say that we should stop testing then cut the number of sites doing testing.  Methinks there might be a connection

I mean it makes sense if you believe there's only cases because of testing.  By that logic cutting testing means reducing cases.

It doesn't actually work that way unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

Possibly but the leader of the country did say that we should stop testing then cut the number of sites doing testing.  Methinks there might be a connection

Fact: We are using a PCR test to diagnose a virus which is not intended to be a diagnostic test for a virus or anything else. The inventor of the test, Kary Mullis stated, "PCR cannot be totally and should never be used as a tool in the diagnosis of infectious diseases.”

Fact: When used for diagnostic purposes, this test has a history of causing false epidemic scares.

Fact: The rate of false positive rate for this test is unknown.

Fact: This is a subjective test which can produce varying results based on how the analysis is performed. The analysis method has not been standardized.

Fact: In any statistical model, if you put crap data in, you get crap data out.

Fun Fact: A goat and a papaya have tested positive using this test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bigrod said:

Fact: We are using a PCR test to diagnose a virus which is not intended to be a diagnostic test for a virus or anything else. The inventor of the test, Kary Mullis stated, "PCR cannot be totally and should never be used as a tool in the diagnosis of infectious diseases.”

Fact: When used for diagnostic purposes, this test has a history of causing false epidemic scares.

Fact: The rate of false positive rate for this test is unknown.

Fact: This is a subjective test which can produce varying results based on how the analysis is performed. The analysis method has not been standardized.

Fact: In any statistical model, if you put crap data in, you get crap data out.

Fun Fact: A goat and a papaya have tested positive using this test.


In all fairness, the goat was running a fever and the papaya was a bit overripe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bigrod said:

subjective test

I don't think it is a subjective test (unless the term means something else in the medical field). It does have an error rate for false positives and false negatives, which is also alarming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, bigrod said:

Fact: We are using a PCR test to diagnose a virus which is not intended to be a diagnostic test for a virus or anything else. The inventor of the test, Kary Mullis stated, "PCR cannot be totally and should never be used as a tool in the diagnosis of infectious diseases.”

Fact: When used for diagnostic purposes, this test has a history of causing false epidemic scares.

Fact: The rate of false positive rate for this test is unknown.

Fact: This is a subjective test which can produce varying results based on how the analysis is performed. The analysis method has not been standardized.

Fact: In any statistical model, if you put crap data in, you get crap data out.

Fun Fact: A goat and a papaya have tested positive using this test.

Says the guy who claims that we have never created a vaccine for a Coronavirus before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

Says the guy who claims that we have never created a vaccine for a Coronavirus before. 

Honestly, all I've seen on his goat and fruit claim is that thing from social media claiming Tanzanian president had them tested.  A president that wanted his people to pray the virus away and has been criticized for his handling of it (among other things).

Even if a goat did test positive, this virus was previously seen in animals anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bigrod said:

Fact: We are using a PCR test to diagnose a virus which is not intended to be a diagnostic test for a virus or anything else. The inventor of the test, Kary Mullis stated, "PCR cannot be totally and should never be used as a tool in the diagnosis of infectious diseases.”

Fact: When used for diagnostic purposes, this test has a history of causing false epidemic scares.

Fact: The rate of false positive rate for this test is unknown.

Fact: This is a subjective test which can produce varying results based on how the analysis is performed. The analysis method has not been standardized.

Fact: In any statistical model, if you put crap data in, you get crap data out.

Fun Fact: A goat and a papaya have tested positive using this test.

On your first fact.  I don’t believe Kary Mullis states that.  In fact I know that is a false thing on social media and has been debunked.  It was fact checked a month ago and is actually attributed to John Lauritsen in a 1996 article about HIV and AIDS.  You will never find someone in the medical field that says their product doesn’t work when many feel like it does.  For all of the conspiracy theorists out there let me know of a time you heard someone making hundreds of billions that would make that claim that would mass disincentivize their own product.  We really need to quit getting our data from social media.  

http://www.virusmyth.org/aids/hiv/jlprotease.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Testing people, testing.   I’ve been saying this for weeks.  The scientists need to be scrutinized about the fraudulent testing methods and honest about what the results actually mean.  
 
I’m fully with bigrod on this one. 
 

Instead we worship numbers, cases and deaths, based on testing that has massive error and inadequacies.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mdn82 said:

On your first fact.  I don’t believe Kary Mullis states that.  In fact I know that is a false thing on social media and has been debunked.  It was fact checked a month ago and is actually attributed to John Lauritsen in a 1996 article about HIV and AIDS.  You will never find someone in the medical field that says their product doesn’t work when many feel like it does.  For all of the conspiracy theorists out there let me know of a time you heard someone making hundreds of billions that would make that claim that would mass disincentivize their own product.  We really need to quit getting our data from social media.  

http://www.virusmyth.org/aids/hiv/jlprotease.htm

So you are saying this is a conspiracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WayneFleekHoosier said:

Testing people, testing.   I’ve been saying this for weeks.  The scientists need to be scrutinized about the fraudulent testing methods and honest about what the results actually mean.  
 
I’m fully with bigrod on this one. 
 

Instead we worship numbers, cases and deaths, based on testing that has massive error and inadequacies.   

What fraudulent testing methods?  There are currently 2 for Covid.  Diagnostic and Antibody.  Within the diagnostic there are 2.  Molecular and Antigen.  PCR is the most common of the Molecular.  It is the most common test.  No matter if you go in for cancer or diabetes, there are wide margins for error.  That’s why in anything that you get a blood sample for there are radiographic images that can provide views needed to confirm a diagnosis.  In Covid we don’t have that.  In viruses this is very common because there is no way with a blood test to be 100% certain.  There is a human element in every virus testing. They have to store a sample in a precise environment.  They also have to handle these samples.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brass Cannon said:

Says the guy who claims that we have never created a vaccine for a Coronavirus before. 

You're right. I guess I should have said SUCCESSFUL vaccine. Look into that vaccine a little and you will find at the end of that last "scare," they quit collecting data because the only people who were getting it were people who were vaccinated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bigrod said:

So you are saying this is a conspiracy?

No I am just saying it’s false.  Common sense on my end having had to buy medical products and no person in the medical world would say that to get people not to buy their product.  There is no conspiracy.  That was a mangled quote on HIV and AIDS directly which have no common correlation to a virus.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, WayneFleekHoosier said:

worship numbers, cases and deaths

I think a more appropriate word would be concerned about the numbers, cases, and deaths (plus positivity rate and hospitalization).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brass Cannon said:

Possibly but the leader of the country did say that we should stop testing then cut the number of sites doing testing.  Methinks there might be a connection

Interesting as the number of tests are way up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mdn82 said:

What fraudulent testing methods?  There are currently 2 for Covid.  Diagnostic and Antibody.  Within the diagnostic there are 2.  Molecular and Antigen.  PCR is the most common of the Molecular.  It is the most common test.  No matter if you go in for cancer or diabetes, there are wide margins for error.  That’s why in anything that you get a blood sample for there are radiographic images that can provide views needed to confirm a diagnosis.  In Covid we don’t have that.  In viruses this is very common because there is no way with a blood test to be 100% certain.  There is a human element in every virus testing. They have to store a sample in a precise environment.  They also have to handle these samples.  

PCR tests aren’t normally ran at 40 cycles to find detection.  13 cycles? Sure. 22 cycles? Sure.  40 cycles?  Let’s run tap water at 40 cycles.  Maybe we will find some viral fragments in there.  

also, the antibody test doesn’t distinguish COVID-19 from Coronavirus which is a very common virus. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Mullis passed away a few years ago, I guess we can't get his direct words, but have to rely on quotes or people who knew him. I think this is reinforcing what some here are saying about testing, but also the problems with the PCR test:

David Crowe, a Canadian researcher with a degree in biology and mathematics explained the problems with the PCR based coronavirus testing: “The first thing to know is that the test is not binary. In fact, I don’t think there are any tests for infectious disease that are positive or negative. What they do is they take some kind of a continuum and they arbitrarily say this point is the difference between positive and negative.”

He continued:

“PCR is really a manufacturing technique. You start with one molecule. 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. 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 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, but it can be confusing. Like why am I suddenly talking about DNA? Basically, there’s a certain number of cycles.”

Regarding Kary Mullis’ intention for the PCR, this is what he said:

“I’m sad that he isn’t here to defend his manufacturing technique. Kary did not invent a test. He invented a very powerful manufacturing technique that is being abused. What are the best applications for PCR? Not medical diagnostics. He knew that and he always said that.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, WayneFleekHoosier said:

PCR tests aren’t normally ran at 40 cycles to find detection.  13 cycles? Sure. 22 cycles? Sure.  40 cycles?  Let’s run tap water at 40 cycles.  Maybe we will find some viral fragments in there.  

also, the antibody test doesn’t distinguish COVID-19 from Coronavirus which is a very common virus. 
 

 

It depends on the vendor recommendations on 40 cycles.  I know Applied Biosystems runs for 40 cycles at 15 seconds each.  Depends on the unit.  Hospitals have very little say in how they run their equipment.  Just like your ceph unit in your office.  You know how to run it.  Less than a second, over 90 kvp or over over 10 mA depending on which machine you got.  If you stayed local and bought from Panoramic Corporation their recommendation would have been different than if you bought from GE.  Their test equipment is no different.  The variations are dependent on the manufacturer.  Not lab techs going rogue.  And I completely agree with you on the antibody tests.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×