Is pcr testing reliable
Looking for:
Is pcr testing reliable -
The following is merely information - not advice. If you need medical advice, please consult your doctor or other appropriate medical professionals. Just how reliable is it? Sars-Cov2, like many other viruses, contains genetic material called RNA which are so small they are difficult to detect.
PCR tests doubles the fragments called 'cycle thresholds C. T and keeps doubling them until they have enough genetic material to identify.
Most labs go up to 38 to 40 cycles which is an amplification of 1 trillion times. Is that too much amplification? Genuinely sick people get a positive test after 6 cycles 64 amplifications because they have a high viral load. We are a group of senior medical doctors and health professionals who are concerned about the health impacts of the lockdowns used in response to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in Victoria and across Australia.
We are also concerned about the lack of good information available to the general public and the misleading use of data. These factors have created an unwarranted state of fear in our community. We aim to detail the harms of the lockdowns, describe clearly the virulence and risks of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, critique aspects of the management policies and make this information readily available to the general public.
Reliability of PCR Tests? A short video exploring the reliability of PCR Testing. Disclaimer Privacy Refund Policy.
- Is pcr testing reliable
Rapid PCR Test for Travel | Fly COVID Test Center - Introduction
Is pcr testing reliable -
We are a group of senior medical doctors and health professionals who are concerned about the health impacts of the lockdowns used in response to the SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in Victoria and across Australia. We are also concerned about the lack of good information available to the general public and the misleading use of data. These factors have created an unwarranted state of fear in our community. We aim to detail the harms of the lockdowns, describe clearly the virulence and risks of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, critique aspects of the management policies and make this information readily available to the general public.
Reliability of PCR Tests? This means that you are positive for the coronavirus if the test process required up to 40 cycles, or 37, to detect the virus. This is amazing, as the FDA would have had to have known that by allowing high numbers of cycles in the PCR test that enormous numbers of false positives were being generated. The C. All of this means that the fact the tests were useless was known for many months before the WHO disavowed the PCR tests.
The way the test was run brings up another problem. Lidiya Angelova goes on to explain how the PCR test needed to be run. Drosten and his coworkers used sequence from China to create the primers for the test. It has multiple flaws which were discussed before but one seems never got a spotlight — reproducibility. How did they determine the PCR test should have been used in the first place if they were never able to use it to identify covid?
Tests must be performed in sterile conditions as the sampling. In reality none of it is done: different reagents, real samples, since the mass of the testing unqualified personnel, no sterile environment during taking the sample and after it. This means that the test was really entirely experimental and designed to be run from a lab environment rather than from the field. The result is unreliable. There is no evidence if those samples are positive or negative!
The diagnostic procedure most widely used for this purpose is based on the polymerase chain reaction PCR. The PCR is a very powerful and versatile method that lends itself to numerous applications in molecular biology, and also in the laboratory diagnosis of viral infections. However, exactly because it is so powerful, PCR is very difficult to get right even at the best of times; it will yield accurate results only in the hands of highly trained and disciplined personnel.
The enormous scale on which the method has been deployed during the COVID pandemic has meant that it was entrusted to untrained and insufficiently supervised personnel; in such circumstances, the mass manufacture of false-positive results due to the cross-contamination of samples is a disaster waiting to happen see for example [37].
Another thing that the WHO did not declare or admit is what the inventor Dr. Kary Mullis himself stated that the PCR is not really meant for diagnosing a viral disease or any disease as it is only for identifying nucleotides, very small fragments of DNA or RNA, for replication and enlargement so then experts can identify what they need to identify.
So the question here is… what is the WHO trying to identify when there is no actual genetic sequence to be modelled in the first place? Mike Yeadon, along with others, has published a scientific paper. Yeadon stated:. In addition, in his video testimony, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, a high profile German-American lawyer who already filed a class action suit together with another expert Dr.
Wolfgang Wodarg also stated:. Yeadon, in agreement with the professors of immunology Kamera from Germany, Kappel from the Netherlands, and Cahill from Ireland, as well as the microbiologist Dr. Arve from Austria, all of whom testified before the German Corona Committee, explicitly points out that a positive test does not mean that an intact virus has been found. The authors explain that what the PCR test actually measures is — and I quote:.
Towards the end of the video, it describes that the PCR test provides false positives, which means nearly all the people who were declared to have died of covid did not die of covid, as they did not have covid. They had a false positive from a test that was never designed to be used to test if a person had covid.
Hmmmm…so the test is meaningless. Yet we breathlessly observe the test numbers as reported by media outlets and websites like world o meter. This is a very popular website. I checked it many times. However, I had no idea that the number of cases is unknown as it relies on a test that does not work.
Furthermore, the number of covid deaths is also greatly exaggerated as I cover in the article How the Covid 19 Mortality Rate Was Irresponsibly Exaggerated. There are a lot of very nice graphs on this website, like the one above. The directive does not allow the counting of co-morbidities. Applied on April 16, , this directive was conducive to an immediate sharp increase in the number of deaths attributed to Covid One can tell by reading the documentation, or the Covid Test Fact Sheet that is given to those that are tested.
Therefore, it is also likely that you may be placed in isolation to avoid spreading the virus to others. There is a very small chance that this test can give a positive result that is wrong a false positive result. Your healthcare provider will work with you to determine how best to care for you based on the test results along with medical history, and your symptoms.
This is not true, as has been covered already. Is this test FDA-approved or cleared? The PCR test standard was used for the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. However, this undermines all of the math in all of the tests discussed so far. How do we know the use of PCR testing at cycles was known by authorities to be fraudulent? Because now that the vaccine program has been rolled out the vaccinated are only given PCR tests at a reasonable 28 cycles, while the unvaccinated continue to be subjected to the fraudulent cycle PCR testing.
This of course deceptively insures that the unvaccinated continue to generate completely asymptomatic false positives, and can then be made to appear to be driving the spread of the illness. Meanwhile the vaccinated are much less likely to test positive given their testing is now, indefensible by any scientific measure, conducted at the lower 28 cycle threshold when compared to the unvaccinated conducted at cycles.
Yes, so that could explain any difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. So both this test, and all other tests, including the tests submitted by Pfizer and Moderna and others to obtain emergency use authorization are now invalid. None of the math I went through makes any difference as the PCR tests were never legitimate. Covid is not the first time the PCR tests created a number of false positives.
The following occurred back in For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1, health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.
Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care. Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.
Not a single case of whooping cough was confirmed with the definitive test, growing the bacterium, Bordetella pertussis, in the laboratory. Instead, it appears the health care workers probably were afflicted with ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold.
Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test that led them astray. At Dartmouth the decision was to use a test, P.
It is a molecular test that, until recently, was confined to molecular biology laboratories. Kathryn Edwards, an infectious disease specialist and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University. We are trying to figure out how to use methods that have been the purview of bench scientists. So even though the PCR tests failed in the field rather than a controlled and sterile lab environment and created a faux mini pandemic, they were introduced and accepted to test covid, where they failed once again.
Curiously I found another article linked to the above article in the New York Times which carried ridiculous and false information about the PCR tests and proposed an even less accurate test be used. During this pandemic, that has meant relying heavily on PCR testing, an extremely accurate but time- and labor-intensive method that requires samples to be processed at laboratories. As we have established, the PCR test may be time and labor intensive, but it is not accurate, much less extremely accurate.
But as the virus continues its rampage across the country and tests remain in short supply in many regions, researchers and public health experts have grown increasingly vocal about revising this long-held credo.
This is amazing. It means that many people had no idea the PCR tests were incredibly inaccurate. Outside of rolling dice or tarrot cards, there is no test less accurate than a PCR test. Health System. It is also a relatively quick test. It only takes a couple of hours to run, and multiple samples can be run together. The speed, ease, sensitivity, and accuracy of PCR is very fine-tuned, and is therefore an unshakeable standard in the world of molecular biology.
It has been used for decades and will continue to be used for decades to come. The following gel electrophoresis technique is used in laboratory analysis. When a PCR process is completed in laboratory analysis, it is often visualised through a technique called gel electrophoresis, which looks like this:.
At the top, there are numbers that denote different samples. In the middle, the white lines show different samples after PCR; we can compare the location of that piece of DNA to the ladder and estimate the size of the DNA fragment. Each of these has a specific temperature and time it needs to run, and will affect how reliable the final PCR result is. The last stage is the most flexible because it depends directly on the length of the DNA fragment you are trying to read.
Think of it like a cake: a big cake needs more time in the oven. This means the final PCR can sometimes show the wrong result if the timing is wrong and the fragment is thus smaller than expected.
Comments
Post a Comment