225
Comments (12)
sorted by:
19
SemperFree 19 points ago +19 / -0

The man who created PCR recommended against using it as a Covid test. That was not it's purpose.

12
deleted 12 points ago +12 / -0
7
I_LUV_WINNING 7 points ago +7 / -0

Maybe even publicly debated among a panel of unbiased scientists?

3
I_Love_45-70_Gov 3 points ago +3 / -0

Is there a Test Primer Sequence that can actually identify unbiased "scientists"?

10
deleted 10 points ago +11 / -1
7
NelsC 7 points ago +7 / -0

Because not all tests use the WHO primer.

2
I_Love_45-70_Gov 2 points ago +2 / -0

Because...science.

2
RandoMando2A 2 points ago +2 / -0

Valid point. I was wondering the same thing.

9
Make_It_So 9 points ago +9 / -0

If true it will of course be ignored.

5
Hunterscrackbaby 5 points ago +5 / -0

I wanted to break this out a bit more:

Source: I worked in a college science lab as a TA for a time. Helped teach both O-Chem and Physics.

To understand PCR you need a basic understanding of DNA: https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-dna

Basically DNA is a pattern of building blocks that is sooooooo long, with so many different combinations it is also unique between people. Building blocks of life and all that. Those blocks are read by cells and used to make more cells of different types. Everything living has DNA. Plants, animals, bacteria and yes even viruses that come from Chy-na.

My understanding of what the PCR test is doing is taking the DNA sample, and then applying a specific chemical reaction to multiply a specific strand of DNA in a very specific way. (Think of it as you are looking for a needle in a haystack and have a machine that multiples the needles)

The idea is that I (the doctors) "know" the special line of DNA that ChinaVirus has, so I add the sample into a machine that replicates that strand of DNA millions of times.

I am not sure how the PCR test determines a positive (meaning the sample has presence of the virus that came from China) specifically but many many many lab tests for other things look for a color change indicator. You have a solution, add the indicator, make some chemical magic happen and the result is based on the color change of the solution. (or lack of one).

There are of course many more sophisticated ways to test for the presence of something, but the method is the same. Take sample, add thing, look for expected change.

My guess is the PCR test does something like a more sophisticated version of Gel Electrophoresis with the obtained sample:

https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-gel-electrophoresis

Which is basically taking the parts of the DNA, applying a current, and watching how they split relative to a known sample.

"You are very articulate for a crack baby of a disgraced son of a corrupt politician, but why do I care?"

What is so interesting about this article is that supposedly out 8th chromosome has a strand of DNA very similar (or the same) as one of the strands found in ChinaVirus that is multiple in order to confirm presence of an infection. This would mean that we are multiplying human DNA samples that many many people have and seeing those samples as viral ones.

I should note as well, that not all labs are using the same DNA sequence. This doesn't blow all PCR tests away, but it throws into question what sequence(s) are being used, and why we chose to use those specific sequences.

I am not saying I believe this 100%, but I am saying I will be doing some more research into it. If there is something here, it could destroy the entire way we have been reporting cases. It would also explain many of the "asymptomatic" carriers.

3
hydroxy 3 points ago +3 / -0

The primer sequences are what get amplified by the PCR process in order to be detected and designated a “positive” test result.

Actually, they are the borders of the region that will get amplified. However, the primers are designed to be unique, and they are generally checked for uniqueness (and other things). Not sure what's going on here, but the national tests don't use these primers, as far as I can tell.

3
SharpCookie 3 points ago +3 / -0

David Icke was right!