You might want to rethink this paragraph. There are indeed issues such as:
1. Process inventor Kary Mullis stating on numerous occasions that PCR is not a diagnostic tool and if used as such will provide false data.
2. The entire pandemic was fundamentally built on the back of Drosten PCR test which was thoroughly debunked back in November 2020 by some of the worlds leading experts in an
independent peer review in which they outlined no fewer than 10 major scientific flaws. This test has been used worldwide to justify the need for further lockdowns etc.
3. The protocol setting of PCR levels at 40+ cycles by bodies such as the CDC and WHO guaranteed a test-demic because all literature associated with the product as well as multiple studies reveal this leads inexorably to a tidal wave of false positives.
No its not PCR's fault. Yes there is a problem with PCR used this way. I'm sure that's what you meant but perhaps it would have been better to focus on this instead of claiming what you did, don't you think?
When I saw Ryan's comment I did not feel motivated to try to challenge what was in it. That was my intuitions talking. But seeing that you have taken the time to address it, I will do my small part to clarify where I was coming from when I wrote this.
However the issue of what is the PCR test actually doing is a valid issue as it is the bases of keeping the Illusion going. How Drosten so quickly had everything ready for testing smells to high heaven of preplanned "stage props". Plus much of what is written in that article partly covers what is in Ian's article.
PCR test from the very start was challenged in 2020 as not being the right tool for the job. Testing people
without any symptoms for an illness on a mass scale
WITHOUT a doctor present was something unheard of prior to 2020. Post 2020 that is now Normal.
In this New Normal a single test (yes, there is also the antigen test) offers a binary result , Positive/Negative, which is used to categorizes people "Free to Go" vs. "Go to Camp/Hotel". One group poses no danger while the over is suspect of being one.
Now if PCR ,
as it is used today, was giving a reasonable assessment of danger, one could tolerate its use. But the truth is that the way it is used, it is not giving "a reasonable assessment" ,
when in reality it could. So what's the problem ?
I'll just address two "issues".
1) PCR Test results as done today (I'm generalizing), do not provide information as to what it was that was amplified/copied. Was it
a) Live virus
b) Dead virus
c) Virus fragments
d) or what mixture of the above
it found in the sample. Not knowing this, it is impossible to tell if the asymptomatic individual is a danger to others. That poor soul in the airport or in the long lines in China.
2) Compounding the first problem is
the number of cycles the test is run and then stopped. My understanding is that many labs run this test to a specific cycle number AND THEN STOP. For some it might be 30 or 35 or 45. There is no standard and all do it differently. Here I am going on hear say of what I have read on the internet, as I do not have personal knowledge of what goes on in the labs doing these test. Back in 2020 one Italian doctor showed one such test report and outlined the various shortcoming of it. OK, one does equal all, but that is the world we live in today. No transparency.
Now the issue here is that one cycle number does not fit all
situations, something that was known mid-2020. Even though it was know, nothing was done about it as it generated the needed
"Cases reported today is ..." for the media. The "situation" being,
1) Just infected
2) Already sick (mild case or full blown)
3) Had the illness and is now OK
4) Was infected some months ago without even knowing it
All these cases could result in a "Positive" PCR result if run to a preset number of cycles. Is it possible to differentiate ? Yes, but not the way the test is run today, set cycle number and run. What is needed is to report the Threshold Cycle Number. What is this number ? It is the number of cycles the test is run and it then first registers as being Positive. So for situation 1) above it might be 23, for 3) 29 and for 4) 40.
The answer to why the test turns Positive for each of these situations at different magnitude of cycle number is found below. However not to pussyfoot around I say it in simple words, "viral load". In a person who has the full blow illness it is very high, for the rest it is low, with the qualification that "low" is a relative characteristic. In someone who had the illness or was in contact with the virus this viral load will be very low. In a person who just recovered it will be low. The graph below explains best what I mean.
The following graph is from a french study of over 3000 PCR tests showing that if the person has high viral load the PCR test turns Positive at low Cycle Threshold values. When there are just fragments or the person is long past illness you need to go to a higher Cycle Threshold value BEFORE THE TEST TURNS POSITIVE.
Percentage of positive viral cultures of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 polymerase chain reaction–positive nasopharyngeal samples from coronavirus disease 2019 patients, according to Ct value (plain line). The dashed curve indicates the polynomial regression curve. Abbreviations: Ct, cycle threshold; Poly., polynomial.
TO THE EDITOR—The outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was decl
academic.oup.com
Respiratory samples from COVID-19 patients with > 8 days of symptoms and a SARS-CoV-2 E gene reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction cycle thres
academic.oup.com
Multivariate logistic regression using positive culture as a predictor variable (binary result) and STT, age, and sex as independent variables showed Ct as being significant (odds ratio [OR], 0.64 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .49–.84];
P < .001).
This implies that for every 1-unit increase in Ct, the odds of a positive culture decreased by 32%. Increasing symptom to test time was also significantly associated with a negative culture (OR, 0.63 [95% CI, .42–.94];
P = .025).
For every 1-day increase in STT, the odds ratio of being culture positive was decreased by 37%. Receiver operating characteristic curves constructed using Ct vs positive culture showed an area of 0.91 (95% CI, .85–.97;
P < .001) with 97% specificity obtained at a Ct of > 24. Similarly, STT vs positive culture showed an area of 0.81 (95% CI .73–.90;
P < .001), with 96% specificity at > 8 days. The probability of successfully cultivating SARS-CoV-2 on Vero cell culture compared to STT is demonstrated in
Figure 3. The probability of obtaining a positive viral culture peaked on day 3 and decreased from that point.
OK, I think this information is sufficient to show what some of the issues (there are other) are with the PCR test as it is used today.
Misuse of this test is what's keeping the Public in the dark. Those not familiar with this test's details have only their intuition as a guide to conclude that the current situation is just one giant con game. The technical details are the ones that can show how it is misused but vast majority will not have it or understand it.
Thanks Michael for your effort to keep things on an even keel. We are in the end just sharing what we know, though that might be misconstrued as obfuscation by some at times.
Cheers
PS: My original post had this,
I recall listening to XXX (I can not recall her name or find the video) who stated that what was accepted as anti-viral medication in the 80's is no longer mentioned in Medical School where her son studied.
XXX is Dr. Lee Merritt.