Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
Back to Main

October 13, 2020
Professor Chossudovsky Is Wrong – Here Is How PCR Tests Work

The website Global Research provides at times interesting reading. It is edited by Michael Chossudovsky, an emeritus professor for economics. Unfortunately he at times writes about issues that are beyond his horizon.

In a recent piece, The Covid-19 Numbers Game: The “Second Wave” is Based on Fake Statistics, he falsely claims that the tests which are globally used to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections also react to other viruses and thereby deliver false results.

The method of the currently used SARS-CoV-2 test is based on the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). The polymerase chain reaction can create millions of copies of RNA or DNA snippets fed into it:

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is a method widely used to rapidly make millions to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample, allowing scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it to a large enough amount to study in detail.
…
Thermal cycling exposes reactants to repeated cycles of heating and cooling to permit different temperature-dependent reactions – specifically, DNA melting and enzyme-driven DNA replication. PCR employs two main reagents – primers (which are short single strand DNA fragments known as oligonucleotides that are a complementary sequence to the target DNA region) and a DNA polymerase.

A clinical probe is taken from a human who may have the virus. In a preparation phase the probe is chemically cleaned and the outer hulls of viruses in it get destroyed. What is left includes the genetic material of the virus.

The genes of the SARS-CpV-2 are an RNA sequence with roughly 30,000 nucleotides. It is like a book with 30,000 characters on how to build the virus. It is unique for this  virus. The researchers who developed the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test have selected several unique snippets of about 100 nucleotides long out of the much longer string. Complementary oligonucleotides of the same length will then get synthesized. These are the primers for all following PCR tests.

The cleaned sample (10 to 200 µL), the primers and the polymerase are fed into a machine. Repeated cycles of heating and cooling will each multiply the number of RNA snippets in the sample. Luminescent markers are added to get an automatically readable result. Typically some 20-25 cycles are needed to detect the virus RNA snippets of an acute infection. When more cycles (typically up to 40) are used even a minimal amount of a specific virus RNA snippet can be detected. The process is highly automated.

Chossudovsky has not understood how the above process works. Specifically he has not understood that the selection of the oligonucleotides for the primer is very specific to the type of virus the test is supposed to detect.

Thus he is wrong when he writes:

According to Dr. Pascal Sacré, “these tests detect viral particles, genetic sequences, not the whole virus”

What this means is that the PCR test cannot detect or identify SARS-CoV-2. What it detects are fragments, which suggests that a standard “PCR positive” cannot be equated to a so-called Covid-19 Positive.

The PCR test will pick up fragments of several viruses including corona viruses as well as influenza (flu viruses A and B)

While SARS-2 which causes Covid-19 is considered to be similar to SARS-CoV-1, it has similar symptoms to seasonal influenza (Viruses A and B). Moreover, some of its milder symptoms are similar to those of the common cold corona viruses. According to the CDC: “Sometimes, respiratory secretions are tested to figure out which specific germ is causing your symptoms. If you are found to be infected with a common coronavirus (229E, NL63, OC43, and HKU1), that does not mean you are infected with the 2019 novel coronavirus.”

According to the CDC there are “seven [human] coronaviruses that can infect people” the first four of which (alpha, beta) are associated with the common cold.
…
In the above context, what this means is that a PCR test will pick up fragments of corona as well as influenza viruses. It will not be able to identify individual viruses including SARS-2.

“Fragments of viruses positive” does not mean “SARS-2 positive” (or Covid-19 Positive). The PCR test may pick up fragments of influenza viruses (A, B) as well as common cold beta coronaviruses (e.g. OC43, HKU1).

This highlighted passages are as wrong as one can possibly get it wrong. The RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 DO NOT detect other types of viruses.

We know this because the folks who developed the test the WHO recommends to use have written about their development process:

We downloaded all complete and partial (if > 400 nt) SARS-related virus sequences available in GenBank by 1 January 2020. The list (n = 729 entries) was manually checked and artificial sequences (laboratory-derived, synthetic, etc), as well as sequence duplicates were removed, resulting in a final list of 375 sequences. These sequences were aligned and the alignment was used for assay design (Supplementary Figure S1). Upon release of the first 2019-nCoV sequence at virological.org, three assays were selected based on how well they matched to the 2019-nCoV genome (Figure 1). The alignment was complemented by additional sequences released independently on GISAID (https://www.gisaid.org), confirming the good matching of selected primers to all sequences.


bigger

The selected oligonucleotide assays, each specific for a certain snippet of the SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA, were then tested for their sensitivity and chemical stability.

They were also tested for cross-reactivity with other viruses:

Cell culture supernatants containing all endemic human coronaviruses (HCoV)‑229E, ‑NL63, ‑OC43 and ‑HKU1 as well as MERS-CoV were tested in duplicate in all three assays (Table 2). [..] Additional undiluted (but not quantified) cell culture supernatants were tested as summarised in Table 2. These were additionally mixed into negative human sputum samples. None of the tested viruses or virus preparations showed reactivity with any assay.

In total 297 clinical samples with 23 different human virus types in them were tested. The newly developed assays developed to find only SARS-CoV-2 reacted with none of those.


bigger

The PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 has a high specificity. It can not detect other types of viruses.

There are additional safety procedures to avoid false tests.

Each test run of typically 90 to 120 samples will include one quality control sample with a known quantity of the SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA. It will also include one quality control sample that is guaranteed to contain no virus RNA. At the end of each run the results of both quality assurance samples will be compared with the expected value. If there is any mismatch the whole run it will be repeated with fresh sample extracts.

When the laboratory machine runs the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test it also will also note the number of cycles it needed for each sample to first detect a reaction. That will typically be in the 20-30 cycles range. If a detection is only made towards the end of the 40 cycle program the machine will note this and alert its operator. Tests which only show positivity above 35 cycles will usually get repeated as such a low reactivity may point to a potential sample contamination.

Where a coronavirus test can go wrong is at the point of sample taking. The swab that is used may not have picked up enough gunk to catch a significant number of viruses. The PCR test will then show the person as negative even when it has caught SARS-CoV-2. There can also be bureaucratic errors where the sample is attributed to the wrong person. The test protocols are designed to prevent this and such cases are rare.

When a person gets infected with SARS-CoV-2 and starts to reproduce the virus its numbers explode to billions of copies per milliliter. When the immune system starts to  defeat the virus the number will go down. Debris of dead virus may still be in the body four to five weeks after the infection onset even when the person is no longer infectious. The graphic below shows which test reacts at which stage of an infection.


bigger

A person that is tested PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2 will have been infected with the virus. There is no other way to pick up the RNA snippets the PCR test is looking for. But that person may not have developed COVID-19 symptoms and may no longer be infectious. We do not know this for sure. Tests to find out if a person still spreads viable viruses take a several days and require a lot of manual labor in high security laboratories. These can not be done for everyone.

To recap:

  • The PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 is highly specific for that virus and does not detect any other ones.
  • A positive PCR tests demonstrates that the person has or has had the virus.
  • We have no practical way to tell if that person, even when it shows no symptoms, is still infectious and spreading the disease.

The only way to prevent new infections coming from a PCR-positive person is to isolate that person. After 10 days the immune system of most people will have defeated the virus. (That a significant number of people are still ill at that point is the consequence of an exaggerated immune reaction to the virus, not of the virus itself.)

It is sad that an otherwise useful site like Global Research is spreading such false information about the Coronavirus pandemic. Chossudovsky should stick to writing about social issues. He obviously lacks the basic hard science knowledge that is necessary to understand how PCR tests work.

Spreading such unqualified statements during a pandemic like Chossudovsky's piece does is highly irresponsible.

That is the reason why I delete comments at this site with spread similar nonsense.

Posted by b on October 13, 2020 at 19:34 UTC | Permalink
Comments

Then why does the test produce so many false positives ?

Posted by: Eatson | Oct 13 2020 19:53 utc | 1

Chossudovsky is wrong, but going in the right direction.
False positives in PCR tests are a real problem and a real phenomenon.
There is a mathematical likelihood that false positive rates in large tested populations can skew “new cases” data, particularly if the real case number is low.
Note this commentary and overview of the false positive phenomenon (due to PCR test issues): PCR false positives can skew real COVID-19 status

Associate Chief Medical Officer of Health Dr. Barbara Yaffe cautioned against seeing wide-spread COVID-19 testing as a solution. She went on to state that “in fact, if you’re testing in a population that doesn’t have very much COVID, you’ll get false positives almost half the time.”
…
With a prevalence of e.g. 0.5%, we expect that 200 out of 40,000 tests are true positives. If we assume the sensitivity characteristic of the test at 99%, we get 198 correct positives out of the 200 true “infections” that should be detected, while two are missed. These two misses are false-negative results. False negatives are problematic, since potentially infectious persons are told that they don’t pose a risk to their environment. However, at a low prevalence of the disease, these misses are very small, even negligible, in comparison with the correctly identified negatives.
…
With an assumed specificity of 99.5%, our test would determine 39,601 correct negatives out of 39,800 persons who are truly not “infected”. An issue arises with the remaining 199 false positives, which are wrongly detected by the test although they do not carry the virus. While the number is small in proportion to the correct negatives, we need to view it in relation to the 198 correct positives. From the perspective of each person testing positive, the chance that they are in fact falsely positive is 199 : 198, thus 50% of the 397 total positive test results are false positives, in line with the warnings by the officials cited above. The relationship is only this large due to the low prevalence of the disease.

Note the above isn’t conjecture, it is math. If the actual infection rate is high, then the false positive rate doesn’t matter much.
But if the infection rate is low, then the false positive rate matters very much.

Posted by: c1ue | Oct 13 2020 20:05 utc | 2

@Eatson: It doesn’t. You fall for the crap distributed by people who don’t understand the basics. Example given above.

Posted by: Cemi | Oct 13 2020 20:10 utc | 3

Same problem with diabetes test kits. Would you give A1C tests to random passers-by, despite some having eaten minutes ago while others may not have had food for hours? You’d be falsely diagnosing thousands of otherwise healthy people as diabetic.
PCR is intended to corroborate other evidence of an infection. It is not suited for random ‘presumed healthy’ screening.

Posted by: Dr Wellington Yueh | Oct 13 2020 20:31 utc | 4

That’s interesting and its good to set the record straight.
I’m finding it hard to get excited about covid itself anymore. Most countries have not been suffering an unusual death rate since July. The US is now suffering fewer deaths per week than occur on average. So how is it not largely over? Surely we’re not saying that somehow this is the first epidemic in history to never have an end?
On the other hand, I’m still intensely interested in the behaviour surrounding the topic. How strong the reactions have been; how quickly science got politicised; how easily a lot of people seem to abandon fact-based discussion and revert to mud-slinging; the human tendency to simplify a complex subject by focusing on one aspect; the emerging social cost of lockdowns; and the probably impending financial depression. I’m horrified by how some regions (eg. Victoria in Australia) have become police states, and by how much unconcerned support they have from most of the people. Sorry, no wise conclusions to offer yet. Just plenty to ponder…

Posted by: Deltaeus | Oct 13 2020 20:35 utc | 5

c1ue @2, your comment as written is perhaps a little misleading. In your third quoted section you highlighted in bold a line that conveys that 50% of positive test results are false positives, and then further asserted “Note the above isn’t conjecture, it is math.”
But you left out the fact that that quote was really just an example.
Here’s the key part that you left out:
The specificity of the PCR test for Sars-CoV-2 is a bit of a mystery and moving target, but before I discuss it, I will go through one example to explain the significance of false-positive results in the current phase of the pandemic.

Posted by: Cana | Oct 13 2020 20:37 utc | 6

Westerners are a fascinating bunch. They simply are impervious to facts. And not only that: the more the facts stake against them, the more they double down on darkness and ignorance.

Posted by: vk | Oct 13 2020 20:39 utc | 7

@vk #9:
OK, so…accept only the facts you say are correct, ignore any of the other facts presented by ‘some other side(s)’? Got it!

Posted by: Dr Wellington Yueh | Oct 13 2020 20:42 utc | 8

That is the reason why I delete comments at this site with spread similar nonsense.

So why are Norwegian’s many comments still peddling, Covid-19 is a fake virus, still appearing?

Posted by: Circe | Oct 13 2020 20:44 utc | 9

Eatsom@1 thinks that the PCR test produces “so many false positives”.
Cemi@4 thinks it doesn’t.
You decide for yourself. Data drawn from https://ourworldindata.org/
In US, they are performing roughly 700,000 tests a day (2-3% of population)
They report roughly 45,000 cases a day in recent weeks (~6% positive of those tested)
They report about 600 deaths a day (case fatality rate ~ 1.7%)
If the false positive rate for PCR is 0.8%, and the prevalence is about 5%, then you can expect about a 5.8% reported rate (5.0 + 0.95*0.8).
On the one hand, that means that about 15% of “cases” reported are false positives.
On the other hand, that means that about 85% of the “cases” reported are real infections.
Does the difference between 5% and 6% of the population being infected change things in any significant way?

Posted by: Deltaeus | Oct 13 2020 20:49 utc | 10

The real catch with this type of DNA analysis is that it is only ‘matching chunks’… it does not ‘sequence the genome’.
The ‘matching chunks’ thing is a problem with respect to thugs like racial profiling because similar people have similar chunks. Think for yourself about how that might translate to problems in virus identification.

Posted by: Rae | Oct 13 2020 21:04 utc | 11

Maybe he wants to be invited to … the Laura Ingraham show so that she can tell us that the CDC cooked the books to make Trump look bad and help China.

Posted by: Christian J. Chuba | Oct 13 2020 21:23 utc | 12

I recall a Czech scientist saying last spring that the initial test devised by the US CDC selected three sites for test matching and one of those sites matched other corona viruses like common cold. She called this out as bad design, expensive, complicated and not suitable to pandemic situation. They, the Czechs, designed their own test which they then shared widely across the world.

Posted by: suzan | Oct 13 2020 21:33 utc | 13

This i agree with b. I think Chossudovsky was wrong about why the tests are inaccurate. But the tests are not totally accurate.
“For RT-PCR tests, like those used to diagnose COVID-19, false negatives occur for a variety of reasons, such as the level of viral RNA being below the limit of detection of the test.
If the specimen cannot be sent immediately, it should be refrigerated at 2-8°C for up to 72 hours. If transport is not possible within 72 hours, then the sample should be stored at -70°C or below. Without proper transport medium or storage, specimens degrade. This is especially true for the RNA that is detected by an RT-PCR test. RNA is less stable than DNA, so if a specimen is not transported or stored appropriately, the risk of a false-negative RT-PCR result increases.
The art of determining how much viral RNA detected in a person is clinically significant, and therefore the target LOD for an accurate test, is just that…an art.
As yet, there is no consensus on how accurate our testing is, and given the potential for asymptomatic carriage and prolonged viral shedding post-infection, we likely have a long road ahead and many lessons to learn. )
“Since the test is new, its performance needs to be compared to the performance of a current “gold-standard” test, also known as the “reference standard”. There currently is no gold-standard diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 since the virus is new to us.” American Society for Microbiolgy
Professor Carl Heneghan is director of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.
When virus levels in the population are very low, the chances of a test accurately detecting Covid-19 could be even less than 50 per cent – for reasons that are not widely understood….
…Problems with test accuracy are likely to be more of an issue globally. The current US Centers for Disease Control test kits can generate up to 30 per cent false positives even in their best laboratories. Highly accurate tests can prove costly – more than £100 per test. So, we shouldn’t be surprised that in poorer countries, highly questionable cheaper alternative tests, which cost less than £3, have been distributed and used. A recent BMJ review reported that the specificity of PCR tests could be as low as 95 per cent, as PCR test performance can be much worse in low prevalence community settings. This would mean that, in our hypothetical of 10,000 tests, we’d have 500 false positives amongst the eight genuine positives. So the hundreds of false-positive Covid-19 results would dwarf the genuine results – meaning an apparent surge in infections that is not followed by a corresponding surge in hospital admissions or deaths.
Or False positive tests | Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
drmalcolmkendrick.org/2020/09/28/false-positive…
Sep 28, 2020 • I was recently in a conversation with an acquaintance and tried to explain that when there is a low overall disease prevalence (as is widely acknowledged, ONS puts it at 0.1%) the false positive rate (FPR) of the rt-PCR will result in virtually all positives being false.
RT: When seven staff at a Scottish football club tested positive for coronavirus, alarm bells went off. But really alarming was when six of those results turned out to be wrong. Such inaccurate tests are exaggerating the problem.
The Conversation
In the real world, testing conditions and process are far from perfect, and accuracy suffers. Researchers still don’t know what the real-world false positive rate is, but clinical sensitivity of RT-PCR tests ranges from 66% to 80%. That means nearly one in three infected people who are tested will receive false negative results.
Reporting on a Chinese Study – HCP Live: Results indicated 59% (n = 601) of the patients had positive RT-PCR results and 88% (n = 888) had positive chest CT scans. In patients with negative RT-PCR results, 75% (n = 308) had positive chest CT findings.,,, The authors noted that the data was collected from Wuhan—site of the central outbreak—and, therefore, radiologists may have been more likely to make a diagnosis of COVID-19 when typical CT features were found.
In another study : In the study, 86% (n = 840) of patients had CT findings “suggesting” infection.
Lastly, I feel it is important to note the sensitivity of RT-PCR testing, as described above, is less than optimal.
Gepay comment = Cars Sov2 has never been actually gold standard isolated especially in patients clinically diagnosed as Covid 19 See Jon rapaport or Andrew Kaufman for a detailed explanation of why this is true. This doesn’t mean there isn’t a SARS Cov 2 as they think might be possible but just that It hasn’t been isolated such that there hasn’t been obtained a pure isolate of the virus and there is no gold standard to test the accuracy of the various rt PCR tests . That is why mostly you see the studies using clinical symptom diagnoses to compare the accuracy rather than virally isolating CAR Cov from the positives . the antibody tests can cross react. The antibody tests are also only testing for blood antibodies while missing infections that cleared before making blood antibodies . Mucosal antibodies used for upper respiratory diseases are not tested for.
I repeat “There currently is no gold-standard diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 since the virus is new to us.” American Society for Microbiolgy
So clinical symptoms are used to verify the accuracy not gold standard comparing to isolated CARS Sov 2 taken from positive subjects
Reporting on a Chinese Study – HCP Live: “Results indicated 59% (n = 601) of the patients had positive RT-PCR results and 88% (n = 888) had positive chest CT scans. In patients with negative RT-PCR results, 75% (n = 308) had positive chest CT findings.,,, The authors noted that the data was collected from Wuhan—site of the central outbreak—and, therefore, radiologists may have been more likely to make a diagnosis of COVID-19 when typical CT features were found.
In another study : In the study, 86% (n = 840) of patients had CT findings “suggesting” infection.
Lastly, I feel it is important to note the sensitivity of RT-PCR testing, as described above, is less than optimal.”
So as of today there is no way to say that finding CARS SOV 2 fragments with an RT PCR test is conclusive with for findng it caused illness or death. There are certainly other factors like comorbities or even the initial protocals used in hospitals that were the deciding factor.

Posted by: gepay | Oct 13 2020 21:33 utc | 14

“Learning from Japan”
Interesting video and paper.
Dr. John Campbell UK presentation.
What is role of culture in disease progression and spread?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ1h33mPGuU
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.21.20198796v1.full.pdf

Posted by: suzan | Oct 13 2020 21:43 utc | 15

another site i deleted from my list a while back due to rampant covidiocy. even ICH has posted wank by mike whitney recently. anyhoo…
haven’t seen a ton of coverage for this while you’re on the subject. another nail in the coffin of “it’s the flu” if the linked study withstands scrutiny.

Posted by: the pair | Oct 13 2020 22:03 utc | 16

If somebody thinks a test is wrong, they publish evidence to this effect in the scientific literature. Usually they publish evidence pertaining specifically to the test in question, and evidence that is of a higher scientific standard than the original validation of the test they want to challenge.
On the other hand, if somebody wants to lie for some form of personal gain, or to shoe-horn something into an ideology in which it doesn’t fit, they simply write a bunch of lies and publish them, or they pay a good lawyer to try to convince a judge who has no background in the subject in question.
The above seems … bleedin’ obvious.
For anybody who knows how these tests work, and how they are developed, and how they are are validated, assertions about false positives without a really clear explanation, at the molecular level, of what everybody involved would have missed, is transparently a gish gallop: Just look how much MOA had to write in order to explain.
If somebody claimed false negatives in the PCR test, given the probable variability of swabbing, it would be far more convincing as a starting point. For someone to talk about false postives without fully considering the false negative rate, and the overwhelming likelihood that this will be higher than the false positive rate for any kind of sensitive nucleic acid-based clinical test, is a dead givaway.
Any lab could acquire testing materials and experiment with them if they want to question their quality. It is not very difficult to do, and plenty of very well-trained people would be motivated to do it. Stereotyping the scientific community as uniformly self-serving or corrupt, is a fantasy. People want to prove each other wrong *all the time*, and they will generally apply considerable wits and ingenuity to do it. Scientists are not all in the pay of big pharma, for sure. Some quite the opposite – screwed over/ripped off by big pharma.

Posted by: Shyaku | Oct 13 2020 22:10 utc | 17

If only Kary Mullis could see this absurd theatre, he’d have a good bitter laugh. Seeing abuse coming, he warned that the PCR method was unsuitable for diagnosis of viral infections. But what did the old fool know – Nobel Prize or not – he only invented it.
It seems that Covid is a raging success in several ways, not least as a new religion among the old who worship the mask as a magical promise of an extra lease on life.

Posted by: Leser | Oct 13 2020 22:43 utc | 18

@ Posted by: c1ue | Oct 13 2020 20:05 utc | 2
This rationalization is absurd. So you have to wait until everybody is infected to being testing?
It doesn’t matter the error rate of a test (any kind of test, not just the PCR): an approximate data is still better than no data. The lack of laser and precision machines didn’t stop the Romans from building the Flavian Amphitheater (“Colosseum”). You work with what you have, not with what you should have.
This Barbara Yaffe looks like a charlatan in the pockets of big pharma or a petit-bourgeois advocating for the cause of her class.

Posted by: vk | Oct 13 2020 22:44 utc | 19

I mean, DUDE,…
Some countries (Russian Federation and allies) rolled out military countermeasures, inside an outside (upon official request) of territorial boundaries.
Some countries billed their governments and insurance companies several tens of billions of dollars for some dumb ass test strip, or some stupid shit. Just sayin’.

Posted by: Josh | Oct 13 2020 22:47 utc | 20

The WHO says 10% of global population may have been infected by the virus – one in ten globally. That’s approx 780,000,000 folks worldwide. If we stipulate 1+ million deaths globally, that’s an Infection Fatality Rate of – well folks here are so fond of math – but it’s pretty small. Not large enough to destroy western civilization over so it’s fair to ask at the agenda at play here. Has it been mass incompetence or something darker, like you know one big step for totalitarianism.
My working conspiracy theory is that this virus is indeed from the lab with gain-of-function aspects that are unknown, and this is the reason for the over-reaction to what is not the plague. Indeed, as so many of the dead are old age pensioners, and as people are living longer and longer, and are SUCH a drain on the economy what better than an old age cleanser.
Covid is not a hoax, but beyond that…

Posted by: gottlieb | Oct 13 2020 22:48 utc | 21

@ Posted by: gottlieb | Oct 13 2020 22:48 utc | 28
It’s not the pandemic that is destroying Western Civilization. All the data indicates the West never truly recovered from 2008, the pandemic being only the drop that turned over the bucket.
West’s problem is the very decline of capitalism, not a problem of pandemic. This is not Antiquity anymore, modern capitalist economy is determined by artificial cycles.

Posted by: vk | Oct 13 2020 22:59 utc | 22

Posted by: Professor Dr. G | Oct 13 2020 20:42 utc | 10
I am internationally recognized Expert in Cell and Molecular Biology and have used PCR and rt-PCR since the mid 1980’s.
A pubmed search for “polymerase chain reaction” AND “reverse transcriptase” yields a grand total of 18 papers published prior to 1990. With all due respect, you don’t really sound like a scientist.

Posted by: farm ecologist | Oct 13 2020 23:11 utc | 23

b, you are obviously not an expert here either.
And there have been many other specialists who have spoken out about the flaws of this test.
At this point, you have proven yourself a complete propaganda whore of big pharma.
Anyone who can do basic math understands this was a money-control-power driven hoax. Seems you are on board.

Posted by: Chodduvsky | Oct 13 2020 23:13 utc | 24

From FDA emergency approval letter for Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., RTqPCR test.
Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status. Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses.
I guess FDA must be wrong as they agree with professor.

Posted by: Kalen | Oct 13 2020 23:14 utc | 25

Posted by: Crush Limbraw | Oct 13 2020 21:14 utc | 16
Had a look at your link and found a circle jerk of smug ignorance. The one sensible poster who everybody piled on must have felt like Oliver Douglas in Hooterville…

Posted by: farm ecologist | Oct 13 2020 23:32 utc | 26

@ Posted by: Kalen | Oct 13 2020 23:14 utc | 33
Read the paragraph you just quoted again. Then apologize to the people you deceived or tried to deceive. And go study and learn reading and comprehension.
–//–
So, it was politics and PR all along in Sweden:
‘Pandemic fatigue’: Sweden didn’t impose Covid-19 lockdown to avoid the wrath of the public, health chief says
Fear of the mob. That’s how the Swedish scientific community operates. Science was never a factor there.

Posted by: vk | Oct 13 2020 23:38 utc | 27

Would you give A1C tests to random passers-by, despite some having eaten minutes ago while others may not have had food for hours? You’d be falsely diagnosing thousands of otherwise healthy people as diabetic.
________________________________________________________
You clearly no nothing about diabetes or the A1C test. The test is a measure of how well regulated the blood glucose has been in the last 5 mos. it doesn’t matter how recently the person had a meal.

Posted by: Daniel | Oct 13 2020 23:46 utc | 28

Frankly this looks like a clickbait post, simply because it’s guaranteed to bring all the pandemic deniers out of the woodwork. This thread will instantly become worthless to follow.
Speaking of tests, I got tested in preparation for today’s dental appointment last Friday. Only needed the inside nose swab, not the back of the nasal passage one, fortunately. And the dental office didn’t even check the results before I went in! But then they tell me the test is good for thirty days – except my next appointment is November 3 – so I have to get *another* test because it’s in a new month. All of which is absurd because tests by definition can not have an “expiration date” – they’re only good to show where you are *now*, not any future time. Five minutes after you get the results, you could be exposed and be contagious in 2-5 days on average.
Another example of how the US simply doesn’t get it.
Meanwhile, China once again shows how it’s done. A followup to the tweet I referenced yesterday.
Covid-19: China’s Qingdao to test nine million in five days

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Oct 13 2020 23:48 utc | 29

VK @ 36 posts:
‘Pandemic fatigue’: Sweden didn’t impose Covid-19 lockdown to avoid the wrath of the public, health chief says
Fear of the mob. That’s how the Swedish scientific community operates. Science was never a factor there.
Actual article says:

Sweden did not adopt a nationwide lockdown so as to avoid long-term “pandemic fatigue” among the population, according to the director general of the country’s National Board of Health and Welfare.
“We did not choose the path of a complete lockdown of society, because we had other arguments for a systematic response to a pandemic,” explained Olivia Wigzell. The official was speaking at the conference ‘Pandemic 2020: Challenges, Solutions, Consequences’ held in Moscow this week.
“We were very afraid, we feared that people would develop such a pandemic fatigue, that people would get tired of restrictions. But in Sweden, practically everyone followed the recommendations,” she added.
Sweden famously bucked the trend around the world and opted not to impose a statewide lockdown to prevent the spread of coronavirus among its population.
Schools, gyms, bars and restaurants remained open with minimal restrictions in place and a more laissez faire, voluntary approach adopted to public health guidance such as social distancing and the wearing of masks.
Office staff and university students worked remotely where possible and at-risk groups were advised to stay home or to limit their social interactions in public.
Wigzell claimed that, throughout the pandemic, Sweden reinforced its healthcare system while keeping between 30 and 40 percent of its beds free, with ventilators available if needed, to accommodate any and all surges in coronavirus patients …

The RT.com article might have done better to replace words like “afraid” and “feared” with less emotional words like “concerned” but then the article probably wouldn’t have attracted clickbait attention.
The rest of what Wigzell claims to have done can be disputed – Sweden did not do a great job of protecting people in aged care homes or advising refugee and immigrant communities of the importance of social distancing and appropriate hygiene measures in their own languages (and many if not most staff employed in the aged care homes were drawn from these communities) – but I see nothing in the article to suggest that the Swedish authorities were thinking of possible mob behaviour when they decided not to use lockdown.

Posted by: Jen | Oct 14 2020 0:05 utc | 30

@Daniel #37:
Wife is T2 diabetes diagnosed…basically ‘cured’ herself through years of exercise and diet modification. Have several family members also T2, but do nothing.
Yeah, I know fuck all about diabetes. The lab-administered A1C test is extremely accurate, but also requires the patient to have not eaten for 12 hrs prior. The test strips are a quick-n-dirty to enable diabetics to monitor levels daily.

Posted by: Dr Wellington Yueh | Oct 14 2020 0:22 utc | 31

I have not heard anyone seriously discuss the following factors to explain results by country:
(1) Prevalence of prescription and/or illegal drugs (nearly all have a side effect of increased risk of infection = a weakened immune system).
(2) poor diet, lack of exercise, high rates of obesity
The common cold, could and sometimes does lead to pneumonia, which could lead ultimately to death.
Masks and lockdowns for common cold should then be warranted?
Certain countries have lifestyles which are less healthy and disease will have different impacts.
Obviously too complex to consider.

Posted by: HD | Oct 14 2020 0:28 utc | 32

after so many death and suffering , there still ppl who promote their anti lockdown anti mask covid=hoax nonsense
it is sobering to see so many trolls here

Posted by: milomilo | Oct 14 2020 0:28 utc | 33

@Shyaku 23
Your comments elude to the fact that you are grossly misinformed, along with b. The burden of proof does not lie with the author in question and many others. That proof needs to come from the people who administer the test with scientific studies. No such study exists. The inventor of the PCR test, a Nobel laureate, admitted before his death that his test is not an accurate test for what is being used for. MOA is not a scientific blog and b is not a scientist. You need to be a bit more critical in your assessment of what comes out of this blog. His reporting on other issues has been positive and spot on on some. Bu that does not make him beyond question or critic on other subjects.
A German group of lawyers are about to bring a class action law suit against the German Government. The video is out there. I posted it before in another thread but b deemed it inconvenient and deleted my post. In that video, the lawyer lays out a careful case against the handling of this charade and is set out too prove scientifically the lie that has been perpetrated on all of us.
Oh and btw, the source of all of these lock downs and other nonsense that has followed, professor lockdown Ferguson, just resigned. Not a minute too soon. And for b to call people like Chossudovsky et al ‘Covid iota’ is a disservice to critical thinking and objective journalism. These people have nothing to gain other than their freedoms and stand against government tyranny. The people and entities that b is defending directly and indirectly have everything to gain whether economically, socially or politically. That is why these threads are suspect and should be looked at under a microscope.

Posted by: Alpi | Oct 14 2020 1:19 utc | 34

Captain Obvious:
Poor numerical literacy linked to greater susceptibility to Covid-19 fake news – Cambridge University study also suggests older people less likely to believe coronavirus misinformation

Researchers at Cambridge University said the findings suggested improving people’s analytical skills could help turn the tide against an epidemic of “fake news” surrounding the health crisis.

Posted by: vk | Oct 14 2020 1:22 utc | 35

To paraphrase the alleged quote of German banker Mayer Amschel Rothschild:
Permit me to issue the numbers and sequences of oligonucleotide primers used for the nCov-19 rt-PCR test , and I care not who makes or uses the test!

Posted by: gm | Oct 14 2020 1:36 utc | 36

I did quantitative PCR for 4 years in my postdoc and developed an approach to detect alternative splicing in the brain – so I want to give a bit of supplemental info. First off, PCR doesn’t amplify RNA, but rather an exact copy of DNA made from that RNA (called complimentary DNA…cDNA…this is like a scribe copying an ancient manuscript that is very fragile..then running the copy through a photocopy machine – this is the RT part of RT-PCR..reverse transcribe RNA into DNA). Once you have your cDNA (usually really really long), you just use a website to do a BLAST search on sequences. We humans share lots of genes with other organisms…so in certain regions, the ATGC sequence of DNA might be similar (same for RNA)…..so you choose a gene in COVID that is unique to COVID, since COVID will share lots of sequence that are similar to the other coronavirus common cold ‘bugs’. This sequence you choose is called the Amplicon…it is the section your primers will amplify.
Next choose primers. cDNA are single strand and generally known as the “top strand”. The primers are just single strand pieces of DNA that either match the top or bottom strand. The primers – this is where a lot of “false positives” come in – more on that later. Choose primers that are stringent (high melting point on their DNA target…usually around 60C). Now these primers will amplify a section of DNA that is UNIQUE to COVID (assuming you picked the correct amplicon region..if I were picking an amplicon for b’s story here and I chose “not news but a juicy collection of narratives” – then I’d get a lot of hits on other “stories” – equivalent to what the good doctor says when he says “The PCR test will pick up fragments of several viruses including corona viruses as well as influenza (flu viruses A and B)”…only if you pick the wrong section DNA as your amplicon – and the sequences of DNA are known, so its not a guessing game.
The first steps of the PCR are important because this is where a lot of “false positives” come from. If I chose as my primers “The genes of the SARS-CpV-2 are an RNA sequence with roughly 30,000 nucleotides” in order to amplify b’s story (simplifcation), and this DNA sequence has a melting point of 60C, then great. It is a unique sequence to my amplicon (this story) and it should work well. However, portions of it might match in other stories on other websites. There are 3 parts of the PCR reaction. 1st: Annealing (primers site down on the DNA to form double strand DNA in that region); 2nd: Extention – the DNA polymerase that makes the new DNA sits down on the doublstrand DNA and starts to make a new copy of DNA (DNA POL only works with Double Strand – that is why you need the primers); 3rd: Denaturatuion at 95-99C – this will melt ALL DNA into single strands. Do this over and over 40 times and that is your PCR reaction.
The “false positives” come from the 1st step – the annealing. Primers are sticky – they form double strands and will sit down eventually if the temperature is low. If you anneal at 50C and your primers are 60C melting point, they might sit down on the DNA in lots of places. Melting point is 1/2 occupancy, so if you make your annealing temperature 60C, then half the primers will be on their correct site AND the temperature is too hot for them to be anywhere else because they don’t match well enough anywhere else and they melt at those locations at 60C. So you need a competitive annealing temp. The other issue is “primer dimers” – sometimes over enough reactions the primers (which are billions of times more concentrated than the DNA template (COVID cDNA)) will attach to each other. Once this is done, they will start to make their own product (its short..much shorter than your product amplicon).
Detection – A dye is added to the reaction mixture. It is colorless by itself, but after it interactions with double strand DNA it starts to fluoresce. That means as you make more and more of your amplicon your sample starts to fluoresce more and more. IF you do this reaction with WATER as your cDNA (Control Reaction) then you should get ZERO fluorescence. The machine just looks for fluorescence from each sample and records and graphs when it. The more COVID cDNA you have in your sample, the sooner the machine will “See” the fluorescence. And once the fluorescence passes a threshold of detection, it is given a threshold cycle (the cycle it became visible)…known as Ct.
If you have crap conditions for your cycling (the 3 steps above…meaning you don’t have stringent temperatures or too long of time spent at low temp) then you’ll get lots of random junk DNA that amplifies. Miss-primed regions, primer dimers, etc. They all fluoresce – so you “see them” and say “oh my god, that is COVID!!”. Its not. In the lab we would run samples on a gel and say “oh see, the Covid sample should be 200 base pairs, but this sample that we thought was Covid has a band at 40 base pairs (primer dimers)…so that “positive” isn’t actually COVID”.
However, that doesn’t happen with quantitative PCR – but what does happen is called a melt curve. After everything is finished, each sample is cooled (fluoresces) and then is melted slowly (no fluorescence). The transition produces a sigmoidal curve that has at its inflection point the melting temperature of your DNA. An Amplicon should have melting temp of 70-85C, while primer dimers are around 35-40C. This is a way to check and ensure your “Positive COVID sample” based on threshold cycle is actually COVID and not primer dimers.
With due diligence, qPCR is solid.

Posted by: Dave Brackett | Oct 14 2020 1:49 utc | 37

@ .Professor Dr. G | Oct 13 2020 20:42 utc | 10
Apart from the present RT-PCR failures you described, there is the problem of too long processing time. By the time a positively tested persons get back their result they might be already out of the virus shedding phase, while those tested negatively might be have entered that phase just after they took the test. This test is too slow, and that is because it need complicated and thus expensive and therefore non local equipment. Its a good money maker though, and a nice handle for central bureaucrats to steer a whole nation according to their “brilliant” minds.

Posted by: Antonym | Oct 14 2020 2:14 utc | 38

there are multiple different PCR tests for SARS-COV-2, and stuff can go wrong, but probably a large number of them work. my experience with doing PCR on the same thing in one lab is that the amplified DNA fragments end up all over the place and you have to be SO CLEAN not to pick up background positives.

Posted by: k | Oct 14 2020 2:30 utc | 39

“The inventor of the PCR test, a Nobel laureate, admitted before his death that his test is not an accurate test for what is being used for. MOA is not a scientific blog and b is not a scientist.
Oh and btw, the source of all of these lock downs and other nonsense that has followed, professor lockdown Ferguson, just resigned. Not a minute too soon. And for b to call people like Chossudovsky et al ‘Covid iota’ is a disservice to critical thinking and objective journalism.”
Posted by: Alpi | Oct 14 2020 1:19 utc | 43
..
Yep, nothing like taking a giant shit in the corner of your own bar. Something reeks.
Yes, lets re-visit this covid in another 5 yrs, and again in 10 yrs. We’ll all have a keener perspective then regarding who is talking out their ass and who is claiming someone reputable a liar.
Covid vs Cui Bono vs Reality. I see a pattern that doesn’t pass the *sniff* test in the bar.

Posted by: CitizenX | Oct 14 2020 2:32 utc | 40

When one looks at what is known of China’s response to this virus (This “China virus”), there can be no doubt that the Chinese regard it as a “killer virus”, even though the mortality is not so high as some other bugs, and they are not willing to tolerate it. There is no discussion of a choice between lock downs and business as usual. If you’ve got an outbreak they will lock you down with no debate.
There are no demonstrations within a frustrated and skeptical population. There is no point of view that says the virus is a hoax and a justification for totalitarianism. China is totalitarian so suck it up! The “west” cherishes a notion of democratic freedom and is deeply suspicious of government interventions. But guess what, emeritus Chossudovsky, the solution to the pandemic is the restriction and control of a population, a herd. You’re not going to evade this reality by claiming the tests lie or that the pandemic is not really a pandemic, but a gigantic virtual nightmare imposed by insidious transnational entities aiming for some sort of “reset”. There really is no Swedish solution. You can’t have your pandemic and your business as usual and your denial just puts the herd at risk. Look to China for your guidance!
And realize this, too, the herd is at risk even without this pandemic. Without increasingly restrictive control of mass populations, the herd will fall into chaos. Financial systems are unstable and unreliable. Support structures that enable the herd to enjoy a necessary quality of life, such as agribusiness that feeds us and utilities that energize our fragile power grids, are as unstable and unreliable as the financial system that controls them. We are not too far from being fucked in our ordinary daily lives without this pandemic. Climate change may be a reality, but it is also a metaphor for the end of the world as we know it. And that’s what’s really happening.
This virus is a bioweapon. China knows it and that’s why they lock it down wherever it rears its ugly head. They know it because they built it. Fauci knows it. The WHO knows it. The US gov knows it. Trump has been informed and he calls it the China virus for his own petty political ends, even while the US is the leader in global bioweapons research. Better not to go there. This bioweapons research is one of the deep destabilizing aspects of our unstable and unsustainable world of mass populations. It is not going away. It won’t be denied. It will get worse. Well intentioned social critics like Chossudovsky should cease their hysterical elegies for lost freedom and take a hard look at the world and listen to the rhythm of those hoof beats that are the background in which our way of life plays itself out.
If you like the sound of your voice when you pretend to be an genetic engineering expert, drone on, but like our Nobel prize winning poet has said: you don’t need a weatherman to say which way the wind blows.

Posted by: jadan | Oct 14 2020 2:52 utc | 41

RE: Posted by: Dave Brackett | Oct 14 2020 1:49 utc | 46
The first section of this April 2020 technically oriented publication by the CAS (Chemical Abstract Service of the American Chemical Society [rarely open-access]) further illustrates some of the details nicely covered by Dave Brackett above:
Assay Techniques and Test Development for COVID-19 Diagnosis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7197457/

Posted by: gm | Oct 14 2020 2:54 utc | 42

re: @jadan
Pure BS, obvious troll.
Anyone calling China “totalitarian” without describing how the so called “West” has spied and spies on its own cities who allegedly live in so much “freedom and democracy” immediate proves himself to the the troll he is. No need to even read the verbal diarrhea.
but lets just ask a question: Why would China release a virus against the world, exactly at this point in time? How would China benefits to get hated by the “whole world”?
Waiting for your reply with bated breath.

Posted by: Hoyeru | Oct 14 2020 3:24 utc | 43

I used to love B because I felt you were objective, but over the years you’ve become so partisan I don’t think you see it. How can you write this about such an esteemed man? How are you always the expert and everyone else is wrong? I’m so disappointed. The worst remains your tacit support for he who must not be named. It’s sad the comments degenerated from healthy debate to complete chaos. It’s sad because now your blog will fall of the way many have.

Posted by: K | Oct 14 2020 3:28 utc | 44

From a Cui Bono perspective, China is the only one country with a GDP growth this year.
People will say it’s their economic model and the brilliance of Chinese governance, but similar “socialist” states like Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela (not sure if count) all have losses in GDP, despite having lesser deaths and infected. Iran and Russia are also not spared.
I have no proof on either USA or China who did it, but China gets the most out of ANY country this year, which naturally raises suspicions and envy.

Posted by: Smith | Oct 14 2020 3:52 utc | 45

That is the reason why I delete comments at this site with spread similar nonsense.

A narrative that does not tolerate counterarguments is fundamentally a weak one.

Posted by: Norwegian | Oct 14 2020 5:40 utc | 46

Masks

He’s a man of the past and one of the present
A man who hides behind a mask behind a mask;
A clown, a fool, believing it cool to be down
Or that the game is all about who laughs the last
So he tells all his problems to his friends and relations
Exposes his neuroses to their view
They accept as fact every masochistic mumble of his act –
But how could they know what was false and what was true?
Sometimes when he wakes
He feels he’s walked into a dream
But all it takes
To remind him things are what they seem
Is the belief that the man behind the mask can really dance
Pirouetting smile
He feels himself cavorting
Pierrot for a while
Before aborting
To find relief in the shelter of the dark, most telling mask
After all the pantomimes are ended
He peels all the make-up off his face
To reveal, beneath, the tears running all down his cheeks:
Alone, he opens to the world… but it’s much too late
He’s been left, in the end, without a face

Posted by: Norwegian | Oct 14 2020 5:43 utc | 47

From a Cui Bono perspective, China is the only one country with a GDP growth this year.
People will say it’s their economic model and the brilliance of Chinese governance, but similar “socialist” states like Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela (not sure if count) all have losses in GDP, despite having lesser deaths and infected. Iran and Russia are also not spared.
I have no proof on either USA or China who did it, but China gets the most out of ANY country this year, which naturally raises suspicions and envy.
Posted by: Smith | Oct 14 2020 3:52 utc | 55
Even China took hit on their economy. Most Asian countries do not affected as terribly economically as the western countries if you want comparison and these countries is China’s primary market and business partners. Western liberal extreme individualism alignment fail to take effective measures against pandemic and suffered as a result.
If you want to extrapolate of who did it and cui bono here you go
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-our-coronavirus-catastrophe-as-biowarfare-blowback/
https://www.unz.com/announcement/31000-words-missing-from-the-atlantic-and-the-new-york-times-sunday-magazine/

Posted by: Lucci | Oct 14 2020 5:43 utc | 48

The asian nations took the hard way to contain the outbreak and today their citizens enjoy the fruit of labor and sacrifice.
the western nations bicker internally and the so called “freedom of speech” nonsense turn the western nations into shell of former self as their half measures failed to contain the outbreak , destroying economy and future ambition of both Uzs and EU into real sick men of the world.
this disaster should be a joyful event for the whole world as it cripple US and EU political and economic leverage , preventing the planned US invasion on venezuela and iran , destroying gulf nation’s economy and thus stopping the funding of worldwide wahabbism .. and now no one have strength to stop iranian getting massive number of modern weapons to defend itself.. the window of war against iran will be closed indefinitely , israel may bark but they wont dare attack iran without US soldiers dying for them.
Lebanon , Syria , Iraq , Iran will all fell into China+Russia economic and military block
no one can stop russia and china alliance..
COVID vaccine will be available from china and russia , priority to poor and 3rd world nations as US and Europe too arrogant to get chinese / russian vaccine..
this virus truly a blessing in disguise as it wreck the warmonger nations ability to make war

Posted by: milomilo | Oct 14 2020 5:58 utc | 49

lets hope for trump win 2020 and the resulting civil war in US along with uncontrollable outbreak of covid there.. it will be a glorious view when pain and suffering come to hit US , a karma offload from all those voiceless people who died from decades of US aggression..
COVID is a great start , and it exposed the weakness of US / EU as russian+ china take notes on how weak the so called “advanced” western nations fare against relatively simple covid outbreak..

Posted by: milomilo | Oct 14 2020 6:02 utc | 50

@ Smith 55
That was a funny post. China is the only country with a growth? Care to show your source? China’s GDP has contracted by 4%, although still in positive territory. That is a net loss and reversal of growth. In fact one of the biggest contractions among big economies.
Then, you came up with your punchline of comparing China’s economy with Cuba, NK, Venezuela….as examples of socialist countries and their failures in economy. That gave me a good laugh. But then it saddened me about how anyone can leave a post here and try to come off as an intellectual, no matter how ridiculous their comments are.
Please please read a bit more before posting. China has nothing to gain and everything to lose with releasing a bioweapon at this time. Their supply and demand lines are damaged. BRI has slowed down, While they are fighting against unjust trade war. On the flip side, the west has everything to gain by slowing or destroying Chinese economy, while weakening Russia and Iran.
So, you want to give that another try?

Posted by: Alpi | Oct 14 2020 6:04 utc | 51

@ Alpi & Lucci
Every economies in the world take hits this year, some more than the others. But only China has positive growth (likely +2%, or if you can push up +3% if they make/consume more during Winter). Capitalist, socialist, communist, it matters not, China reaps the profits.
This is no lie, and I don’t see what you are saying contradicts that.

Posted by: Smith | Oct 14 2020 6:28 utc | 52

@ Hoyeru 53
“ Why would China release a virus against the world, exactly at this point in time? How would China benefits to get hated by the “whole world”?
Waiting for your reply with bated breath.“
For the same reason Syria used chlorine against its own population while winning the war. And that is the desperate narrative the west has come up with for anyone they consider a foe. That they are willing to destroy their own population and their reputation no matter how bad it goes against their own interest. And we are suppose to swallow that lump of shit whole.
I hope you are breathing because you won’t get a response.

Posted by: Alpi | Oct 14 2020 6:29 utc | 53

@ Alpi
Since you are asking the rational, milomilo did come up a rationale:
“The asian nations took the hard way to contain the outbreak and today their citizens enjoy the fruit of labor and sacrifice.
the western nations bicker internally and the so called “freedom of speech” nonsense turn the western nations into shell of former self as their half measures failed to contain the outbreak , destroying economy and future ambition of both Uzs and EU into real sick men of the world.
this disaster should be a joyful event for the whole world as it cripple US and EU political and economic leverage , preventing the planned US invasion on venezuela and iran , destroying gulf nation’s economy and thus stopping the funding of worldwide wahabbism .. and now no one have strength to stop iranian getting massive number of modern weapons to defend itself.. the window of war against iran will be closed indefinitely , israel may bark but they wont dare attack iran without US soldiers dying for them.
Lebanon , Syria , Iraq , Iran will all fell into China+Russia economic and military block
no one can stop russia and china alliance..
COVID vaccine will be available from china and russia , priority to poor and 3rd world nations as US and Europe too arrogant to get chinese / russian vaccine..
this virus truly a blessing in disguise as it wreck the warmonger nations ability to make war”
Sound indeed pretty good, no, ALONG with the economic growth.

Posted by: Smith | Oct 14 2020 6:44 utc | 54

Posted by: milomilo | Oct 14 2020 0:28 utc | 42 it is sobering to see so many trolls here
Like I said, worthless thread. Same-old, same-old, with the added fillip of people claiming all sorts of expertise in geneticism, including b.
When in fact, it doesn’t matter in the least whether the tests are accurate or not, since they aren’t being done in sufficient quantities and with contact tracing and isolation to actually make a difference.
Posted by: milomilo | Oct 14 2020 6:02 utc | 60 it will be a glorious view when pain and suffering come to hit US , a karma offload from all those voiceless people who died from decades of US aggression..
Agreed. As Dorian Gray said in “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”, “I have lived long enough to know that empires crumble. There are no exceptions.”
Posted by: Norwegian | Oct 14 2020 5:40 utc | 56 A narrative that does not tolerate counterarguments is fundamentally a weak one.
Fine. Let’s discuss the theory that Trump is actually a reptilian alien. There are arguments that are stupid and pointless. You are on the side of one. Not to mention a pile of emotional bullshit that only reveals you to be a weak, scared little boy who runs to Trump for protection.
Morons. B, you really need to take this thread down and trash-can it. Stop wasting my time.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Oct 14 2020 6:51 utc | 55

selected several about 100 nucleotides long snippets out of the much longer [30000] string

So b., why do you completely ignore the logical inferences from that statement?
1. Can the PCT test be tricked into a false positive by dea^H^H unworkable fragments of the SARS-CoV-2 virus? Obviously the answer is yes.
2. Can the PCT test be tricked into a false positive by fragments of other Corona viruses? If the selected snippets were specific enough, one would hope the answer is “no.”
A key question that nobody has ever explained so far, how does the PCR test do a logical “AND” of the multiple single-snippet results? What can go wrong there?

Posted by: michael | Oct 14 2020 7:02 utc | 56

I have no experience with PCR, but I did see problems with a related technology, microarrays. The main difference is that microarrays are chips that may have many thousands of primers rather than a hundred.
Primers are selected to be “accurate”, but what does it mean? They are reverse-complements of the sequences that binds to them most strongly, but similar sequences may bind too, relatively infrequently. Therefore there are also control primers that measure “noise”. If the signal is not larger than noise than it is not detected. Thus you have a dilemma of sensitivity versus specificity. From time to time noise detector with “hear” less noise than actual, while the proper primer will “hear” more, so signal/noise ratio gets wrong estimate.
Finally, there is a problem of contamination. I heard about an example that some people collected about thousand samples from different tissues of laboratory mice, and about 5% were contaminated by having a few cells from other tissues. Probably some laboratory instrument was not sufficiently clean, and we are talking about “dirt” that is not visible with a naked eye. In that case, it was discovered because there were many thousands of “measurements” from each sample, and some of them were impossible (about a hundred). But such error detection is hard with PCR technique that b described — what is impossible?

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 14 2020 7:07 utc | 57

Every economies in the world take hits this year, some more than the others. But only China has positive growth (likely +2%, or if you can push up +3% if they make/consume more during Winter). Capitalist, socialist, communist, it matters not, China reaps the profits.
This is no lie, and I don’t see what you are saying contradicts that.
Posted by: Smith | Oct 14 2020 6:28 utc | 62
Every economy take a hits but China and its surrounding Asian countries and it’s main trading partners did not take hit as much as the Western countries in comparison (this including Australia btw). Western countries that fails in their containment and control losses significant production rate and loses their market share on this less affected Asian economy to China. It’s capitalism 2.0 before globalization capitalism 3.0. Locals markets, then neighbouring markets.
Western countries capitalist took hits the most during global restrictions due to global pandemics and if anything these are already predicted by economists due to export centric economy and overestimated unlimited growth peddled by mmt economists which neglecting their consumer market as a result.
If you fail to comprehend China is export and consumer economy and it’s closest neighbouring countries which affected less by pandemic is a consumer economy.
Conclusion ? Western countries should start investing their capitals into their domestic consumer market instead of imaginary speculative mmt peddled ponzis.

Posted by: Lucci | Oct 14 2020 7:07 utc | 58

@ Lucci
No. Vietnam, for example, which is about an import and export economy, is not having positive growth GDP this year despite handling the virus better than China.
And yes, asians countries are less affected by it, but they still get contracted this year.
Only and only China gets positive growth, and that’s where the questions start to pour in.
You are making this an East vs West thing, when it’s the whole world vs China thing.

Posted by: Smith | Oct 14 2020 7:17 utc | 59

No. Vietnam, for example, which is about an import and export economy, is not having positive growth GDP this year despite handling the virus better than China.
And yes, asians countries are less affected by it, but they still get contracted this year.
Only and only China gets positive growth, and that’s where the questions start to pour in.
You are making this an East vs West thing, when it’s the whole world vs China thing.
Posted by: Smith | Oct 14 2020 7:17 utc | 70
Vietnam main export destination is Western countries. I’m in Indonesia and i hardly finds Vietnamese goods circulation in comparison to Chinese goods as it felt short in quality and prices to their Chinese counterpart. Then again even Vietnam did not affected as bad as Western countries nor their consumer market is comparable to China.
Lastly this is China vs world ? How ? Lol it becoming quite comicals when you’re dealing with Trumptards. Can we agree with three things at least ?
1. Western countries has terrible job in containment and control of their pandemic.
2. Western countries has dismal consumer market activities in comparison to Asian countries.
3. Western countries capitalist have not investing their capital to their domestic markets.

Posted by: Lucci | Oct 14 2020 7:50 utc | 60

(That a significant number of people are still ill at that point is the consequence of an exaggerated immune reaction to the virus, not of the virus itself.)

from the source, right? Well said. It’s not the virus killing people, it’s the reaction, more specifically your immune system is attacking you.
Again, THE VIRUS IS NOT WHAT’S KILLING YOU. Basically it’s a severe allergic reaction correlated with the presence of SARS-COV-2.
The primers determine outcomes of the test, but the test doesn’t have any bearing on the disease known as COVID-19. One can be exposed to SARS-COV-2 and never have the disease. If you want more positive results, distribute the primer that will generate more hits. It’s important to know that what’s in the bottle is what’s on the label.
The disease may not be caused by the virus since according to the numbers most people who have the virus in their bodies will not die or even know they are “infected”. They’re testing healthy people needlessly because of a correlation and a belief that this virus is deadly. But has it occurred to anyone that the real cause of the disease is a malfunctioning immune system? Almost all of the deaths associated with the disease COVID-19 are accompanied by comorbidity or several. Correlation is not causation.
Correlation is not causation
Why the confusion of these concepts has profound implications, from healthcare to business management

The human brain simplifies incoming information, so we can make sense of it. Our brains often do that by making assumptions about things based on slight relationships, or bias. But that thinking process isn’t foolproof. An example is when we mistake correlation for causation. Bias can make us conclude that one thing must cause another if both change in the same way at the same time. This article clears up the misconception that correlation equals causation by exploring both of those subjects and the human brain’s tendency toward bias.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | Oct 14 2020 7:52 utc | 61

@ Lucci
You are again dangling but not arguing the points.
Yes, asian countries handle this better than the West (unless you are in Denmark or Eastern Europe where they handle it incredibly well).
But it doesn’t stop that the whole world suffers while China sells massive amount of goods, as your own admittance.
Not to mention the political benefits mentioned by milomilo, the favor is literally too good for China.

Posted by: Smith | Oct 14 2020 7:53 utc | 62

@ Lucci
You are again dangling but not arguing the points.
Yes, asian countries handle this better than the West (unless you are in Denmark or Eastern Europe where they handle it incredibly well).
But it doesn’t stop that the whole world suffers while China sells massive amount of goods, as your own admittance.
Not to mention the political benefits mentioned by milomilo, the favor is literally too good for China.
Posted by: Smith | Oct 14 2020 7:53 utc | 76
I never expect Trumptards to have good comprehension.
Point is Western countries economy relies too much to transoceanic market and those transoceanic market are currently partly unavailable to Western countries due to global pandemic.

Posted by: Lucci | Oct 14 2020 8:37 utc | 63

In response to Piotr Berman | Oct 14 2020 7:07 utc | 67
I think that’s a good analogy. The PCR process is a cloning tool which by comparison to your example amplifies the presence of the targeted DNA strand (identified by primers). Therefore by running enough amplification cycles, the product is described as ‘noise’ as you pointed out.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | Oct 14 2020 8:38 utc | 64

This thread reminds me of the image of a snake eating its own tale.
The whole point /agenda is to deliberately waist time energy and enthusiasm of the victem.
The pseudo scientists here and elsewhere do it deliberately.
Look it’s about personal hygiene and reducing risk, yours and the general society.
They want to kill you and steal your stuff.
They should have no place on this blog.
Criminal deception is not free speech.
People are dying out there.
These people are to blame.
This ‘forest fire’ could have been put out 4 months ago at a fraction of the cost !
Not least in human suffering.

Posted by: Mark2 | Oct 14 2020 9:01 utc | 65

yeah they call it Ouroboros, snake eating its own tail
Almost without exception the players here are absolutely convinced they are right and the other guys are wrong, not much in the middle, just entertainment. Pop open a beer, kick back and watch these guys tear into each other.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | Oct 14 2020 9:14 utc | 66

Yuk. I s’pose if I could be bothered I would dig out facts which demonstrate that accurate tracing and testing (PCR) followed up an accurate, yet rigorous quarantine strategy, greatly reduces the incidence of covid 19 with minimum social disruption. I know that because I live in a country which has adopted this strategy and as a result enjoys a lockdown and even social distancing, free lifestyle.
However that is a bit of a so what, because the deniers along with the avid undeniers are too busy arguing the number of angels on a pinhead and so miss the point.
That point is, like racism or the supposed inherent evil of workers & consumer rights organisations, all this bullshit ‘debate’ is initially cranked up in societies where citizens have no faith in their leadership (often with good reason), so untrue, even blatantly incorrect assertions are forced out by types who in reality couldn’t give a flying fuck about any of those issues. They do know however if as many citizens as possible can be brainwashed into fervently supporting one side or another, the least hassle they will have from a united & justifiably angry population.
Arguing so unreasonably & so passionately only serves one tiny group and guess what – no-one who hangs around moa belongs to it.
That is why I am so pissed about b raising this every week or so, all he is doing is helping the arseholes to keep people angry with each other, instead of rightfully being angry with the arseholes.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Oct 14 2020 9:21 utc | 67

Thanks curmudgeon & debsisdead
We all need to ——-
Move on and focus !
Meanwhile here’s a rather entertaining vid.
A metaphor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1Oo–ymqdU&list=RDy1Oo–ymqdU&start_radio=1&t=0&t=0

Posted by: Mark2 | Oct 14 2020 9:29 utc | 68

Posted by: Down South | Oct 14 2020 7:15 utc | 61 the official narrative.
The “official narrative” happens to be that the pandemic is a hoax, that there is nothing but the normal flu, that masks don’t work, and every single doctor world-wide is part of the “hoax”, including all the Chinese, because you morons think that doctors don’t know the difference between treating a flu case with comorbidities and treating COVID-19. That’s the official narrative straight from Trump’s mouth to your ears.
Everyone else on the planet that has seen the pandemic first hand and understand it and dealt with it recognizes that you are morons incapable of conceptual reasoning because you are terrified of everyone and everything else and need Trump as your “Daddy” to protect you, while proclaiming how you are the “rebels” against “the official narrative.” In reality, you’re just too stupid to comprehend how stupid you are, and how dependent on and submissive to a con artist you are for everything you think. Some “rebels”…
Pathetic. A classic example of chimpanzee behavior. 2020 will go down in psychiatric history as the year cognitive dissonance took final control of the human race.
I’ve learned in my 71 years what I call the “Four-Fold Truths”. They are:
1) Everything you think you know is wrong, i.e., factually incorrect.
2) Everything you believe in is wrong, i.e., factually incorrect.
3) Everything you’re doing is wrong, i.e., contrary to your actual objective interests.
4) If you keep doing it, you’re all going to die sooner than you expect.
These truths are 98% true for about 98% of the human population. I can’t wait to see the consequences when the S finally HTF. I just hope I can have some impact on and enjoyment in those consequences for some of you, at least. As Anonymous likes to say, “We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.”

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Oct 14 2020 9:59 utc | 69

@all – I have deleted about 20 comments on this thread that made obviously false assertions or linked to misleading posts elsewhere. Interesting all but one were from first-time commentators who had not posted here before.
(I left up some comments which I believe to be wrong but which come from regular commentators and are worth further discussions.)
I am still wondering who sends the newbies here each and every time I write about Covid issues.

Posted by: b | Oct 14 2020 10:11 utc | 70

It’s good to be the king.
:^)

Posted by: Curmudgeon | Oct 14 2020 10:21 utc | 71

B, please this is inuendo. Either you say explicitly that false positives don’t exist and you name and discuss the most respectable sources of claims otherwise. Or you admit that they exist and discuss them. Now you implicitly claim that they don’t exist.

Posted by: Wim Roffel | Oct 14 2020 11:28 utc | 72

If it’s any consolation b this same circular debate is evident in all the wider media, not much can be done to prevent it except moving forward, consentraiting on the reality ‘now’ plus anticipating the near future. Based on fact and truth (risk assessment)
‘They’ try to confuse and distract while weakening the target. ( often from within )
Hit’m with the truth b they don’t like that. (As you always do)
Example —-
What do we predict will happen over the next 4 months regards the virus ?
That right there would make a lively post.

Posted by: Mark2 | Oct 14 2020 11:30 utc | 73

I’m very disappointed at Global Research since the beginning of the pandemic. They went full tinfoil-hat this year. I mean, they did have some weird articles there, being a platform for antivaxxers, religious conservatives and cryptonazis, but 2020 hit hard there. Even Pepe Escobar pieces read like basement dweller-grade conspiracy.

Posted by: Miranda | Oct 14 2020 12:00 utc | 74

B is spot on about Michael Chossudovsky of Global Research spewing nonsense about Covid-19. As early as last March 2020 he was making nonsensical claims about coronavirus, claiming it was a global conspiracy by governments to take away your freedoms blah blah blah. In my mind he has lost much of his credibility taking such an asinine position. He used to have some good articles about 9-11 for example. Needless to say I don’t visit his website any longer.

Posted by: deschutesmaple | Oct 14 2020 12:21 utc | 75

Either you say explicitly that false positives don’t exist and you name and discuss the most respectable sources of claims otherwise.
________________________________________
False positives caused by the PCR test accidentally detecting some other common virus do not exist. That was the point

Posted by: jinn | Oct 14 2020 12:33 utc | 76

Posted by: milomilo | Oct 14 2020 6:02 utc | 49, 50
Well said. Thank you for expressing that so well. Brought a smile to my face. Don’t be greedy dickheads like we’ve been and you should have a much longer run on top.

Posted by: Bemildred | Oct 14 2020 12:34 utc | 77

Interesting that b chose to “debunk” Michel Chossudovsky.
Rather then other Professors? Was it easy pickin’s b?
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/pcr-positives-what-do-they-mean/
Does a PCR “TRUE POSITIVE” mean INFECTIVITY OR VIRULENCE?
What does viral culture tell about PCR positives?
A PCR test might find the virus it was looking for. This results in a PCR positive, but a crucial question remains: is this virus active, i.e. infectious, or virulent? The PCR alone cannot answer this question. The CEBM explains why culturing the virus is needed to answer this question
PCR true positives versus infectivity and virulence
Does a PCR positive mean TRUE POSITIVE if the gene fragments targeted in the PCR are unique to the virus and the PCR is VERY ROBUST?
There is speculation as to whether the PCR can indeed find the virus from a person’s sample or maybe the PCR is not sensitive enough and might give positive when other viruses are present. Some PCR manufacturers tell us there is “cross contamination” and “non-specific” interference with a list of viruses and other in their instructions manuals[3, 4].
Conclusion: A TRUE POSITIVE in PCR does not always mean that the person presents any danger to society. The virus cannot be transmitted when cell culture shows that the virus is not infective.
Can successive tests on the same person give contradictory results?
That a PCR test gives positive or negative depends on how the experiment is conducted. Furthermore, since it is not know whether and how PCR positives correlates to infectivity and how it is that this correlation must be interpreted, the interpretation of a PCR POSITIVE is inconclusive

Posted by: R Rose | Oct 14 2020 12:55 utc | 78

^^^ — Yep, lots of Gish Gallop blah blah blah blah ….
If you can’t win the argument drown the other guy out with noise.
Compare that with Mr. Brackett up there (#37) who sounds like he actually knows how to do it.

Posted by: Bemildred | Oct 14 2020 12:59 utc | 79

I can tell you exactly how this dispute will be resolved.
A few days ago posted here a note about the wife’s son, who had tested positive. He was tested at his place of employment, which is State of Illinois. Test results took 7 days. Results were sent to HR, not to the patient. HR sat on it for 5 days. Then ordered their employee to go home and self quarantine for 14 days. This is how bureaucracies work. Of course no instructions on how to self quarantine and no practical assistance to do that and certainly no monitoring of compliance. But since the results arrived 12 days from test and a positive test would imply at least two days from initial infection it is all moot.
So have talked to the son some more. By the time he told his mother it was already three days since he was sent home. On being told he had the dread killer disease he did not bother to tell mom. And it turns out he was previously tested and confirmed positive and never told us at all. This is a kid who does communicate with his family. A positive was just not seen as anything important. Lots of co-workers are testing positive and no one ever gets sick.
At same time his wife, who works in a supermarket, also tested positive. She got test results in only 9 days. And again scarcely paid attention. They were actually happy to both have paid time off together. Again, lots of positive tests where she works and no one ever gets sick.
Including back in early April when an ER doctor with no available test gave him a shoot from the hip diagnosis of covid the son has been told he has covid three times. Cry wolf?
Son and his wife were rabid mask cultists a couple months ago. That is over. The two of them live totally on MSM, are horrified by me reading such transparent Putin orchestrated propaganda as MoA, but they do not believe the story any longer. Habeas corpus? Stories and stories and more stories of the horrible disease won’t cut it, people are going to have to see bodies. Where are they? Show the body or this episode fades away.
One more note. Several posts above from commenters above with laboratory experience note technical steps in how a PCR is processed. If you believe all these steps can be replicated many millions of times with perfect accuracy, or even good accuracy, I want some of what you are smoking.

Posted by: oldhippie | Oct 14 2020 13:14 utc | 80

@ alpi #53:
Just a minor point regarding self-sabotage and willfull destruction: Assads government did not in fact “gas his own people”. On multiple ocassions various massacres, chlorine gassings etc wre found to be either staged, or perpretrated by moderate headchoppers. Members of the OPCW have come forward and attested to this.

Posted by: Chevrus | Oct 14 2020 13:23 utc | 81

While this is a bit off topic – though not so far as the validity of tests are concerned – I am responding to Daniel @28 re the A1c….
The A1c is an Average percentage reading for the preceding Three Months. Then in the “wisdom” labs (over here at any rate) take that AVERAGE reading and produce another Average reading, this being the SUPPOSED daily average reading. It is BULLSHIT.
My late husband was a late onset Type 1 – but his last PCP (GP) and the clinic’s Nurse Practitioners refused to accept that, albeit that they NEVER informed him of their disbelief. (He was slim, muscular, didn’t smoke, ate healthily, ran 6 days a week (we went together) and weight-lifted 3 days a week.) On his last visit with this PCP in May 2016, seven months before he died, he told the doctor about his worry about his all but never-ending hypos, some minor, many not so. (This PCP never ever asked him to bring in his glucometer/written record.) The doctor refused to believe what my husband told him – because the A1c, he wrote in the med records, “had not been done in error.”
The doctor believed the Lab’s concocted “daily” average reading rather than what my husband (and I because I frequently had to help him) experienced.
In fact the doctor should have been concerned by the A1c results themselves because they were TOO LOW for a diabetic. He saw a slender, muscular man who exercised regularly and ate healthily and so he told him to just keep on as you are doing and you’ll be fine…..
I have no idea about the tests for Covid 19 – but it wouldn’t surprise me if they were not as perfect in their diagnostic ability as often purported to be. The A1c isn’t and its results (a three month average – i.e. a mix of highs, middles and lows – in percentage terms) should NOT be used to derive yet another average, supposedly a daily one, and that be accepted as your, the diabetic, experience.

Posted by: Anne | Oct 14 2020 13:33 utc | 82

@48 If it was deliberate, the only entity to have expected to benefit from a bioweapon attack at a central Chinese travel hub just prior to Lunar New Year migration is the US. A very fresh study (2019) indicated the US was the best prepared by far for handling a pandemic. Similar outbreaks of MERS and SARS did not greatly affect the US, and this one is not as lethal. The capability and motive is definitely there, and it is consistent with broad-spectrum efforts to suppress China.
The only saving grace is that the US handling of the pandemic (other than the propaganda side, which has been very professionally handled from very early on, especially on social media) has been so unpredictably abysmal that, even if the Chinese judge this to have been an attack, retaliation may be deemed redundant.

Posted by: BillB | Oct 14 2020 13:34 utc | 83

@ citizen X #40:
I have been wondering something similar. One does not need a degree in mediciine to do some basic analysis. Critical thinking and the ability to avoid getting overcharged emotionally helps though.
Yes there is the realm of microbiology and public health. There is also the realm of technocracy and social engineering. Of course they overlap, but can be viewed independently in order to gain some clarity. As you said, a lot of this doesnt pass the smell test and the patterns are alarming.
I find it easier to stay out of the trenches when it comes to pretty squabbling, although I dont always manage to. I cannot however ignore the piles of predictive programming surrounding this event.
Event 201. Rockefeller Foundation Operation Lockstep. The Great Reset, just to name a few. There is clear evidence that we as a species are reaching the end of an economic era and the pandemic seems very much to be a catalyst/cover for a reset type event often ushered in by world war events. Controlled economic demolitions like the 2008 event come to mind. I have observed for some time that we are being led into an era of neofeudalism, where poly-corporations do the bidding of their trillionaire dynastic masters and the cloud people rule over the dirt people in controlled chaos and squalor. Heck there is even tons of predicive programming for that as well. Here in the USA the last of the so called middle class is being hallowed out, and the classic divide and rule color revolution tactics have been unleashed. So much for “it can’t happen here” which coincidentally is the title of a song by Zappa and The Mothers…

Posted by: Chevrus | Oct 14 2020 13:38 utc | 84

@ Posted by: R Rose | Oct 14 2020 12:55 utc | 80
Your concern is only valid for an old, already largely known virus.
But look at the context: a brand new disease which is a pandemic, with less than 1 month of existence, about which our medical scientists know almost nothing about.
In this situation, it is immaterial if the person is contagious or not, manifests the symptoms or not. You have to consider it infected and contagious for all intents and purposes. There are no reasons not to do so.

Posted by: vk | Oct 14 2020 13:51 utc | 85

The game played with covid-19 is taking a turn with scientists proving that the virus resists on banknotes for more than four weeks,and so the PTB will deprive us of using banknotes and metal money.That’s the strategy to make the world obey to the New World Order that Bush and Sarkozy talked about.I suppose Russia and China will fall for it as will do European USasskissers.

Posted by: willie | Oct 14 2020 13:53 utc | 86

@vk 89
“Your concern is only valid for an old, already largely known virus.”
Did you check the link? it’s not a concern, it’s science
However, My “concern” and the science is valid for all viruses.
Not is immaterial if an individual is contagious or not! That’s a ridiculous statement.
Considering the fall out of a positive test on a personal scale and the global fall out due to very problematic pcr testing.?
“with less than 1 month of existence”
It’s nearly a year now. (probably longer, but, that’s a story for another day) And much research has come about in that time frame.
I provided a link, to a credible source, perhaps you’d do well to read and consider it rather then playing old themes that boil down to fear promotion
“a brand new disease” ” a pandemic” “Our scientists know almost nothing about”
Coronavirus is not “brand new”
We’ve had multiple other pandemics- yearly flu for example- we just don’t sell them in that manner
And our scientists have some very good knowledge about coronavirus and many other viruses.

Posted by: R Rose | Oct 14 2020 14:21 utc | 87

1. Oldhippie it is automated and supervised, it works when done right. The various PCR approaches revolutionized biology and medical science when it appeared, that’s why it got a Nobel, that’s why it is used. I have said it before. It might not be like the invention of fire (because no one invented fire lol) but it could be like the invention of the cooking pot 🙂
1.b. It is the tool we have. The only practical and current alternative is no tool at all because manual lab detection of the virus is not practical at the scale required and serological testing (ie. a blood test) is not here yet as far as I know, at least not “out in the wild” where I would have met it as a “consumer” since I use Methotrexate every week (cell-killing poison! nom nom nom 😛 😀 ) and I’m tested every three months or so by them taking two to three vials of blood and yeah my doctors would have included testing for the virus if available and they would have told me.
2. Some asked why a 100 (or so) nucleotides?
Well a 100 nucleotides in a row (ie. they’re all adjacent to each other along the helix) forms a sequence with a specific order of 100 values.
However there are only 4 specific values to choose among for each single value of those 100 nucleotides and this also shows that “repetition” (multiple instances of the same value) is not only possible but required since otherwise one couldn’t make a 100-element long sequence with only 4 element values.
This makes the pure math of it so extremely simple that it doesn’t have its own Wikipedia page (and hardly any mention at all, try searching for “permutation with repetition”). The value for absolutely all possible sequences that are 100 long with 4 possible element values is 4 to the power of 100.
4^100 = 1,606938044×10^60
Or roughly 1 606 938 044 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 (a 1 followed by 60 more digits).
So a lot better than “1 in a million”. Wikipedia has the name for things with a power of ten that is 60 digits but I’ve already forgotten it (I almost posted yesterday but was too disgusted and annoyed so I deleted it).
Among all those possibilities there is only meant to be (when done correctly) one single correct hit where all 100 match which is the one sequence chosen from the larger sequence of the virus code of genetic material.
That’s the first part of why something close to 100 nucleotides (or a few different selections of such length) is considered to be enough.
Now please be aware that this was pure math and compared to practice the number might be significantly lower, but it still should give an idea of the scales involved.
3. Some asked why not use the whole virus sequence?
I think this second part for why 100 nucleotides is thought to be enough is that it 100 (or 3×100 or similar) is much more manageable and practical than doing 30000. For example 30000 is two orders of magnitude more work than 300 and since one does it (albeit automated) over and over so many times it adds up and doesn’t scale well when one would like to test more people and faster.
It becomes an engineering trade-off.
And if it is done wrong it might not matter much.
4. I wonder how many false positives they are supposed to have had in New Zealand or China in the periods of time when they didn’t detect anyone at all having the virus? (The answer is zero of course).

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Oct 14 2020 14:22 utc | 88

@ Posted by: R Rose | Oct 14 2020 14:21 utc | 91
PCR tests determine if you have the virus or had the virus. The fact that the SARS-CoV-2 is a very new virus makes the difference, because, if the PCR test detects the person had the virus, it must necessarily mean he/she had the virus not a long time ago. Since it is a pandemic, spreading fast, and is recent, the practical distinction between a person who had the virus and has the virus is negligible for the purposes of determining public policy.
The only exception would be if it was an old, extensively researched and understood virus, which we knew beforehand produced permanent or long term immunity for the people who had the virus. In this specific case, to know the difference between someone who had the virus and has the virus is decisive for public policy. But that’s definitely not the case with SARS-CoV-2, which we know little about and the little we know of indicates a not significant immunity for the survivors.

Posted by: vk | Oct 14 2020 14:30 utc | 89

As somebody who has followed Global Research since the week it went live, I feel Chossudovsky has really gone around the bend over Covid and the lockdown. He’s really staked out some wacky territory and doubled down. I feel like he is in danger of damaging the credibility of everything else
GR has stood for over the past 20 years. I have pretty much given up on that site.

Posted by: DougDiggler | Oct 14 2020 14:35 utc | 90

It’s a clear devide between the people who value money more than humanity.
Versus—-
People who value humanity more than the elites mistaken definition of wealth.
———-
Don’t trust there designed to fail safety regulations.
Lockdown good and hard right now and f**k the debating !
Be two steps ahead not two steps behind.
The real question is —- not do the tests work, but do we trust the people in control of the tests ?

Posted by: Mark2 | Oct 14 2020 14:41 utc | 91

5. Hey why not crank up the conspiracy theories?
What if all the previous conspiracies and various conspiracy theories were both used to program people into refusing help so that they would willingly clamor for their right to die?
That would be a pretty efficient conspiracy!
“Critical thinking” enough for you?
Then introduce a load of rushed vaccines from untrustworthy Big Name manufacturers to round up the other half 😛
Paranoid yet? Not paranoid enough!
“They’re not lizards! They’re all Chineeeeeese!!! Aaaaaaaargh!!!” XD
[ I am joking about the Chinese, the rest maybe not, I wear a mask and sometimes gloves too, and my social distancing was insanely good to begin with (hehe the jokes write themselves on that one). Lizards are cute, especially the smaller geckos one can tragically find dried out and preserved beneath a sofa cushion in SE Asia. ]
🙂

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Oct 14 2020 14:47 utc | 92

@Circe | Oct 13 2020 20:44 utc | 9

So why are Norwegian’s many comments still peddling

Everyone who can count have seen that your often unhinged posts are far more numerous than mine. Mine may just have greater impact, perhaps.
I would never suggest to delete a single comment from any contributor, not even yours. Alternative views should always be welcomed, including obvious wrong ones and those that are “not even wrong”.
If your belief system is so fragile that it needs constant and perpetual re-confirmation and collapses instantly at the sight of a counterargument or alternative view, I would respectfully suggest you invest in a new belief system instead of asking for censorship.

Posted by: Norwegian | Oct 14 2020 14:59 utc | 93

So, b, by deleting selective comments you’ve decided to be a gatekeeper for the Truth. I guess I can add you to the list, along with Google, Twitter and Facebook, of those who will protect me from… What, exactly? Thanks, but no thanks.
Even the inventor of the PCR test, the late Nobel Prize winner, Kary Mullin, insisted the test was intended as a manufacturing tool (to “grow” minute molecular samples of viral material) NEVER as a diagnostic tool for identifying specific organisms. One has only to perform a simple online search to find many articles by (or attributed to) reputable professionals that concur with the inventor and explain why this is so. (Here’s just one: https://bestarticle.net/the-truth-about-pcr-test-kit-from-the-inventor-and-other-experts-6581.html).
Throw as many facts up as you like about how the test is administered or the workings of its inner mechanics, it’s still too inaccurate to be used as the basis for locking down the entire planet.
W.C. Fields once quipped, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” Seems like too many of us are being baffled.

Posted by: Rick | Oct 14 2020 15:07 utc | 94

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/10/13/guardian-biden-over-trump-by-17-leads-in-every-category-only-the-mossad-can-save-trump-again/
The real catch with this type of DNA analysis is that it is only ‘matching chunks’… it does not ‘sequence the genome’.
The ‘matching chunks’ thing is a problem by: Rae @ 11
PCR method was unsuitable for diagnosis of viral infections. But what did the old fool know – Nobel Prize or not – he only invented it.by: Leser @ 18
approximate data is still better than no data vk @ 19 <=each of the brown horses tested t/b yellow? The politicians explained yellow is the best color for routine propaganda. Josh @ 20<= I think Lawsuits will make persons, corportions and countries answer to tort, criminal and crimes against humanity charges for lock down measures imposed based on inappropriate use of RT-PCR test.. What the so called Pandemic has taught me, is the medical profession does not know its ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to genetics, molecular biology and analytical chemistry. But why should they, understanding the science behind the protocols that are compose professional routines in not something they are expected to know. .. its just that they have the license and not the knowledge. B.. In my lab. we experienced significant trouble comparing PCR results obtained by one technician from another technician in the same lab both using the same equipment, procedure and protocol. To us, PCR or RT-PCR was a needle in the hay stack attempt to get some clue.. about the nature of some kinds of molecular and genetic arrangement problems.

Posted by: snake | Oct 14 2020 15:09 utc | 95

@ Posted by: snake | Oct 14 2020 15:09 utc | 99
PCR tests can give false negatives, too, if you want. Which do you think national governments would prefer: low infected numbers or high infected numbers?
–//–
@ Posted by: Rick | Oct 14 2020 15:07 utc | 98
Even if your source is genuine, it doesn’t change the fact that technologies evolve. PCR tests are now effective in detecting viruses.
Or are you willing to use Einstein’s personal opinions to claim nukes don’t actually work?

Posted by: vk | Oct 14 2020 15:31 utc | 96

It seems a shame that we had to lock down economies and force masks on people when the overall death rate turns out to be less than 1%. But wait, the news is coming out with a story that one can get it twice. Do I hear three times? How about four? Better fear and vote accordingly.

Posted by: Unlocktheeconomynow | Oct 14 2020 15:45 utc | 97

While this blog continues to do excellent work in many areas, it has a significant blind spot in its belief in the official narrative in this area which divides the community of those who have otherwise seen through the official story of the world/Atlantic imperium.

Posted by: exiled off mainstree | Oct 14 2020 15:46 utc | 98

Therefore by running enough amplification cycles, the product is described as ‘noise’ as you pointed out.
Posted by: Curmudgeon | Oct 14 2020 8:38 utc | 64
No, noise comes from off-target molecules. All DNA from the sample is extracted, fragmented and amplified. The required agreement with a primer is not exact, which is partially a feature: viruses like SARS mutate relatively quickly, so you do not want to reject because of one “mismatch”, in any case, that is not possible. The other issue is the population of viruses that can confuse the test. Imagine that you develop a quick method of differentiating Ukrainian and Russian speakers from voice samples. But then your testers gets confused by speakers of “southern Russian” that is phonetically closer to Ukrainian than “standard Russian” and intermediate dialects.
However, the dominant variability is the immunity to viruses that is acquired by some people from exposure to other viruses — why other similarly exposed people may be less lucky, and yet other were not exposed to similar viruses. Some “herd immunity” was present in different population to a different degree.
It would be interesting to know what was different, say, between Uruguay and Argentina.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 14 2020 15:54 utc | 99

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 14 2020 15:54 utc | 103
“It would be interesting to know what was different, say, between Uruguay and Argentina.”
Agree. Large differences in outcome can be seen already at this early point in the pandemic. There is a lot of “data science” work to be done in sorting out the differences and figuring out the policy implications, it looks like a very worthwhile effort.

Posted by: Bemildred | Oct 14 2020 16:05 utc | 100

Back to Main