I understand what Kary Mullis said. But it still makes sense to use PCR to detect virus, if you understand its limitations, regardless of what it was ‘meant’ for. The PCR assays for covid should be able to distinguish sars cov 2 from other coronaviruses because the are testing for sequences that are not present in other coronaviruses like OC43. They can select 3 or 4 sequences in the SARS Cov 2 viruses that are unique and compare them against other genomes in the genome database. The problem with PCR is not that it is picking up other coronaviruses. It is that it is picking up small amounts of SARS Cov 2 that are not enough to cause infection and that may be dead anyway. >stated 85-94 % of the positive results were inaccurate.....Labs have tested over 1500 of positive tests and did not find COVID 19. Where are these numbers from? There was a study that found that samples that only tested positive after 30 cycles could only be cultured 3% of the time. Perhaps that is what you are referencing That suggests that testing beyond 30 cycles could result in a type I error (false positive) ~97% of the time. But what pecentage of positiive PCR tests only tested positive after 30 cycles? Did anyone study that? I mean, maybe someone did. The point is, it doesn’t mean all the tests the produced a positive at < 30 cycles are wrong. Or 100% inaccurate or 85% innaccurate. That is just not plausible. I have paid attention and I know there have been lawsuits. I also like to check the math when people hurl numbers at me. Im interested in just how many false positive have been generated as a proportion. But these sensational articles take numbers out of context and intentionally misinterpret them. And people don’t even bother to check. > Hey everybody PCRs are inaccurate 100% of the time. I will call that bullshit out every time and I make no apologies. That is a totally unsupportable statement, as are several other statements in this article. Youve got to stay true to exactly what the data is saying. I don’t care who you vote for. There should be no need to exagerate by fudging and distorting the numbers. >And you are full of crap if you claim it is safe to take the Jab, Why would you assume that? Because I pointed out some untrue stats and claims in this article? I just want accuracy. I dont need my numbers spun in some madison avenue type hot take to appeal to Trump voters. I have been on here for awhile and on Voat before that. Ive been chronically advocating for ivermectin and HCQ for a year. Ive been advising people where to get them and how to dose them. Ive been posting and commenting on the dangers of vaccines and exactly what the medical nature of the adverse reactions of the vaccines are, and who is most at risk. Ive commented prodigiously on the thromocytopenic and thrombotic complications to this vaccine as well as the anaphylactic and autoimmune complications and the potential risk of future ADE events. I doubt there are too many people on this site that have researched these issues *more* than me. Ive pored over dozens upon dozens of studies on these subjects in the last year. But if someone quotes a stat like that they should be able to support it. >1000 lawyers filed lawsuits, the the PCR is wrong 100% of the time and the vaccine confers 0% immunity ever— and if you question any part of this you must be a pro-Fauci Masker! Why are you questioning details like statistics? This is *our* side, get in line! I really disagree with this attitude. I need to see the math. If everybody just read the actual studies where all these statistics come from, they wouldn’t be able to fool us so often. What is so threatening about asking for a little evidence and scientific objectivity?