Kary Mullis, who won the Nobel Prize in Science for inventing the PCR, is thoroughly convinced that HIV is not the cause of "AIDS". With regard to the viral load tests, which attempt to use PCR for counting viruses, Mullis has stated: "Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron." PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.
I'm honestly not sure how this was an argument against him. It only seems to prove his point. What am I missing?
Again, it doesn't mean PCR test are BS to identify viruses, it means you have to target the right RNA sequences.... But that's something you fail to grasp, otherwise you wouldn't raise that argument since it's going to lead, right fucking there: https://www.pasteur.fr/en/home/press-area/press-documents/operation-and-reliability-rt-pcr-tests-detection-sars-cov-2
I read your source and this was right there at the end of it under the "reliability" section.
Finally, it is advisable to use two different tests (the two tests developed by the CNR at the Institut Pasteur are named IP2 and IP4) on the same sample to guarantee the reliability of the result. This means that six sequences of the viral genome, rather than three, need to be recognized and amplified, thereby increasing the reliability of RT-PCR testing.
Can you prove to me that they are following these guidelines or am I just supposed to trust you and the "science?"
Edit: Also, Virusmyth.com? Seriously? You have to be fucking with us.
I'm honestly not sure how this was an argument against him. It only seems to prove his point. What am I missing?
The reliability of the primers (RNA/DNA samples), that's what you're missing, and the necessary multi layered approach
"They can only detect proteins that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to HIV."
It's sort of like a triangulation, one or two coordinate isn't enough, you need 3. And in the case of sars-cov-2/n-cov, you have to deal with the fact that it bears similarities with existing coronaviruses, so the multi layered test is mandatory, and that's an understatement for obvious reasons, otherwise you'll run into false positives since there is no such thing as only one bit of RNA (that you are magnifying with the PCR test) unique to sars-cov-2, to begin with, similarities with other coronaviruses aside. Most coronaviruses except mers and sars-cov for instance, are harmless, pretty much anybody can have one without even noticing
Besides, in the case of the US, initial primers were bogus... https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/03/05/905484/why-the-cdc-botched-its-coronavirus-testing/
Case in point: FDA rules initially prevented state and commercial labs from developing their own coronavirus diagnostic tests, even if they could develop coronavirus PCR primers on their own. So when the only available test suddenly turned out to be bunk, no one could actually say what primer sets worked.
Edit: Now go ahead, find the Mullis quote on PCR tests, he said it about the HIV and he died of pneumonia before covid19 was even a thing
Unless I'm misunderstanding, your entire argument is built on "All of these early tests were completely wrong. This test is different though."
That's precisely why the CDC had to update its fucking protocol
And again, PCR tests are used for the identification of infectious agents since decades, there's nothing wrong with PCR tests, now there are ways to run them wrong and utterly wrong
And the more I talk about it the more I realize I'm among the few ones here to have even bothered to do actual researches on it
(post is archived)