3 ms·

Because we're relying on a test which can barely be trusted. It's a research tool and should never be used in a diagnostic capacity. Don't listen to me about it

Because we're relying on a test which can barely be trusted. It's a research tool and should never be used in a diagnostic capacity. Don't listen to me about it though, that quote is from the PCR test's inventor Kary Mullis. It's bizarre that this isn't mentioned more. There's a rumor that it has a high false positive rate as well. There was a New York Times article that summarized this a few days ago. Again, perplexing why this isn't mentioned and studied more.

JulianWasTaken 6y ago
This is false. See e.g. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pcr-idUSKBN24420X https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pcr-idUSKBN2442....
- listenallyall 6y ago
  This "fact check" only serves to confirm pieceofcakedude's statement. Not about who said it (who cares?), but about the test not being trustworthy. Reuters states, in the last paragraph, "PCR tests ... show that SARS-CoV-2 viral genetic material is present in the patient" -- not that the PCR test confirms any minimum quantity, enough to cause any adverse effects. This is what the NYTimes reported on, that the amplification necessary to detect the virus was very often so great, implying what existed in the person was so tiny as to be inert. Reuters agrees: "It is important to note that detecting viral material by PCR does not indicate that the virus is fully intact and infectious" Pregnancy tests should return a binary result. Pretty much every other test requires a quantity for context. Imagine a blood-alcohol test that can say yes, alcohol is present, but is unable to distinguish between ingesting a teaspoon of cough syrup vs. drinking a six-pack.
- pieceofcakedude 6y ago
  Fact checks from zero credibility organizations like Reuters don't hold any weight with me and shouldn't with anyone else. That's not even Mullis' original quote. I'm actually not sure what the fact check proves. Okay fine, let's say Reuters is correct and Mullis never said whatever quote some randoms on Facebook are trying to say he said. Here's a research paper pointing out everything wrong with the PCR test: http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf Let me know what you think.
  - mikeyouse 6y ago
    You call Reuters zero credibility but then link to some crank with a background in telecom litigation with no virology experience whatsoever who denies that we can sequence viral DNA? https://davidcrowe.ca/cnp-wireless.com/dcroweresumelib.php https://davidcrowe.ca/cnp-wireless.com/dcroweresumelib.php Holy shit, of course that nutjob is also an AIDS truther: https://www.davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/alive-aids-stats.html https://www.davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/alive-aids-stats.html And still was in 2014! (Ctrl + F “David Crowe” in the comments): https://retractionwatch.com/2014/09/26/publisher-issues-statement-of-concern-about-hiv-denial-paper-launches-investigation/ https://retractionwatch.com/2014/09/26/publisher-issues-stat... Find better role models.
    - pieceofcakedude 6y ago
      Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test that we're all putting blind faith into, is an AIDS truther as well. Mullis talking about his experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaMZ4NyNCwI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaMZ4NyNCwI Questioning known corrupt organizations like the FDA, CDC and WHO makes me feel better, not worse about Mullis and Crowe. It's the scientists who blindly follow authority who really make me nervous. But that's just me. Sounds like you might be in the opposite camp. I've looked through your link and saw Crowe in the comments section. He mentions there are two new hypotheses in 2014, hence why its still being discussed. They really have no answer for his questions besides "move on, the science is settled". But critically look at his points, maybe you can address them. BTW, anyone who ever tries to to tell you "the science is settled" is trying to shut down debate, as Crowe correctly recognizes. Any comments on the actual paper itself that Crowe wrote? You don't need a background in virology to figure out that there's giant issues with the PCR test. If you read the paper at all you'd see that, but I'm guessing you didn't.
      - mikeyouse 6y ago
        Kary Mullis was an astrologist who thought that environmentalists were responsible for the AIDS hoax and wrote the forward to an AIDS denialist book written by a person who with her 3-year old daughter then died of AIDS a few years later. There is literally no benefit to engaging with these charlatans or their half baked ideas. Have you ever run a PCR? It's not magic and none of the arguments by these bizarre COVID truthers hold any water when there are thousands of people using them in research every single day.
cameldrv 6y ago
This is definitely a fringe opinion. PCR is in widespread use in medicine today, and he's the only one I've ever heard of that made this claim. Mullis also has said that HIV does not cause AIDS. While I'd look at his argument, I wouldn't give his opinion all that much weight just because he invented PCR.

JulianWasTaken 6y ago

This is false. See e.g. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pcr-idUSKBN24420X https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pcr-idUSKBN2442....

listenallyall 6y ago
This "fact check" only serves to confirm pieceofcakedude's statement. Not about who said it (who cares?), but about the test not being trustworthy. Reuters states, in the last paragraph, "PCR tests ... show that SARS-CoV-2 viral genetic material is present in the patient" -- not that the PCR test confirms any minimum quantity, enough to cause any adverse effects. This is what the NYTimes reported on, that the amplification necessary to detect the virus was very often so great, implying what existed in the person was so tiny as to be inert. Reuters agrees: "It is important to note that detecting viral material by PCR does not indicate that the virus is fully intact and infectious" Pregnancy tests should return a binary result. Pretty much every other test requires a quantity for context. Imagine a blood-alcohol test that can say yes, alcohol is present, but is unable to distinguish between ingesting a teaspoon of cough syrup vs. drinking a six-pack.
pieceofcakedude 6y ago
Fact checks from zero credibility organizations like Reuters don't hold any weight with me and shouldn't with anyone else. That's not even Mullis' original quote. I'm actually not sure what the fact check proves. Okay fine, let's say Reuters is correct and Mullis never said whatever quote some randoms on Facebook are trying to say he said. Here's a research paper pointing out everything wrong with the PCR test: http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf http://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf Let me know what you think.
- mikeyouse 6y ago
  You call Reuters zero credibility but then link to some crank with a background in telecom litigation with no virology experience whatsoever who denies that we can sequence viral DNA? https://davidcrowe.ca/cnp-wireless.com/dcroweresumelib.php https://davidcrowe.ca/cnp-wireless.com/dcroweresumelib.php Holy shit, of course that nutjob is also an AIDS truther: https://www.davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/alive-aids-stats.html https://www.davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/alive-aids-stats.html And still was in 2014! (Ctrl + F “David Crowe” in the comments): https://retractionwatch.com/2014/09/26/publisher-issues-statement-of-concern-about-hiv-denial-paper-launches-investigation/ https://retractionwatch.com/2014/09/26/publisher-issues-stat... Find better role models.
  - pieceofcakedude 6y ago
    Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test that we're all putting blind faith into, is an AIDS truther as well. Mullis talking about his experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaMZ4NyNCwI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaMZ4NyNCwI Questioning known corrupt organizations like the FDA, CDC and WHO makes me feel better, not worse about Mullis and Crowe. It's the scientists who blindly follow authority who really make me nervous. But that's just me. Sounds like you might be in the opposite camp. I've looked through your link and saw Crowe in the comments section. He mentions there are two new hypotheses in 2014, hence why its still being discussed. They really have no answer for his questions besides "move on, the science is settled". But critically look at his points, maybe you can address them. BTW, anyone who ever tries to to tell you "the science is settled" is trying to shut down debate, as Crowe correctly recognizes. Any comments on the actual paper itself that Crowe wrote? You don't need a background in virology to figure out that there's giant issues with the PCR test. If you read the paper at all you'd see that, but I'm guessing you didn't.
    - mikeyouse 6y ago
      Kary Mullis was an astrologist who thought that environmentalists were responsible for the AIDS hoax and wrote the forward to an AIDS denialist book written by a person who with her 3-year old daughter then died of AIDS a few years later. There is literally no benefit to engaging with these charlatans or their half baked ideas. Have you ever run a PCR? It's not magic and none of the arguments by these bizarre COVID truthers hold any water when there are thousands of people using them in research every single day.

cameldrv 6y ago

This is definitely a fringe opinion. PCR is in widespread use in medicine today, and he's the only one I've ever heard of that made this claim. Mullis also has said that HIV does not cause AIDS. While I'd look at his argument, I wouldn't give his opinion all that much weight just because he invented PCR.