Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 5

[ecosophia]

The semi-open posts  I've hosted here on the Covid-19 narrative, the inadequately tested experimental drugs for it, and the whole cascading mess surrounding them have continued to field a huge number of comments, so I'm opening another space for discussion. The rules are the same as before: 

1. If you plan on parroting the party line of the medical industry and its paid shills, please go away. This is a place for people to talk openly, honestly, and freely about their concerns that the party line in question is dangerously flawed and that actions being pushed by the medical industry et al. are causing injury and death. It is not a place for you to dismiss those concerns. Anyone who wants to hear the official story and the arguments in favor of it can find those on hundreds of thousands of websites.

2. If you plan on insisting that the current situation is the result of a deliberate plot by some villainous group of people or other, please go away. There are tens of thousands of websites currently rehashing various conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 outbreak and the vaccines. This is not one of them. What we're exploring is the likelihood that what's going on is the product of the same arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that the medical industry and its tame politicians have displayed so abundantly in recent decades. That possibility deserves a space of its own for discussion, and that's what we're doing here. 

3. If you don't believe in treating people with common courtesy, please go away. I have, and enforce, a strict courtesy policy on my blogs and online forums, and this is no exception. The sort of schoolyard bullying that takes place on so many other internet forums will get you deleted and banned here. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules. 

With that said, the floor is open for discussion. 

Comments

PCR test explanation

[(Anonymous)]

Yesterday I saw a great analogy of how the PCR test works:

take a dollar and double it until you get to 1 million dollars-
it will take 20 cycles of doubling

now take a penny and do the same thing double it until you get to a million dollars
it takes 27 cycles

a live coronavirus will show at about twenty cycles
a dead coronavirus fragment will show at about 25-27 cycles

all PCR testing has been done at an average of 40-45 cycles which will show extremely small fragments that could also be fragments of other viruses, no proof of infection but yet a positive at 45 cycles means your are a coronavirus case which is meaningless.
PCR tests are not diagnostic tools but are very imprecise statistical tools when run at low cycles, absolute garbage at high cycles as have been mandated by those who know these facts

Re: PCR test explanation

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. So, let's do a thought experiment which follows this to its logical conclusion.

Assume that, at 40-45 cycles, every PCR test is a false positive.

We tell anybody with flu-like symptoms to get tested. Given that everybody shows flu-like symptoms now and then, our sampling amounts to a random sample of the population. ​

Out of this random sample of the population, we know that a small proportion will die in the month or two after the sample just as a small proportion of the population dies in any given time frame.

If the sample was truly random, we would expect that the age of death in the sample was the same as the average life expectancy of the population as a whole and that the pattern of death would follow the usual all cause mortality pattern with deaths peaking in winter.

Which is exactly what we see with the corona testing.

Re: PCR test explanation

[(Anonymous)]

I noticed that, too. If you were to take a very large random sample of the population (or do some bogus test to generate random results), some of those people will die in any given time period. Since the deaths would basically be a random subset of all deaths, you would expect the age profile and "comorbidities" (aka "actual cause of death") to closely resemble those for all deaths. Which is exactly what we see with covid.

Which is why I strongly suspect that the huge numbers of covid deaths are actually people who were dying anyway and got labeled as covid even though that had nothing to do with it. I can't rule out a small core of people actually getting and dying from a real disease, but I guess they are a very small minority.

Re: PCR test explanation

[(Anonymous)]

This is not logical. First, you cannot assume that every positive test is a false positive; that would mean there was no real disease, which there is. (Otherwise, why exactly is every single government on the planet, and thousands of hospitals and millions of health care workers, colluding in faking a pandemic?)

Second, the original commenter is incorrect in saying both that all positive tests are based on very high cycle thresholds, and also that using a high cycle threshold can amplify very tiny fragments that could belong to other viruses. Using a high cycle threshold allows you to amplify fragments that are originally present in minute quantity (like when you do "environmental DNA" studies where you can test stream water and get small fragments of DNA from plants growing upstream). This does mean that you can get a positive test when you have recovered from a disease and there are just little bits of it left. But you still have primers designed to bind to a DNA sequence at points A and B and make copies of the stretch between them, and if both points are not there on a single piece, nothing will amplify. (To sequence RNA, they must start by reverse transcribing it into DNA, since DNA polymerase doesn't work on RNA.)

Re: PCR test explanation

[(Anonymous)]

They might not know they are colluding. If they are told there is a new virus and the given the parameters of the PCR to do to detect it, they would just follow the directions to look for the new virus.

No one has yet to explain what happen to the flu virus. Still finding few positive flu test results and it is very strange.

Re: PCR test explanation

[(Anonymous)]

This. Exactly this. If I have malice or incompetence to choose from, based on general life experience, I choose incompetence manipulated by a small core of malice dang near every time.

Tangentially related (to incompetence), a deftly written essay on the third force, stupidity. And some really fun art that looks like it's straight out of Jung's Red Book.

https://harpers.org/archive/2021/09/the-third-force-stupidity-and-transcendence/

Now back to your regularly scheduled Covid program :)

Re: PCR test explanation

[(Anonymous)]

There is a "real disease", it's called flu or pneumonia. Can you name a single symptom that would allow a doctor to distinguish "covid" from flu or pneumonia?

Re: PCR test explanation

[(Anonymous)]

Actually at high enough cycles you begin to get to the protein fragment level which can be shared among many organisms. DNA is a sequence of proteins. Many viruses share proteins as well as sequences of proteins. Yes there will be truly positive cases but the error level is so high that statistically PCR cannot diagnose anything when run at the high cycles that have been mandated. You can also get a positive test when you drive a swab into the recesses of a human nostril. It does not mean they are infected even if the virus is alive in the nostril. PCR is not a diagnostic tool and none of this is about a virus that has been endemic for probably tens to hundreds of thousands of years.

Re: PCR test explanation

[(Anonymous)]

NO, DNA is a sequence of nucleotides, which codes for the instructions to produce proteins. PCR certainly will not amplify proteins.

It is true that primers (short strands of DNA that kick off the replication process) sometimes bind to DNA sequences that don't perfectly match their target. If the target and a slightly different sequence are both present, since the primers will bind much better to the former, the overwhelming majority of what you get will be the former, and you can sequence it without complication. If there is none of the former, you can get a tiny amount of replication of the latter, especially if you use a lower annealing temperature, and then with enough cycles, amplify that to the point where it is sequenceable. All this is the Good Ol' Fashioned method. Next Generation Sequencing, oof, don't ask this old mastodon.

PCR is used as a diagnostic tool regularly, and it is harder to ignore when it is coupled with sequencing. You can't say "Maybe it's just amplifying a piece of flu virus" when the sequence is right there on the screen. As for the claim that "high cycles have been mandated," please provide a link to support that. People running tests of any kind actually do not want everybody, all the time, to test positive for everything. That makes the test totally worthless. Most of us have had the experience of testing negative.

And finally, if this disease has been endemic in humans for tens of thousands of years, how come now it's suddenly killing hundreds of thousands of people?