PCR reliability and why lockdown is now ineffective

Treatments and their effectiveness, herd immunity, masks, testing, etc.
Jane G
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:29 pm

Re: PCR reliability and why lockdown is now ineffective

Post by Jane G »

At the risk of it teaching grandma to suck eggs, has this tweet been widely seen?
Most of it went over my head but it highlights problems with PCR and it's implications than I considered.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Kevin_McKern ... 2298384390

PowerCorrupts
Posts: 79
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2020 10:37 am

Re: PCR reliability and why lockdown is now ineffective

Post by PowerCorrupts »

Its Official: PCR cycles over 35 cannot identify cov19: US CDC Head , Fauci said in 'This Week in Virology' podcast, 16 July 2020: the UK uses 45 cycles.........hence PCR test cannot be used to identify cov19. Link to podcast in article below:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/11/jon ... f-experts/

Splatt
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: PCR reliability and why lockdown is now ineffective

Post by Splatt »

Thats not entirely correct.
Every single different brand/assay of tests will yield different results to the same cT.
35 cycles on brand 1 is not the same as 35 cycles on brand 2.

There is also no peer reviewed data out hinting at a more acceptable cT value either (and you'd need to do it for each test).

Yes the current cycles are way too high for *any* test but you cant claim a fixed cT is the gold-standard to meet because it simply doesn't work that way.

rtPCR is deeply flawed by this but actual, scientific arguments are weakened by people making claims that simply aren't true - it discredits the whole case.

wade
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:10 pm

Re: PCR reliability and why lockdown is now ineffective

Post by wade »

Splatt wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 3:49 pm

There is also no peer reviewed data out hinting at a more acceptable cT value either (and you'd need to do it for each test).
It's also interesting to note that none of the 6 rounds of Imperial College's reports have been peer reviewed. All but one of the links in their webpage refer to preprints : https://www.imperial.ac.uk/medicine/res ... -findings/

The only peer reviewed manuscript linked to on that page is for their methods in the Usability and acceptability of home-based self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies for population surveillance

The methods used in the usability and acceptability of home-based self-testing for SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection has not been peer reviewed.

For the government to follow the science , shouldn't they follow peer reviewed science?

Splatt
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 12:46 am

Re: PCR reliability and why lockdown is now ineffective

Post by Splatt »

wade wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 11:24 am
For the government to follow the science , shouldn't they follow peer reviewed science?
Yes they should and this is the problem throughout.
The initial imperial model and report 9 weren't reviewed or audited in any way and so on.

Its basically the opposite of how scientific method is supposed to work. I was always trained that your methods, your data, everything is public and there to be scrutinised and critiqued.
The only way you can be sure its accurate is to have independent experts review it and basically try to tear it down. If they fail, you win....for now.

I cant work out how we have an entire policy here based on secretive (to the extent even the people are anonymous at times) "science" which has no transparency and no outside scrutiny.
Even worse when its modelling. Now we have unreviewed models with unreviewed source code being run with unreviewed and unknown assumptions that isnt being challenged by other models or red team style attacks producing an output that by rights we should have zero confidence in....But we're making policy on that.

Yes peer review is slow and sometimes you do need to get something out in preprint first timewise but that should be a stopgap while waiting for review. You shouldn't be skipping the procedure entirely!

Post Reply