RE: Why the Covid-19 RT-PCR test is totally fake

[manuvert]

The only evidence seen here is a complete misunderstanding of the PCR test. Even without understanding it, common sense would tell that if what you say were true ("COVID IS CHROMOSOME 8 HUMAN DNA"), all tests would be positive, and less than 10 % usually are.
For most people, this wasn't even needed, but for other people, it was debunked over and over and over, in many details, more than a year ago. Why bring up again this ridiculous claim?

Comments

[xosome5]

• How is the PCR test being misunderstood? Do tell.
• There's a thing called the cycle threshold. Too low CT will give a negative result. If set too high, all tests would indeed be positive, like you say. It is a simple matter of manipulating the CT up or down to get the results you want.
• I wasn't aware that this was debunked. Why not share the links here, I wanna see.

[manuvert]

• The sequence you pointed is one primer, not what you are trying to detect. You have a pair of primers for PCR tests. Both need to bind to a specific region for the amplification to occur. So, in this case, even if indeed this sequence can be found on chromosome 8, the other primer (also listed in your picture) would prevent the amplification to start. In other words, if you were feeding only human DNA alone to this test, it would always stay negative, as no amplification would be possible. I kept it short, but you can find all the details in the link below.
• Confirming my original comment as it is completely incorrect. You don’t set the CT value to run the test, as it is a result of the test. Most assays run 40 cycles, and the CT is when what you are trying to detect becomes visible. It usually occurs way before the final cycle, which means you could run hundreds of cycles, and the CT would stay the same. So no, you cannot manipulate the CT value when running the test.
  However, depending on the test assays, what is considered a positive CT can change because of different gene target or methods. It is calibrated against known samples, and part of the testing procedure for all assays. It doesn’t change once it is determined, and the test assays approved for laboratory use. So, again, it cannot be manipulated.
  This lie started with a right wing channel (OAN or Newsmax, can’t remember) and was amplified by this crooked lawyer in Canada. And many months later, people who don’t check, still repeat it.
• There are literally hundred of them, but this is I think a good one with a short version, and a detailed version: https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/human-dna-alone-does-not-produce-a-positive-result-on-the-rt-pcr-test-for-sars-cov-2/

[xosome5]

• ok, I used the wrong terminology, thanks for pointing that out. What I mean is "number of amplification cycles". So to correct, the PCR test can be manipulated by changing the number of amplification cycles up or down to get the results you want. Did I get that right?
• I don't think any of the people you mentioned were intentionally lying? I've seen articles that confuse the terminology, perhaps it is simply an honest mistake. Lying would be an inaccurate term.
• So, I've checked the link, but it doesn't answer the most obvious question: Why is human chromosome 8 used as one of the primers? How about you don't use it as a primer? How about, use primers that don't match human DNA at all? That seems very suspicious!

[manuvert]

• Nope, still not exactly. Since the results of the test uses the CT value (yes I know this value is not reported to the person being tested, for the reasons I mentioned already: it varies based on the test assay being used), you can increase the number of amplification cycles as much as you want, like I said in my previous comment, it will not change the result. I guess the only thing you could manipulate is to make the cutoff so small than CT is never reached, and 100% of tests are negative. But like I also said, the standard is often 40 cycles, and depending on the tests, CT values for positive tests are typically in the 25 to 35 range, way before the cutoff.
• It was most likely a lie from that ‘expert’ on that channel. Unless he’s grossly incompetent, a doctor would not make that mistake. It’s their usual MO: start with a big lie, let social media spread it everywhere without any verification, and offer a half-assed retraction much later. In case it wasn’t clear, I wasn’t talking about the people repeating it, just the ones creating it. Although I also believe that before repeating something, one should always try and verify the information.
• Just to be clear, it is not chromosome 8, just a sequence present on chromosome 8. Although I read a couple papers years ago, I will never pretend I know enough about primers design to even hazard a guess here. All I know is there’s plenty of requirements for their selection. Of course, above all, it needs to be target-specific while being efficient. So all in all, a rather complex task to define these primers, and I’m not that surprised that one of them happens to match a sequence on a human chromosome.

[xosome5]

• It's like this. You know the typical CT range is 25-35.
  So, if you want a lot of positive cases, you set the no. of amplification cycles to some high number like 40, which is way above the CT.
  And if you want negative results, you set the no. of amplification cycles on the low side, like 28. Not too low, cos people will notice. Easy peasy manipulation right?
• waitaminute -- you mentioned OAN, Newsmax, some crooked lawyer... none of which are doctors. Now you're talking about some other expert on some channel...
  ok, now I'm curious - who exactly are you accusing of lying, and what exactly did they say that was a lie?
• from the video, clearly in black & white, a specific 18 character sequence, from the WHO document, matching with "Homo sapiens chromosome 8". Are you saying its only a partial match?
  That chromosome 8 has a longer sequence? Doesn't seem like it to me.
  Whatever the case may be, having a match, partial or full, to a human chromosome, still looks damn suspicious.

[manuvert]

Sorry for the delay, I've been kind of lazy here.

• It’s obvious I am not making myself clear. I’ll just add a few words one more time. Cutoff cycles and ‘positive CT’ (if CT is equal or lower, the test is positive, if CT is higher, it’s too weak and the test is negative) are calibrated using known samples. To get approved, a given test array goes through several verifications, by different countries obviously. And once that is done, these values cannot change, so like I said, no manipulation.
• It was one of the ‘expert’ consultant doctors on one of these channels who grossly misinterpreted a CDC document about breakthrough cases (the infamous “CT lower than 28”). I even commented about it on some Hive posts months ago. After that, everybody and their mother was talking about how the CDC kept changing the CT (in particular the Canadian lawyer who had several suits against the Canadian government and kept spreading other debunked lies), which is not true at all (they were just looking for breakthrough cases with high viral load). It was very clear he completely misread the document. In my opinion, as he was a doctor, the misunderstanding was on purpose. But that is right, I cannot prove that.
• The entire Chromosome 8 sequence contains over 145 million bases, so yeah, you can say it’s an extremely partial match.

[xosome5]

No worries, I've been lazy myself.

• oohh, "cutoff cycles". That sounds a lot easier to say than "number of amplification cycles".
  Anyway, you've made youself quite clear, and there clearly is manipulation. You said yourself CT has a range of 25-35, it is not a fixed number.
  Early 2021, CDC changed the PCR test cutoff cycles to 28 for vaccinated people, but not the unvaccinated, clearly displaying double standards and clearly indicating that cutoff cycles are also not fixed.
• Man, you keep saying doctor this and lawyer that, but you don't provide any links, you don't name any names for me to google and check out.
• Hey seems you're right, it says in wikipaedia "Chromosome 8 spans about 145 million base pairs". But the question remains, why use a partial match of human DNA as primer? Suspicious!