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

[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.

Comments

[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!

[manuvert]

• It’s like you’re trying your best not to understand what I’m saying. Like I clearly wrote, positive CT is fixed depending on the test array, say 35 for a given one (that means any actual CT -the one you get from the test- lower than 35, then the test is positive, any CT higher, the test is negative) . The 25-35 range is the results you typically get for a positive sample, which is way before the usual 40 cutoff cycle (or number of amplification cycles, not sure why it sounds easier, it’s exactly the same). So, yes, both numbers (cutoff, and positive) are fixed, the one that changes is of course the sample CT depending on the viral load (or its presence at all).
  And see, this 28 bullshit is exactly what I’m talking about (I even mentioned “the infamous CT lower than 28”). The CDC did not change the cutoff cycle, or any other cycle. It was a complete misinterpretation of their document about breakthrough cases. They were looking for positive samples of persons reinfected after the vaccine, for genetic sequencing. But to focus on higher viral loads among the people already tested positive with normal testing procedure, they requested samples with CT below 28. None of the testing guidelines were changed. They never requested to change cutoff cycle, or any other cycle. Like you said, it was early this year, and so many months later, it still pops up from time to time, even though it was debunked over and over. That’s exactly what I was pointing at.
• Again, this was many months ago, I didn’t remember their names. But the very first search on google produced their names: Dr David Samadi and the lawyer Galati.
• And why suspicious? Based on all the requirements on the primers (both go together), the primers designers (often relying on AI) ended up with one that happens to match an extremely small portion of a human chromosome. That can happen, and that doesn’t change the accuracy of this test. By the way, we went from “PCR test is totally fake”, to “hmmm, suspicious” without knowing why.

[xosome5]

• I thought different labs in different countries use different amplification cycles? Just because you have a 'standard' of 40 in your mind, does not mean that everyone adheres to it.
  You also have to trust that the lab person, who may or may not be on big pharma's payroll, is running the correct number of cycles.
  Incidently, cutoff cycle 35 and above gives useless and misleading results. Hey, that's what Fauci himself said. So, at 40 you're basically guaranteeing false positives.
• oh, the breakthrough cases thing was a misinterpretation? ok.. I'll just have to take your word for it I guess, since they deleted the link to the original circular! why would they do that...but your explanation does sound reasonable.
  As for Dr David Samadi, his viral tweet has apparently also has been deleted. So, it may have been a misinterpretation, who knows. Maybe the good doctor realized he made a mistake and took it down? If you still want to say he's lying, well that's just your opinion.
  All I could find on Galati was that he has a lawsuit with the Canadian government over covid measures that go against their constitution. That's nice to know, but I don't know how that adds to this discussion.
• I said the primer issue is suspicious, since it may have been an oversight, an honest mistake. But maybe I shouldn't give them the benefit of doubt.
  Shouldn't a primer that partially matches human DNA be disqualified? There are other primers that are available, could have used those. Why put this one in the protocol?
  The RT-PCR test is totally fake, based on this plus other factors as well.