Dear God, I've caught a cold

originally posted by: chr0naut
But I understand the science and don't believe the stuff that one might read on social media.

What does social media have to do with the inventor of the PCR test - an actual scientist who, I imagine, as the inventor of the PCR test, knows at least a little more than you or I about the subject - saying it should never ever be used for diagnostic purposes (what these tests are doing)?

The polymerase reaction is how nature separates the two strands of DNA during replication. There is no better method for stripping apart DNA, amplifying it (replicating the sequence to its corresponding base and forming genomic duplicates of the original sequence), and then assaying a genomic sequence based upon having lots and lots of identical sequence segments which can be read out (usually ionically).

Yes, and when the algorithm is tweaked to more than 35 amplifications - which all of the testing facilities have done/are doing - it is essentially useless for proving anything other than maybe, just maybe, you were exposed to something at some time but who knows when.

originally posted by: chr0naut
That doesn't even link to the Johns Hopkins article,

It provides a wayback link to the real, actual article, which you would know, if you had bothered to read.

which, as I understand it, was taken down because it was open to misinterpretation (as Gateway Pundit did), and was replaced with the article I posted, which unambiguously clarified things.

No, not misinterpretation. Their 'reason' was that it might be misused (their word, not mine).

In other words, it doesn't fit their (and apparently your) narrative.

Well. . . . I went in to be tested.

And I'm tested negative for Covid, just have a really bad cold.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
But I understand the science and don't believe the stuff that one might read on social media.

What does social media have to do with the inventor of the PCR test - an actual scientist who, I imagine, as the inventor of the PCR test, knows at least a little more than you or I about the subject - saying it should never ever be used for diagnostic purposes (what these tests are doing)?

The original misquote was sent out over social media (Facebook) and in a video by the quack Dr Rashid A. Buttar.

The quote was not from Dr. Kary Banks Mullis Ph.D., the inventor of the PCR technique, but was actually a quote from New York writer John Lauritsen. Here is Lauritson's bio and credentials.

Fact check: Inventor of the method used to test for COVID-19 didn’t say it can’t be used in virus detection - Reuters

The polymerase reaction is how nature separates the two strands of DNA during replication. There is no better method for stripping apart DNA, amplifying it (replicating the sequence to its corresponding base and forming genomic duplicates of the original sequence), and then assaying a genomic sequence based upon having lots and lots of identical sequence segments which can be read out (usually ionically).

Yes, and when the algorithm is tweaked to more than 35 amplifications - which all of the testing facilities have done/are doing - it is essentially useless for proving anything other than maybe, just maybe, you were exposed to something at some time but who knows when.

Every type of testing or measurement method has error rates. Nothing is perfect.

The error rates of PCR are calculable and known and because it isn't perfect, that is no reason to 'throw away the baby with the bathwater'. The confidence we can have in the results is bourne out through experience, significant cross-checking, and scientific method where such errors must be quantified and considered in interpreting results.

PCR methods are the best methods we have to identify the presence and type of a particular viral sequence. End of story.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Well. . . . I went in to be tested.

And I'm tested negative for Covid, just have a really bad cold.

Again - if the tests are highly prone to both FP and FN, why bother?

originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: tanstaafl
"What does social media have to do with the inventor of the PCR test - an actual scientist who, I imagine, as the inventor of the PCR test, knows at least a little more than you or I about the subject - saying it should never ever be used for diagnostic purposes (what these tests are doing)?"

Fact check: Inventor of the method used to test for COVID-19 didn’t say it can’t be used in virus detection - Reuters

Reuters fact-check? No thanks. Regardless, even on their own fact-check, they corrected the details (but not the headline) to add:

"Correction Nov. 13, 2020: The verdict of this fact check has been changed from false to misleading, to reflect that the quote examined may have been a fair reflection of Mullis’s views, even if not a direct quote."

"Yes, and when the algorithm is tweaked to more than 35 amplifications - which all of the testing facilities have done/are doing - it is essentially useless for proving anything other than maybe, just maybe, you were exposed to something at some time but who knows when."

Every type of testing or measurement method has error rates. Nothing is perfect.

Especially when the amplifications are increased to ridiculous amounts to the point that every single scientist who understands how PCR tests work say the same thing - anything about 35 renders the results virtually useless or at a minimum, highly suspect.

All of the testing centers using this test for COVID-19 have set the amplifications higher than 35.

The error rates of PCR are calculable and known and because it isn't perfect, that is no reason to 'throw away the baby with the bathwater'.

There is, when the bathwater is polluted with tainted data.

The confidence we can have in the results is bourne out through experience, significant cross-checking, and scientific method where such errors must be quantified and considered in interpreting results.

Except when critical parameters of the tests are tweaked to be well outside what is known to produce even remotely reliable results.

PCR methods are the best methods we have to identify the presence and type of a particular viral sequence.

When used correctly and appropriately.

End of story.

Now it is the end of the story.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Well. . . . I went in to be tested.

And I'm tested negative for Covid, just have a really bad cold.

Again - if the tests are highly prone to both FP and FN, why bother?

Have to cross the "i's" and dot the "t's" in the healthcare field.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: tanstaafl
"What does social media have to do with the inventor of the PCR test - an actual scientist who, I imagine, as the inventor of the PCR test, knows at least a little more than you or I about the subject - saying it should never ever be used for diagnostic purposes (what these tests are doing)?"

Fact check: Inventor of the method used to test for COVID-19 didn’t say it can’t be used in virus detection - Reuters

Reuters fact-check? No thanks. Regardless, even on their own fact-check, they corrected the details (but not the headline) to add:

"Correction Nov. 13, 2020: The verdict of this fact check has been changed from false to misleading, to reflect that the quote examined may have been a fair reflection of Mullis’s views, even if not a direct quote."

"Yes, and when the algorithm is tweaked to more than 35 amplifications - which all of the testing facilities have done/are doing - it is essentially useless for proving anything other than maybe, just maybe, you were exposed to something at some time but who knows when."

Every type of testing or measurement method has error rates. Nothing is perfect.

Especially when the amplifications are increased to ridiculous amounts to the point that every single scientist who understands how PCR tests work say the same thing - anything about 35 renders the results virtually useless or at a minimum, highly suspect.

All of the testing centers using this test for COVID-19 have set the amplifications higher than 35.

The error rates of PCR are calculable and known and because it isn't perfect, that is no reason to 'throw away the baby with the bathwater'.

There is, when the bathwater is polluted with tainted data.

The confidence we can have in the results is bourne out through experience, significant cross-checking, and scientific method where such errors must be quantified and considered in interpreting results.

Except when critical parameters of the tests are tweaked to be well outside what is known to produce even remotely reliable results.

PCR methods are the best methods we have to identify the presence and type of a particular viral sequence.

When used correctly and appropriately.

End of story.

Now it is the end of the story.

How do you think they read the genome in the first place?

In every case, they use PCR. PCR was the big breakthrough that allowed us to see the actual bases that make up the molecule. They knew the helical structure from X-Ray crystallography (a la Watson & Crick) and the the 3 base pair codon size was deduced by Gamow, but we couldn't actually read the code until we had PCR and electrophoresis.

How else do you think we could detect the sequence of an RNA virus?

And error rates are known and compared between different methods all the time: Error Rate Comparison during Polymerase Chain Reaction by DNA Polymerase - PubMed

These are most - and least - accurate COVID-19 tests

Which test is best for COVID-19? - Harvard Health Blog

There is a website that compares over 300 COVID-19 tests, run by FIND, but currently the full data is offline while they rebuild their website, but here are the interim results from back in July.

Testing the Tests: Which COVID-19 Tests Are Most Accurate? - IEEE Spectrum

The CDC have announced that their approved PCR testwas 100% accurate in detecting the presence of the active virus.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Have you caught anything else lately, big man, like a legless sloth?

originally posted by: chr0naut
How do you think they read the genome in the first place?

That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my original statement that the PCR test is useless for diagnostic purposes - especially when the amplification level is set to more than 35, which all of these are.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: DBCowboy

Have you caught anything else lately, big man, like a legless sloth?

pfft.

For being off work for a few days, my phone won't stop ringing, the Gunthers have me doing their paperwork, and I still have to "attend" meetings.

I can hardly get day-drunk!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I can hardly get day-drunk!

If you aren't stumbling by noon you're not doing it right. I dare you to invite me out to help.

a reply to: DBCowboy

pfft.

For being off work for a few days, my phone won't stop ringing, the Gunthers have me doing their paperwork, and I still have to "attend" meetings.

I can hardly get day-drunk!

If you have a cold, or flu and tested negative, are you "allowed" to go back to work. Just curious.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: DBCowboy

pfft.

For being off work for a few days, my phone won't stop ringing, the Gunthers have me doing their paperwork, and I still have to "attend" meetings.

I can hardly get day-drunk!

If you have a cold, or flu and tested negative, are you "allowed" to go back to work. Just curious.

They (admin) would prefer that I stayed home.

Since cold symptoms are nearly identical to Covid, it wouldn't look good to see someone coughing, snotting inside a hospital, so they want me symptom-free before I return.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I can hardly get day-drunk!

If you aren't stumbling by noon you're not doing it right. I dare you to invite me out to help.

I have a meeting at one.

The drinking will start by two.

(I actually have to sound normal for the call).

If you do come out, bring beer.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If you do come out, bring beer.

Screw that, if you're still in NorCal we're going to the Russian River Brewing. They have a new Collusion IPA.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If you do come out, bring beer.

Screw that, if you're still in NorCal we're going to the Russian River Brewing. They have a new Collusion IPA.

I'm back in Oregon, hence the pissing of pants when I caught a cold shortly after returning from Cali.

Had a few good Merlots there.

(Did you know the T is silent?)

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Had a few good Merlots there.

(Did you know the T is silent?)

You'll be too once I'm done with you.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Had a few good Merlots there.

(Did you know the T is silent?)

What?? You don't call them Mer LOTS?
Wow, guess it is different out West.
Who would want a MerLow?