Corona virus propaganda vs. truth... a true survivor story

originally posted by: djz3ro
a reply to: madmac5150

I don't care what politicians and the media say, it was the medical professionals I was listening to

So does THIS GUY come under the heading of "politician"...or "medical professional"?



Listen to him...or no?

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: madmac5150

Did any of you have a positive PCR test, or where you just sick while it was in the news?

PCR tests are crap for diagnosing China Virus....especially at the scan cycle threshold they've used.
Even Fauci was caught saying so.

In mid-November, none other than he who should not be questioned – Dr. Anthony Fauci – admitted that the PCR Test’s high Ct is misleading:

“What is now sort of evolving into a bit of a standard,” Fauci said, is that “if you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-confident are minuscule.”

“It’s very frustrating for the patients as well as for the physicians,” he continued, when “somebody comes in, and they repeat their PCR, and it’s like [a] 37 cycle threshold, but you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle.”

So, I think if somebody does come in with 37, 38, even 36, you got to say, you know, it’s just dead nucleotides, period.”
So, if anyone raises this discussion as a “conspiracy”, refer them to Dr.Fauci.

principia-scientific.com...

ALL PCR tests are run @ 35-45 CTs.

That means that most...if not all...China Virus infections diagnosed using PCR were FALSE POSITIVES...actually measuring "dead nucleotides".

It means that ANYONE who died of ANYTHING...can...and will be diagnosed as having China Virus...and would've have been falsely added to the CV death toll.

As all these cases spoken about had mild symptoms, there is nothing to differentiate it from a cold or flu.

At least a PCR test, if done, would confirm the presence of the SARS-Cov-2 genomic sequence.

The only other differentiator would be the more severe symptoms, which they didn't have.

My conclusion, since they haven't replied to my question, is that they could very well have had a cold or the flu.

In the US, the number of amplification cycles is mandated to be in the exponential phase of PCR result, a setting of between 20 and 28 amplification cycles. Figure 18 of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)
Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel - Instructions for Use clearly demonstrate this.

Also, each cycle of PCR amplification replicates the genomic sequences present in the sample. I.e, it doubles them every time. If there is no genomic sequence present, it does not make things up. PCR amplification is not like electrical or optical amplification where things become fuzzy the more amplification is applied.

If you google "PCR amplification plot" and have a look at the graphs, you will see that after the exponential phase, there is very little change in accuracy. In fact, it is a case of diminishing returns, where further amplifications will not reveal anything different from previous cycles. If there were more false positives from higher cycle numbers, then the graph would not roll off and become linear as it does. The whole premise that higher amplifications produce greater amounts of error, is a total misunderstanding of what PCR does. Higher amplifications cycles past the exponential stage are simply a waste of time. They won't reveal anything different than previous cycles.

Also, the site you linked, 'Principa-Scientific.com' does not load on my PC because of my ad-blocker. An academic site, charitable, or a government site would not run advertisements. Also, when I browsed to the site without the blocker, it says it is a charity site. Then why the adverts? Also all its articles are nothing to do with any actual science or academia and most are climate-change denial articles.

I never thought I’d grow up to be embarrassed by my fellow Americans. The last 2 years maybe even longer I have been. The amount of people i truly thought had good heads on there shoulders to start all this weird conspiracy bull is crazy. I think I have a natural immunity to Covid. Worked in a tight quarters office with 8 other desks. All 8 of the other people got Covid at the same time I never did and continued to work with them not being the most diligent about it. I’ve been tested hundreds of times over the past year I’ve had rapid test the send offs and the antibody tests. Allways negative. I did get the vaccine when offered because not felt like the responsible thing to do. That said me personally I could jump on every Covid denialist argument because I was not effected by it. That said I’ve watched so many struggle with it and a few die that it just makes no since for so many people to have such vitriol about taking the vaccine or wearing a mask ect. Of the 5-600 employees that got vaccinated with a fair mix of the vaccines, I saw no one have any major reactions. Seems like as Americans we would come together to fight this like we’ve came together so many times in the past to fight adversities. Instead everyone sits back professing how great and smart they personally are and keep spouting an echo chamber trump I just don’t understand it. Wish someone would explain where all the hate is coming from.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: djz3ro
a reply to: madmac5150

I don't care what politicians and the media say, it was the medical professionals I was listening to

So does THIS GUY come under the heading of "politician"...or "medical professional"?

Listen to him...or no?

Definitely listen to him. Btw did you jot notice that tweet was from feb 2020 like at the beginning when no one had ramped up production of masks and before studies ect had been anylized? Why use out of date info to try and be a smart butt what does that prove? You are smarter and better than that. Sheesh

a reply to: Xstokerx

In your own words you stated..

weird conspiracy bull is crazy

It's all "weird conspiracy bull" to you because you
accept everything the media tells you. Also I
doubt you've taken any time to read, or research
an alternative view from other doctors.

There are hundreds of other Doctors with an
alternative view. Unfortunately your favorite
cable news program refuses to give them a
platform.

In your own words you stated.

Seems like as Americans we would come together to
fight this like we’ve came together so many
times in the past to fight adversities.

We would first have to agree what we are fighting.
You are under the impression covid is real. Therefore
you'll use time, talent and resources to combat covid.

Some of us are not convinced the narrative
concerning covid is truth.

It's not easy for two groups of people with different
perspectives to come together.

You asked the following question..

Wish someone would explain where all the hate is coming from?

Imagine someone spewing hate at you, by calling
you a conspiracy theorist because you take the
time to read, study and research. Research which
leads you to accept an alternative view vs the
never ending media narrative

Technically your post has shown "hate" to people
like myself. I can assure you I have no hate to
those who embrace a different opinion like yourself.

I take this position because in my understanding
genuine hate germinates from "ignorance".

originally posted by: SaturnFXMost people who drive drunk don't kill people.
Therefore precautions to not have people drive drunk shouldn't be taken.

these kind of asinine false equivalencies get ever more pathetic. right up there with dropping a flat earth reference in to an unrelated debate. transparent, weak and really rather counter-productive, as such deliberately erroneous statements only lead the discerning reader to dismiss anything further posted by those that use these tactics. actually it's a heads-up.

originally posted by: chr0naut


Also, each cycle of PCR amplification replicates the genomic sequences present in the sample. I.e, it doubles them every time. If there is no genomic sequence present, it does not make things up. PCR amplification is not like electrical or optical amplification where things become fuzzy the more amplification is applied.

Well Physics isn’t your strong suit! In optical amplification, or rather magnification there are limits on how small we can see, so at some point that “property” goes into ‘saturation’, meaning you have reached the physical limit. In electronic amplification we see the same thing, at some point we cannot amplify any more, we have reached ‘saturation’.

In neither case have we reached a state where anything ‘becomes fuzzy’, that is a phenomena that occurs ONLY with digital systems.

If you google "PCR amplification plot" and have a look at the graphs, you will see that after the exponential phase, there is very little change in accuracy. In fact, it is a case of diminishing returns, where further amplifications will not reveal anything different from previous cycles. If there were more false positives from higher cycle numbers, then the graph would not roll off and become linear as it does. The whole premise that higher amplifications produce greater amounts of error, is a total misunderstanding of what PCR does. Higher amplifications cycles past the exponential stage are simply a waste of time. They won't reveal anything different than previous cycles.

Yes, let us take a look at that ‘curve’, shall we?





Oh I’m sorry, I got those reversed, my bad. The top one is for a transistor, and the bottom is for PCR. But, do you see the resemblance? I wanted to show this contrast.

It is ONLY in the “linear phase” of both that highly accurate (without distortions) amplification can take place. Once you are off the linear phase, and onto the “knee” you are driving toward saturation, a state where in (in the PCR case) you will find literally ANYTHING you wish. And, in the case of PCR, you will definitely find broken and dead virus at increasing levels.

This makes the select of Ct to diagnose, and Ct[cutoff] critical; those selections have not been made with the best of care or science, and appear to be more politically motivated.

With this disparity of Ct selection it may be possible to show, statistically, that the majority of covid-19 cases were in fact false positives. A phenomena that occurs with over amplification (this is proven; go read).

ETA: all manufacturers of PCR equipment recommend Ct[cutoff] of 40 or more cycles. The actual Ct for each specimen is recorded by the machine.

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: chr0naut
Also, each cycle of PCR amplification replicates the genomic sequences present in the sample. I.e, it doubles them every time. If there is no genomic sequence present, it does not make things up. PCR amplification is not like electrical or optical amplification where things become fuzzy the more amplification is applied.

Well Physics isn’t your strong suit!

It is.

LOL

In optical amplification, or rather magnification there are limits on how small we can see, so at some point that “property” goes into ‘saturation’, meaning you have reached the physical limit. In electronic amplification we see the same thing, at some point we cannot amplify any more, we have reached ‘saturation’.

But as I previously explained, that is something totally different than PCR amplification.

PCR amplification, on each cycle, produces a copy of each genomic strand, pretty much like it does during DNA replication.

The polymerase reaction (which is where the PCR name comes from) strips the double helix apart into two molecular strands. For each strand, complementary bases are then chemically assembled to exactly complement the chemistry of the separated strand. This means that after the amplification process, there are exactly double the amount of the original genomic sequence, where once there was one, there are now two identical molecular sequences.

It 'amplifies' the amount that can be measured by doubling it at each cycle.

In neither case have we reached a state where anything ‘becomes fuzzy’, that is a phenomena that occurs ONLY with digital systems.

What?

Are teddy bears digital? They're fuzzy.

LOL

But more seriously, lots of things under extreme analogue amplification become inexact and indeterminate - fuzzy, by another name.

Distortion in an analogue signal can occur either through waveform clipping, or through through resonant effects such as feedback (inductive regeneration).

Most people would describe the loss of clarity of an analogue signal as fuzziness. Think audio distortion - which is an analogue effect. Digital systems also tend to have less distortion than analogue systems, too, so I'm not sure what you are getting at suggesting that fuzziness from amplification is a digital effect.

But electrical or optical amplification is not the same thing as amplification used in a PCR test.

If you google "PCR amplification plot" and have a look at the graphs, you will see that after the exponential phase, there is very little change in accuracy. In fact, it is a case of diminishing returns, where further amplifications will not reveal anything different from previous cycles. If there were more false positives from higher cycle numbers, then the graph would not roll off and become linear as it does. The whole premise that higher amplifications produce greater amounts of error, is a total misunderstanding of what PCR does. Higher amplifications cycles past the exponential stage are simply a waste of time. They won't reveal anything different than previous cycles.

Yes, let us take a look at that ‘curve’, shall we?




Umm, this first one isn't a PCR amplification curve. LOL. That's electrical amplification curve, which as I explained, is not the same thing.



Oh I’m sorry, I got those reversed, my bad. The top one is for a transistor, and the bottom is for PCR. But, do you see the resemblance? I wanted to show this contrast.


The difference is that despite the shape of the curve, the axes are measuring different phenomena. They are not saying the same thing.

It is ONLY in the “linear phase” of both that highly accurate (without distortions) amplification can take place. Once you are off the linear phase, and onto the “knee” you are driving toward saturation, a state where in (in the PCR case) you will find literally ANYTHING you wish. And, in the case of PCR, you will definitely find broken and dead virus at increasing levels.


No, with PCR amplification, you are measuring a specific genomic sequence by chemically reproducing it exactly.

It doesn't replicate something other than the sequences in the sample. It only produces exact copies of the sequences.

The more you have of the sequence, the more assurance you have that you are seeing the sequence. However, after about 20 amplification runs, the amount of genomic sequence in the sample cannot increase any more, because the sample become increasingly closer to 100% just genomic sequence, and no support medium. You don't want to run too many cycles because it won't tell you anything more than you already know. Those excess cycles and a waste of time.

This makes the select of Ct to diagnose, and Ct[cutoff] critical; those selections have not been made with the best of care or science, and appear to be more politically motivated.

With this disparity of Ct selection it may be possible to show, statistically, that the majority of covid-19 cases were in fact false positives. A phenomena that occurs with over amplification (this is proven; go read).

ETA: all manufacturers of PCR equipment recommend Ct[cutoff] of 40 or more cycles. The actual Ct for each specimen is recorded by the machine.

That is not true. PCR is not capable of inventing genomes that aren't there. It doesn't get false readings because there are too many amplification cycles. The readings become more assured, up to a point where the result isn't going to change.

This is fairly basic, and omits some of the details, but it will give you a clearer idea: Explainer: How PCR works

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: chr0naut
Also, each cycle of PCR amplification replicates the genomic sequences present in the sample. I.e, it doubles them every time. If there is no genomic sequence present, it does not make things up. PCR amplification is not like electrical or optical amplification where things become fuzzy the more amplification is applied.

Well Physics isn’t your strong suit!

It is.

LOL

If you say so...

No, with PCR amplification, you are measuring a specific genomic sequence by chemically reproducing it exactly.

It doesn't replicate something other than the sequences in the sample. It only produces exact copies of the sequences.

The more you have of the sequence, the more assurance you have that you are seeing the sequence. However, after about 20 amplification runs, the amount of genomic sequence in the sample cannot increase any more, because the sample become increasingly closer to 100% just genomic sequence, and no support medium. You don't want to run too many cycles because it won't tell you anything more than you already know. Those excess cycles and a waste of time.

Yes, exactly! However, your amplification also amplifies genomic fragments (of the virus), as well as dead virus, at some point these start to be come significant, and may be falsely recognized as a 'live virus'; this is what happens with over amplification (beyond 28 cycles).

That is not true. PCR is not capable of inventing genomes that aren't there. It doesn't get false readings because there are too many amplification cycles. The readings become more assured, up to a point where the result isn't going to change.

This is fairly basic, and omits some of the details, but it will give you a clearer idea: Explainer: How PCR works

As I've said, there are no "new" genomes present, however; genomic fragments, and dead virus are. It is these fragments and dead virus that account for false readings, making the results less reliable after 28 cycles.

ETA: Ya know, until right now I didn't properly appreciate the "n+1" cycles, it didn't make sense. However, mRNA is a strand of RNA which isn't a double stranded helix, just a single strand. So, it must first be make into a double strand (making it DNA) so that it may be amplified...some times, I can be a bit slow, excuse me I'm 74.

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: chr0naut
Also, each cycle of PCR amplification replicates the genomic sequences present in the sample. I.e, it doubles them every time. If there is no genomic sequence present, it does not make things up. PCR amplification is not like electrical or optical amplification where things become fuzzy the more amplification is applied.

Well Physics isn’t your strong suit!

It is.

LOL

If you say so...

No, with PCR amplification, you are measuring a specific genomic sequence by chemically reproducing it exactly.

It doesn't replicate something other than the sequences in the sample. It only produces exact copies of the sequences.

The more you have of the sequence, the more assurance you have that you are seeing the sequence. However, after about 20 amplification runs, the amount of genomic sequence in the sample cannot increase any more, because the sample become increasingly closer to 100% just genomic sequence, and no support medium. You don't want to run too many cycles because it won't tell you anything more than you already know. Those excess cycles and a waste of time.

Yes, exactly! However, your amplification also amplifies genomic fragments (of the virus), as well as dead virus, at some point these start to be come significant, and may be falsely recognized as a 'live virus'; this is what happens with over amplification (beyond 28 cycles).

That is not true. PCR is not capable of inventing genomes that aren't there. It doesn't get false readings because there are too many amplification cycles. The readings become more assured, up to a point where the result isn't going to change.

This is fairly basic, and omits some of the details, but it will give you a clearer idea: Explainer: How PCR works

As I've said, there are no "new" genomes present, however; genomic fragments, and dead virus are. It is these fragments and dead virus that account for false readings, making the results less reliable after 28 cycles.

ETA: Ya know, until right now I didn't properly appreciate the "n+1" cycles, it didn't make sense. However, mRNA is a strand of RNA which isn't a double stranded helix, just a single strand. So, it must first be make into a double strand (making it DNA) so that it may be amplified...some times, I can be a bit slow, excuse me I'm 74.

If the sequence does not match the viral sequence, it is no match. If a virus is 'dead' its genomic sequence is damaged, degraded chemically, and does not match a live viral sequence. PCR will only identify the viral sequence for about a day after the virus is no longer 'live'. This is because without the replication mechanisms and the coat of the viral particles, the RNA payload of the virus degrades quickly.

A day or two after the virus is no longer active is still fairly close in time and it is possible that despite having natural antibodies to the virus, that there are still some live viruses that could potentially infect someone else. Normally, the procedure is to ensure someone has a negative PCR for the virus for several days, to ensure that there is no residual virus, before allowing them out of quarantine. The previous standard was that the person have at least two negative tests spaced 24 hours apart, but that is also considered along with symptomology, which used to be 3 days of no symptoms. I believe that the duration's have been reduced now we have a better idea of the progression of the disease.

If it does what they say it does, then why must the vaccinated fear the unvaccinated so much like they tell us we're supposed to?

If it doesn't work like they say it does (and why else must the vaccinated be punished with more restrictions and complete separation from the vaccinated), then why are they so busy trying to force everyone to get it? There's no point.

It's the worst kind of mixed messaging.

originally posted by: chr0naut


Distortion in an analogue signal can occur either through waveform clipping, or through through resonant effects such as feedback (inductive regeneration).

Well, feedback isn't a resonant effect, but, I guess we can't expect you to know that. Although, in some special cases, resonant feedback might be used, such as in filters...PCR doesn't filter does it? (don't answer, I already know).

And yes 'clipping', perhaps something similar to what might happen to an over amplified sample from someone who has recovered...i.e. dead virus, and not much of it either.

Anyway, what you said was complete "horse"; the electronic world don't quite work that way.

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: chr0naut


Distortion in an analogue signal can occur either through waveform clipping, or through through resonant effects such as feedback (inductive regeneration).

Well, feedback isn't a resonant effect, but, I guess we can't expect you to know that. Although, in some special cases, resonant feedback might be used, such as in filters...PCR doesn't filter does it? (don't answer, I already know).

And yes 'clipping', perhaps something similar to what might happen to an over amplified sample from someone who has recovered...i.e. dead virus, and not much of it either.

Anyway, what you said was complete "horse"; the electronic world don't quite work that way.

I didn't say all feedback was resonant. I even gave an example of a feedback type that is resonant (inductive regeneration).

And you still don't seem to have understood that PCR amplification is a molecular copying process.

When someone has recovered, PCR testing doesn't find the live virus in them. The sequence is gone when the virus is gone.

Antibody testing would find still antibodies, if someone has recovered, but PCR won't find the live viral genomic sequence if they don't have it.

It's a fairly simple concept.

originally posted by: chr0naut

I didn't say all feedback was resonant. I even gave an example of a feedback type that is resonant (inductive regeneration).

The problem is that "inductive regeneration" is not a form of feedback except in automobiles. Inductive Regeneration is what happens when you take your foot off the accelerator pedal in an EV car. It has no other application in electronics that I am aware of.

And you still don't seem to have understood that PCR amplification is a molecular copying process.

Oh, I understand it quite well, though you don't quite seem to have come up to speed. Try finding and reading something a wee bit more technical than that simple "how it works", there are plenty of papers to select from on the more technical aspects of PCR...go read.

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: chr0naut

I didn't say all feedback was resonant. I even gave an example of a feedback type that is resonant (inductive regeneration).

The problem is that "inductive regeneration" is not a form of feedback except in automobiles. Inductive Regeneration is what happens when you take your foot off the accelerator pedal in an EV car. It has no other application in electronics that I am aware of.

Every coil of wire carrying changing current is an inductor.

This works because a wire carrying current has around it a magnetic field that orients itself according to the right hand rule (you can look that up). When you run lots of turns of wire together, such as in a coil, the individual magnetic fields around each wire couple together, and this creates a stronger, aggregate, magnetic field.

The magnetic field is 90 degrees out of phase with changes in current - it lags the current changes in the wire by 90 degrees.

Just like when the current changes, and generates a magnetic field 90 degrees out of phase, so also a changing magnetic field induces a current flow back in the wire, which is also 90 degrees out of phase behind the magnetic field.

So a pulse of current, or oscillating current creates a magnetic field. When the magnetic field changes it also induces a current back in the coil (that is why a coil is an inductor), that is 180 (= 90 degrees + 90 degrees) out of phase with the original changing current. 180 degrees is the same as saying inverse phase. It is an opposite oscillating current to the one in the coil, except smaller due to magnetic hysteresis losses in the conversion process.

In electric cars, the back EMF (electromotive force) in the motors can be used for regenerative braking, where the physical rotation of the electric motors is opposed (180 degrees out of phase) by inductive regeneration. But inductive regeneration can happen also in a motionless coil by the mechanism previously explained.

In standard radio sets, frequency control can be achieved by a variable LCR circuit where L is an inductance, C is a capacitance and R is a resistance. This allows for a tune-able circuit that uses controlled resonance to select its optimal frequency. So inductive regeneration is used in nearly all analogue electronics, not just in electric vehicles.

And you still don't seem to have understood that PCR amplification is a molecular copying process.

Oh, I understand it quite well, though you don't quite seem to have come up to speed. Try finding and reading something a wee bit more technical than that simple "how it works", there are plenty of papers to select from on the more technical aspects of PCR...go read.

I am quite familiar with the science from a practical perspective. I even taught my (now grown) children some basic genetics by doing it at home, about 10 years ago, with cheap equipment and some simple chemicals. PCR was just one of the processes we played with.

Here's some updated stuff you can build for yourself:

PCR on a shoestring: Build Your Own PCR Machine

originally posted by: chr0naut

In standard radio sets, frequency control can be achieved by a variable LCR circuit where L is an inductance, C is a capacitance and R is a resistance. This allows for a tune-able circuit that uses controlled resonance to select its optimal frequency. So inductive regeneration is used in nearly all analogue electronics, not just in electric vehicles.

What the hell was all that? Some kind of smokescreen?

An "LCR" circuit, you say? In my 50+ years as an electrical engineer I've NEVER heard it described that way. Yes it is true that WAY BACK IN THE DAY, we used such primitive constructs, but most of that changed over 40 years ago. Today we use solid state devices, something like a Phased-Locked Loop, giving us a voltage controlled frequency rather than a mechanical control (much more precise).

Your description of "inductive regeneration" was cute, but seriously, ISN'T something being used in electronics today, and to the best of my knowledge NEVER has. So, lets just drop the "play-I-know-what-I'm-talking-about", and actually get serious.

All of the literature on PCR, states that results are unreliable when Ct runs off the linear portion of the curve, that actually occurs at Ct=28, yet all PCR testing has a Ct[cutoff] of 40 (Ct=40). In my more recent reading I found that when done as a "batch" (the only practical way to do mass testing); if any sample tests "positive" the whole batch must be rerun to determine the Ct of each individual sample. Kind of inefficient don't ya think? And, here I thought that maybe the medical industry had their stuff together, oh well.

Here's some updated stuff you can build for yourself:

PCR on a shoestring: Build Your Own PCR Machine

Yes, building a PCR machine is actually quite simple, did that as a 'fun' project about 11 years ago. Adding the "SOC" (system on chip) is a good touch...kind of wish I had something smaller than a Pentium back than.

But, that was then, and this is now; funny thing though, the 'rules' of PCR haven't changed. Your view is a nice, simplistic view suitable for a 10 YO, but, it's time to start thinking with the real science and engineering, and it is a bit more complex than you think.

a reply to: madmac5150




Starting to see more things like this on social media..hmmmm
vaccinated sicker than non??? You don't say...

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: madmac5150

Starting to see more things like this on social media..hmmmm
vaccinated sicker than non??? You don't say...

Actually, that makes absolute logical sense.

The unvaxxed are tested to a Ct of 38, while the Vaxxed are tested to Ct = 28. A Ct of 28 is 1024 times the virial load of a Ct = 38...that Vaxxed person IS way 'sicker' than the unvaxxed person. Of course this doesn't take in account individual Ct's in any given instance...however this does show the disparity between the two testing protocols.

This is not true.



a reply to: Jimy718

a reply to: Jimy718

If the vaxed person got pneumonia and the unvaxxed didn’t I’d say the vaxed is more sick, who cares about testing.