A Doctor Signs Vaccine Exemptions and the cops show up, like WTF?

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: nonspecific

How many cycles do you guys run the PCR tests at? Do you even know?

PCR amplification is generally 2e40 to 2e45 in Canada I believe, so 40-45 cycles (or doublings) as it is exponential amplification. Anything over 26 iterations produces an exponentially increasing error starting with an error rate of around 1-3%. So 35-45 cycles is nothing but "bunk" creating all false positives and false negatives. As the inventor said, "You can find anything in anybody using this process."

Kary Mullis on PCR testing in Bitchute Link

Cheers - Dave

RT-PCR amplification cycles - worldwide - are around 28. The number is variable depending upon presumed abundances of the targeted genomic sequence.

Please provide one single piece of evidence that supports the idea that high amplification cycles are common practice.

Also, excessively amplified PCR testing does not 'make stuff up' that isn't there. Especially not something as complex and specific as a genomic sequence. The polymerase reaction causes a duplication of the genomic sequences that are in the test solution. If a SARS-CoV-2 sequence is there, it gets duplicated. If it isn't there, it cannot possibly be duplicated (amplified).

Again, provide some proof of what you are posting.

And that Kary Mullis video, has been proven wrong by decades of laboratory practice. Mullis had a theory about AIDS (specifically that the HIV virus does not cause AIDS), that was disproven (and he was grasping at straws to try and find something that validated his erroneous beliefs, in the light of mounting evidence). His theories about AIDS and what he said about PCR, have all been disproven with voluminous evidence, long ago.

This ok

About cycle threshold (Ct) values

Most tests that detect the ribonucleic acid (RNA) or genetic fingerprint of the virus that causes COVID-19 (e.g., a polymerase chain reaction, or PCR test) use a process where specific bits of the genetic fingerprint are amplified using a temperature cycling reaction that repeats up to 45 times. These are called amplification cycles. The amount of genetic material doubles after each cycle. The number of amplification cycles required to create enough copies of the viral RNA to be detected is called the cycle threshold or Ct value.

The more RNA that is present in the patient sample, the fewer cycles are required for the signal to reach the detection threshold (low Ct value). The less RNA present in the clinical sample, the more cycles are required. So a low Ct value corresponds to a high viral load, while a high Ct value corresponds to a low viral load.

For an example of a real-time amplification curve on a logarithmic scale, see Figure 1 in Public Health Ontario: An Overview of Cycle Threshold Values and their Role in SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time PCR Test Interpretation.

Curves can also be viewed on a linear scale, which will look different but does not change the Ct interpretation. Not all commercial real-time PCR assays provide Ct values or amplification curves for viewing by the user. In addition, some molecular assays are based on other technologies (e.g., flow cytometry), and hence, do not provide Ct values.

Canada Health Official

If you need another go look them up. What's that line, oh yeah.... "Do your own research"

Cheers - Dave

Yes 45 is mentioned as a maximum value. Do you think they always run things at the maximum?

Please read further down that page you posted, and try and understand what they are saying. Especially where it mentions Ct values as low as 14 being sufficient and indicating a high viral load.

This posted site says nothing supporting the idea that in normal use, they have between 40-45 cycles. Nothing at all. Nor does it even slightly imply that high Ct numbers lead to false positives. On the contrary, if someone had to run to 45 cycles before getting a result, then they would have an incredibly low viral load and are unlikely to be infectious.

This is the lieberal game right? You never do your own research, blame everyone else for not doing your research and not spoon feeding you (I ain't your momma), complain and nitpick when a valid article is put up, etc. You have the right to believe whatever you want, I really don't care.

Maybe you can put up some unbiased articles on the efficacy of the jab and why it isn't dangerous? Of course you can't though, their are no unbiased scientists out there promoting the jab, they are all paid off, have some vested interest or they are being extorted with their careers or income (I've lived in that world and I quit because of the BS). The talking heads in media don't know sh!t from shoes and the politicians are even stupider and more criminal than the journalists. So unless you are like me and have a PhD and can think critically, I believe we are at an impasse, because you are going to need a lot more than high school biology and socio-economics to figure this one out .

ETA: I don't know why I bother...
Lin to 38
Nati onal Post

Below 26 is good, above 28 gets exponentially worse.

Cheers - Dave

Look, I read the article you posted and made comment on it. If you had read, and understood the article you posted in its entirety, you would see it does not support what you and others are assuming.

Higher cycle numbers do not create false positives.

What happens is that it takes time to run each cycle. and if you already have a result at 28 cycles, it won't give you a different result at 48 cycles. So you are wasting your time doing higher cycles once you have a result. And the timeliness of test results is medically important and epidemiologically vital.

Also, if you have to run Ct to more than 40, there isn't a significant enough viral load. The only thing I would assume from such a low viral load is that the person should be re-tested to see if they are over the infection or if it is just beginning.

a reply to: chr0naut

With these covid vaccination and vax passports you arent being given an personal choice not even our youth/children. For 18 months none of the MSM outlets were mentioning how the virus is deadly for the children.

As soon as Pfizer announced their vax for 5/12 now all of a sudden we hear stories of kids being ill from this? something is wrong with this whole scene.

originally posted by: HawkEyi
a reply to: chr0naut

With these covid vaccination and vax passports you arent being given an personal choice not even our youth/children. For 18 months none of the MSM outlets were mentioning how the virus is deadly for the children.

As soon as Pfizer announced their vax for 5/12 now all of a sudden we hear stories of kids being ill from this? something is wrong with this whole scene.

The Delta hits a younger group a bit easier than Alpha, I don't know it's deadlier, I think the Spanish Flu did the same after the initial wave.

a reply to: vonclod

I don't know it's deadlier, I think the Spanish Flu did the same after the initial wave.

These same RNAs vaxs had being known to cause heart inflammations in young youth. The FDA had a YT virtual meeting on that same topic for some reason a few weeks ago.

originally posted by: HawkEyi
a reply to: vonclod

I don't know it's deadlier, I think the Spanish Flu did the same after the initial wave.

These same RNAs vaxs had being known to cause heart inflammations in young youth. The FDA had a YT virtual meeting on that same topic for some reason a few weeks ago.

Ya, I'm not super comfortable about the kids, I think it's too soon. Especially when I hear talk about as young as 2 yr olds..hell no!

But my point still stands, the younger are on a bit more equal ground with Delta, they seemed to be less susceptible to Alpha. This has been known for awhile. I don't get the feeling Delta is more deadly, but for what ever reason, the odd person goes down, that you would not expect. I think describes the whole thing really. Comorbidities are an obvious, but why the random healthy.

originally posted by: HawkEyi
a reply to: chr0naut

With these covid vaccination and vax passports you arent being given an personal choice not even our youth/children. For 18 months none of the MSM outlets were mentioning how the virus is deadly for the children.

As soon as Pfizer announced their vax for 5/12 now all of a sudden we hear stories of kids being ill from this? something is wrong with this whole scene.

The effects of COVID-19 upon different age groups has been known from the start.

But if you read some sites and opinions that the virus is benign except for the very old and sick, then you'd probably come away with the impression that it doesn't affect the young.

Similar stuff has been said of every epidemic, because they always have a worse effect on the sick and old.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

OMG! That is ridiculous, "hey we don't know if this will kill but take it anyway." UGH!

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: nonspecific

How many cycles do you guys run the PCR tests at? Do you even know?

PCR amplification is generally 2e40 to 2e45 in Canada I believe, so 40-45 cycles (or doublings) as it is exponential amplification. Anything over 26 iterations produces an exponentially increasing error starting with an error rate of around 1-3%. So 35-45 cycles is nothing but "bunk" creating all false positives and false negatives. As the inventor said, "You can find anything in anybody using this process."

Kary Mullis on PCR testing in Bitchute Link

Cheers - Dave

RT-PCR amplification cycles - worldwide - are around 28. The number is variable depending upon presumed abundances of the targeted genomic sequence.

Please provide one single piece of evidence that supports the idea that high amplification cycles are common practice.

Also, excessively amplified PCR testing does not 'make stuff up' that isn't there. Especially not something as complex and specific as a genomic sequence. The polymerase reaction causes a duplication of the genomic sequences that are in the test solution. If a SARS-CoV-2 sequence is there, it gets duplicated. If it isn't there, it cannot possibly be duplicated (amplified).

Again, provide some proof of what you are posting.

And that Kary Mullis video, has been proven wrong by decades of laboratory practice. Mullis had a theory about AIDS (specifically that the HIV virus does not cause AIDS), that was disproven (and he was grasping at straws to try and find something that validated his erroneous beliefs, in the light of mounting evidence). His theories about AIDS and what he said about PCR, have all been disproven with voluminous evidence, long ago.

This ok

About cycle threshold (Ct) values

Most tests that detect the ribonucleic acid (RNA) or genetic fingerprint of the virus that causes COVID-19 (e.g., a polymerase chain reaction, or PCR test) use a process where specific bits of the genetic fingerprint are amplified using a temperature cycling reaction that repeats up to 45 times. These are called amplification cycles. The amount of genetic material doubles after each cycle. The number of amplification cycles required to create enough copies of the viral RNA to be detected is called the cycle threshold or Ct value.

The more RNA that is present in the patient sample, the fewer cycles are required for the signal to reach the detection threshold (low Ct value). The less RNA present in the clinical sample, the more cycles are required. So a low Ct value corresponds to a high viral load, while a high Ct value corresponds to a low viral load.

For an example of a real-time amplification curve on a logarithmic scale, see Figure 1 in Public Health Ontario: An Overview of Cycle Threshold Values and their Role in SARS-CoV-2 Real-Time PCR Test Interpretation.

Curves can also be viewed on a linear scale, which will look different but does not change the Ct interpretation. Not all commercial real-time PCR assays provide Ct values or amplification curves for viewing by the user. In addition, some molecular assays are based on other technologies (e.g., flow cytometry), and hence, do not provide Ct values.

Canada Health Official

If you need another go look them up. What's that line, oh yeah.... "Do your own research"

Cheers - Dave

Yes 45 is mentioned as a maximum value. Do you think they always run things at the maximum?

Please read further down that page you posted, and try and understand what they are saying. Especially where it mentions Ct values as low as 14 being sufficient and indicating a high viral load.

This posted site says nothing supporting the idea that in normal use, they have between 40-45 cycles. Nothing at all. Nor does it even slightly imply that high Ct numbers lead to false positives. On the contrary, if someone had to run to 45 cycles before getting a result, then they would have an incredibly low viral load and are unlikely to be infectious.

This is the lieberal game right? You never do your own research, blame everyone else for not doing your research and not spoon feeding you (I ain't your momma), complain and nitpick when a valid article is put up, etc. You have the right to believe whatever you want, I really don't care.

Maybe you can put up some unbiased articles on the efficacy of the jab and why it isn't dangerous? Of course you can't though, their are no unbiased scientists out there promoting the jab, they are all paid off, have some vested interest or they are being extorted with their careers or income (I've lived in that world and I quit because of the BS). The talking heads in media don't know sh!t from shoes and the politicians are even stupider and more criminal than the journalists. So unless you are like me and have a PhD and can think critically, I believe we are at an impasse, because you are going to need a lot more than high school biology and socio-economics to figure this one out .

ETA: I don't know why I bother...
Lin to 38
Nati onal Post

Below 26 is good, above 28 gets exponentially worse.

Cheers - Dave

Look, I read the article you posted and made comment on it. If you had read, and understood the article you posted in its entirety, you would see it does not support what you and others are assuming.

Higher cycle numbers do not create false positives.

What happens is that it takes time to run each cycle. and if you already have a result at 28 cycles, it won't give you a different result at 48 cycles. So you are wasting your time doing higher cycles once you have a result. And the timeliness of test results is medically important and epidemiologically vital.

Also, if you have to run Ct to more than 40, there isn't a significant enough viral load. The only thing I would assume from such a low viral load is that the person should be re-tested to see if they are over the infection or if it is just beginning.

I did read the article and it said a maximum of 45 cycles, which is a huge number of cycles. The government has a politicial agenda, do really think they are going with accuracy or the ability to support their agenda? Karry Mullis, the inventor of PCR testing, which is just the doubling of samples even stated how fallible it was. He even said that, after a certain number of iterations you could find "anything" in the sample, because we all contain basically all the molecules.

Cheers - Dave

Do all you anti-vaxx morons get your education from Facebook and Tiktok?
Selfish, self-entitled, brainless idiots and karens. Takes 5 seconds to put on a mask but these losers would rather bitch and moan for an hour for their 'freedom'. I'll enjoy a patio lunch with my vaccination passport while you babies sit in line to get a fake doctors note to get rejected at the door anyway LOL

Those photos are like a big cesspool of inbred morons who will probably be in ICUs by the end of the year... keep the pandemic going douchebags.