Interesting info on PCR testing here.

https://www.idsociety.org/covid-19-real ... r-testing/


This part was particularly interesting to me.



"The estimated probability of recovery of virus from samples with Ct > 35 was 8.3% (95% CI: 2.8%–18.4%)."

Having worked a number of years at the early stages of the qPCR tech (mostly on the instrumentation side) this stuff is interesting to me.

Biggest pet peeve is the fractional Ct numbers that get bandied about. The way PCR works in cycles means one cycle the signals are below the detection threshold (aka negative) and the subsequent cycle a positive signal is detected. The actual cycle is then used to determine viral load (this is a simplification).

There isn't any such thing as a fraction of a cycle. It's a small point but in technical issues such things are important.

Sporkboy, what’s your take on PCR accuracy, false positives and false negatives. Is PCR still the gold standard COVID test? How are the newer rapid tests, home tests for accuracy?

PCR absolutely is the gold standard but it's important to understand there are still limitations.

From the beginning through today the single biggest weak point is sample collection, prep and injection into the reaction vessel.

Working backwards from a positive PCR (this includes RT-PCR, qPCR and the various multistep flavors) through the sample prep back to source viral load is fraught with difficties.

This is the crux of the issue about high Ct (even Fauchi says Ct>35 is essentially meaningless) versus a clinically relevant viral load - one can test positive and be actually positive and producing virus but not be infectious (their immune system may actually clear the virus).

True false positives are possible for a number of reasons (I suspect cross contamination is most likely) but false negatives are a much greater likelihood and concern IMO.

Given there are number of different tests out there with their own peculiarities a blanket statement is not worth much beyond generalities.

I don't know much about the rapid home tests but sample collection and handling is tricky enough in the hands of experienced trained professionals. Swabbing a cheek for 23andMe is totally different than trying to get a couple (even 1000) virus particles. Besides those rapid home tests are antibody/antigen based and have nothing to do with PCR.

It is worth understanding how a truly negative sample can result in a positive result.

The qPCR mechanism of detection is based on a probe (an engineered cDNA that binds to viral DNA due to matching sequence) which has a fluorescent tag and a quenching structure (these can be complex) that basically "grounds" the tag so it cannot fluoresce.

The enzymes used to perform the amplification (replication) have multiple functions - generally a proofreading function in which bound nucleic acids are "digested" which results in the fluorochrome nd/or quencher being cleaved from the probe. The now free on solution fluorochrome now is capable of being excited and it's fluorescence being detected.

This "digestion" of the probe is maximally facilitated in the presence of a matching cDNA sequence to which the probe bind. However, enzymes gonna enzyme and given enough opportunity (like 35 or more cycles) in the absence of anyplace else to bind they will degrade the probes and primers.

At some point enough degraded probes will result in a detectable signal and be interpreted as a positive viral detection.

Degraded primers are a huge problem since the specificity of PCR depends on primer and probe length as these components degrade (are made shorter by the enzyme) they lose specificity and will even bite d with each other and soon the entire reaction is "hijacked" and all sorts of nucleic acids are amplified.

Unless one follows up a PCR reaction with a secondary test (like running the amplified product on a gel) a late cycle positive test (anything over 32 cycles) should be considered false. Even sequencing the amplified products might be in ider but now we are talking about time consuming and expensive processes.

TLDR - yes, gold standard PCR tests can give false positive results. Run enough cycles and something will happen.

Actually need to make correction.

Gold standard is virus culture with confirmation by electron microscopy. That way you know you have a viable intact virus. Once you have a known viable virus from culture enough nucleic acid can be extracted and sequenced - definitive proof of viable virus and the exact variant.

PCR can be positive based on degraded viral RNA which is not infectious.

Standards kind of depend on exactly what result is required.

NY business owner tears up $15K government fine on live TV

New York gym owner and retired Marine, Robby Dinero, speaks out after being confronted by state officials.

Viral restaurant owner returns to 'Tucker' after having business shutdown by Maine governor.

Sunday River Brewing Company owner Rick Savage tells 'Tucker Carlson Tonight' about being forced to close his doors.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020 ... wn-orders/

New Mexico Governor Accused of Causing ‘Modern Breadlines’ with Coronavirus Lockdown Orders

According to KOB4, the governor’s order requires businesses “with four or more rapid responses in a 14-day period have to shut down for two weeks.” That has resulted in “a dozen grocery stores around the state” to close their doors.

Governors dont give a shit...they got peeple that get their bread and pick their maggoty apples.

Maryland announced it's forming 'compliance units' to look for houses with lots of cars parked around it, to see who is violating the orders.

Fuck. That.


Try that shit up in Hagerstown or Frederick and they might have people in these 'compliance units' disappearing and never heard from again.




https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2020/11/ ... ng-latest/

https://www.rt.com/usa/507851-maryland- ... nce-units/

https://twitter.com/i/status/1331042500719628288

The numbers may be backward there.

5 people eating turkey, and 7 doing heroin.

Straight fucking clown world.