RE:Harvard’s Mina blasts FDA as bottleneck in rapid testing For the subject matter experts or scientists on the board. I have no base knowledge or science background so cannot offer an opinion. Sounds interesting re PCR tests but also has a hint of conspiracy in it. Picked it up from a comment re an article on the net.
"Having worked for 15 years both directly and in support of PCR based clinical assays one thing is absolutely, abundantly and verifiably clear: the COViD 19 PCR assay is a total fraud that can only be by design. One oversight, OK maybe that was accidental. Two starts to strain credibility. But an ongoing series of procedural errors, all pointed in the same direction, repeated and compounded over more than a year, coupled with misinformation also slanted in the same direction, cannot be anything but an intentional orchestrated plan.
PCR is a manufacturing process. It is not a test. There is no PCR Test. Period. It’s a fraudulent term. Everybody who knows knows this. In a PCR based clinical assays PCR simply provides one data point. That point is compared a dataset of known outcomes to correlate gene expression to any of a number of potential outcomes defined by the population set. This test is always run against a standard/control that represents the sequence you are focused on. But amazingly the test doesn’t even use COViD as the control sequence but HUMAN RNA.
Furthermore all PCR assays quantify the expression of a given sequence by the number of replication cycles required to amplify the sequence to a detectable level. In the case of cancer you may find a target sequence expressing at 15 cycles or you may find it expressing at 30 cycles. And in one case you will have a fatal case of cancer while in the other you may have none at all. CT is the fundamental data point that allows PCR to be employed in a diagnostic capacity at all. Yet they have never even captured this data. They then compound this error by running to 38,40 or even 45 cycles and call any detection whatsoever a ‘case’. This is beyond fraud.
At 38 cycles you have more replicates than there are stars in the Galaxy. You will have fragments, mutations and insignificant sequences rising above the limit of detection that on no way represent the specimen being tested. ALL OF THIS IS WELL KNOWN. The test never should have even been run to 30 cycles. Much less 40 or more.
Even absent a dataset (it was a new virus right) this test COULD have been effective. It could have taught us much. Had we captured CT values for every test we could have retrospectively correlated them to real world outcomes. We could have had some one billion data points to tell us what CT range correlated to an active case, which correlated to an asymptomatic case and what was useless data. Over a year in we could have perfectly characterized this disease, defined CT ranges for all outcomes and augmented the test to be devastatingly accurate. But they didn’t. On purpose.
And as experts like myself have raised these objections, they attempted to pull a bait and switch by mandating that TOTAL test cycles be captured and reported, which is entirely useless and irrelevant. A move that will still fail to deliver the data we need and could have already had. Limiting the test to 35 cycles still gives you tons of false positives, more useless data and gets no closer to establishing what is or isn’t a real case. Not even ineptitude can explain these glaring frauds. They had to be intentional. They go against every bit of established science in this area, have no precedent, and they cannot support any useful or relevant outcome.
For me it is the absolute smoking gun proof that all of this is intentional fraud. And I would testify to that under oath. These cannot be just mistakes. If they knew enough to even employ PCR for this purpose they had to know you were doing it wrong. They had to know they were torturing the data. They had to know it was useless and why. They had to know their ‘course correction’s was itself a fraud. It had to be totally by design. There are decades of precedent for how to do this the right way and no precedent for doing it how they did it.
The Nobel Prize winning inventor or PCR made this case over and over until the day he died. All sane science, data and precedent was not just ignored but purposely avoided. There is no denying this. Let them burn in hell for 100 eternities for it. I’ll light the fire."