6 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Joy Lucette Garner's avatar

I just know that the PCR is NOT capable of identifying whether someone is actually infected OR contagious, let alone that they will ever get sick. So this defeats any arguments that the PCR can be used to prove the existence of a virus -within the definition that these particles are the ACTUAL cause of disease.

This person's ability to use a test to identify a particle has nothing to do with proving that the identified particle is the cause of disease.

Expand full comment
Steve Kirsch's avatar

PCR *IS* capable of detecting a virus, even though you think they don't exist.

Expand full comment
Andy Fox's avatar

Shot yourself in the foot there Kirsch, here's a quote & its source;

"RT-PCR is not able to distinguish whether infectious virus is present."

Page 6 "under standing PCR a guide for healthcare professionals" from HMG. link below

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/926410/Understanding_Cycle_Threshold__Ct__in_SARS-CoV-2_RT-PCR_.pdf#:~:text=Cycle%20threshold%20%28Ct%29%20is%20a%20semi-quantitative%20value%20that,much%20viral%20genetic%20material%20is%20in%20the%20sample.

Expand full comment
Vit Kopecky's avatar

No, it isn't.

PCR only synthesizes a chain according to the sequence you provide. It does not 'detect' anything.

And the whole genome of a virus would be too long for this purpose.

They only use relatively short sequences to try to find them in the specimen.

Expand full comment
kordelas's avatar

But what sequences are made of?

Expand full comment
kordelas's avatar

Prove it.

Expand full comment