• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kary Mullis PhD : PCR Test Can Find "Almost Anything In Almost Anybody". The guy is Biochemist and the inventor of the PCR test

Wow, was absurd logic. To make a worthless test valuable is to use it more - your bizarro Democratic logic.
Ummm no.. what are you talking about?

The test is far from worthless. PCR as a technique is far from worthless and is the reason that Mullis won the nobel prize in 1993.

Of course that test has been modified to look at certain DNA sequences in various entities.. including Covid 19.

But as explained the PCR test for viruses has a well established track record.
 
Ummm no.. what are you talking about?

The test is far from worthless. PCR as a technique is far from worthless and is the reason that Mullis won the nobel prize in 1993.

Of course that test has been modified to look at certain DNA sequences in various entities.. including Covid 19.

But as explained the PCR test for viruses has a well established track record.

What is difficult for you to understand about this sentence:

"Covid-19 cases are currently being being determined by a test that is scientifically meaningless, according to its own inventor. "

Let me help you with that:


meaningless
[ mee-ning-lis ]SHOW IPA
adjective
without meaning, significance, purpose, or value; purposeless; insignificant:a meaningless reply; a meaningless existence.
 
I have said all along the numbers being reported are false and fake. Now there is proof by the who created the test itself.
 
What is difficult for you to understand about this sentence:

"Covid-19 cases are currently being being determined by a test that is scientifically meaningless, according to its own inventor. "

Let me help you with that:


meaningless
[ mee-ning-lis ]SHOW IPA
adjective
without meaning, significance, purpose, or value; purposeless; insignificant:a meaningless reply; a meaningless existence.
Yeah.. the problem is that mullins invented the basic technology of PCR in decades ago. It would like having alexander graham bell.. suddenly become an authority on how cell phones work.

Secondly.. Mullins DIED.. before Covid-19 even came to america. So.. " its own inventor says the test is meaningless"? You might not realize that the first test kits for Covid 19 were developed around January 2020..

And Mullins died in august of 2019.

So unless this article you spout can actually channel the dead? I am inclined to believe facts over necromancy..
 
I have said all along the numbers being reported are false and fake. Now there is proof by the who created the test itself.
Yeah... you might want to look into Mullins and when he died.. and when the covid 19 test was developed before you claim "proof".. that a test developed AFTER Mullins died.. was critiqued by Mullins.
 
Yeah... you might want to look into Mullins and when he died.. and when the covid 19 test was developed before you claim "proof".. that a test developed AFTER Mullins died.. was critiqued by Mullins.
The test is based upon his test.
 
The test is based upon his test.
Test is based on technology that he developed thirty years ago. Stating that "the test is based upon his test"..

Is like saying cell phones are based upon the Alexander Grahams bells first telephone. In a way they are.. but certainly.. the technology of cell phones today.. are not what happened with Alexander Graham Bells telephone.. nor could old Alexander be an authority on cell phones.
 
I have said all along the numbers being reported are false and fake. Now there is proof by the who created the test itself.

LOL, what the complaint is about the test is that it just tells us whether or not someone is infected. That's not evidence the reported cases are "false and fake" just that the test is very sensitive and doesn't give us a useful indication of the severity of the DISEASE for that person. But of course it's well known a huge percentage of those infected show no symptoms or very mild symptoms. But if you're positive, should you go hug and kiss your 91yo mother in the nursing home? Do you want a person testing positive but showing no symptoms taking care of a cancer patient? Of course not, but you wouldn't care if your complaints about PCR testing were legitimate...
 
Well.. so what?
The technique will have the same error rate or "false positives".. regardless of when the test is done.
So.. if you test 100 people in week 1..and you have 20 people test positive... sure some of them will be false positives.

But the next week.. you sample another 100 people.. and 30 test positive.. the same percentage will be false positives... and since the number has gone up.. you know that the infection is spreading.

I already explained this.

And I already explained that doing more tests results in more cases. So it's irrelevant. But you can't/won't understand that.
 
Raise your hand if you've done a lot of PCR.

*raises hand.

I can't say that amplifying a sequence that wasn't there was a common occurrence. I suppose it depends on how well they chose the target sequence.

He didn't say the sequence wasn't there. He said the amount can be too small to cause an infection. Something has to be there, but it can be insignificant and still have a positive result, with PCR.
 
He didn't say the sequence wasn't there. He said the amount can be too small to cause an infection. Something has to be there, but it can be insignificant and still have a positive result, with PCR.

I don't see much evidence of a significant percentage of false positives making the pandemic look vastly worse than it is. I do see significant motivation for some to continue to pretend that's the case, though.
 
And I already explained that doing more tests results in more cases. So it's irrelevant. But you can't/won't understand that.
And I already explained why of course it means more tests means more cases and why that doesn;t make the test irrelevant ... but you obviously cannot understand that.

Cripes man.. you don;t realize that under your premise... ANY medical test would then be completely irrelevant.
 
He didn't say the sequence wasn't there. He said the amount can be too small to cause an infection. Something has to be there, but it can be insignificant and still have a positive result, with PCR.
Yep.. and it was explained to you that point has basically no relevance, since the rate of false positives would remain consistent.
 
I don't see much evidence of a significant percentage of false positives making the pandemic look vastly worse than it is. I do see significant motivation for some to continue to pretend that's the case, though.
He isn;t smart enough to realize since the false positive rate for the test remains the same from testing period to testing period. ..
It means that if a change is detected in the number testing positive from week to week.. indicates that there is an actual change in infection.. and not an indicator of increased or decreased false positives .
 
Ummm duh.. of course it does. but it also finds negatives as well. And generally.. since lets say your "positivity rate" is below 50%... that means that when you test more.. you find more positives.. but you find a lot more negatives as well. Because if lets say your positivity rate is 20%. That means that for every 10 people tested.. 2 will be positive and 8 will be negative.

More tests.. equals more negatives. Particularly when you consider that more testing is because the criteria for testing has been reduced (as the availability of tests increase) .. is usually because you are testing populations without symptoms.. people that only have suspected contact, etc.

You don't get it. It's hopeless to explain again.
 
He isn;t smart enough to realize since the false positive rate for the test remains the same from testing period to testing period. ..
It means that if a change is detected in the number testing positive from week to week.. indicates that there is an actual change in infection.. and not an indicator of increased or decreased false positives .

YOU aren't smart enough to realize they are not giving the case counts as percentages, but as numbers.
 
YOU aren't smart enough to realize they are not giving the case counts as percentages, but as numbers.
Right.. I understand that...

So.. lets say that you have week one.. and you have 100 test positve.. .. and 5% of those are false positive. So that means 95 actual covid cases.

Then you test week 2 and have 200 positive. Again.. 5% of those are false positive. (the false positivity rate of the test) . so that means 190 actual covid cases...

Looky there.. we have an increase in cases folks.

But but but.. you say.. but ... they tested more people...

Well okay then.. In the first week you tested 200 people... 50%.. positivity rate.

In the second week you tested 300 people.. and looky.. your positivity rate is 66%.. which means.. you have an increase in infection folks. Which means.. the increase is not because you tested more people.
 
You don't get it. It's hopeless to explain again.
No.. I get it.. see above. YOU just don;t understand basic statistical analysis... and think that everyone that does... doesn;t know as much as you do.
 
No.. I get it.. see above. YOU just don;t understand basic statistical analysis... and think that everyone that does... doesn;t know as much as you do.

The news does not usually tell us the percentages. It tells us the NUMBERS. If there are more tests, the numbers are higher. But there could be the SAME number of actual cases, just that more are being counted.

For example, if there are two countries, A and B, and each have 10 million people. Country A tested 1,000 and country B only tested 500. A had 100 positive results, while B had 50 positive results. It SEEMS like country A had twice as many cases as B. but actually A did twice as many tests as B. A FOUND more cases, but it didn't necessarily have more cases.

The news doesn't usually tell us how many tests a country did, just the number of positive results.
 
The PCR test still works by amplified proteins from the virus in question. So it still can give a positive result from a harmless amount of virus.

PCR tests detect nucleic acids not proteins. If you have some in your bloodstream you have the virus.
 
PCR tests detect nucleic acids not proteins. If you have some in your bloodstream you have the virus.

Not according to what Mullis said, and he invented PCR. You can have a very small amount of the virus, which is not necessarily enough to cause an infection.
 
Not according to what Mullis said, and he invented PCR. You can have a very small amount of the virus, which is not necessarily enough to cause an infection.

The way virus DNA gets into your blood is because the virus is replicating in your body (It's actually a RNA virus sorry).

It's not a very long lived chemical (and viruses are not very long lived in general) so if you're testing positive and it's not a lab error it means there was virus replicating inside your body recently.
 
Last edited:
The way virus DNA gets into your blood is because the virus is replicating in your body (It's actually a RNA virus sorry).

It's not a very long lived chemical (and viruses are not very long lived in general) so if you're testing positive and it's not a lab error it means there was virus replicating inside your body recently.

Not according to the person who invented PCR. He said the test can detect fragments of the virus that are NOT enough to cause an infection.
 
Not according to the person who invented PCR. He said the test can detect fragments of the virus that are NOT enough to cause an infection.

Even if that were true, statistically you are saying that the 105 year old chain smoker means that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

Outliers don't matter.

If you get a positive coronavirus PCR test it means you have live virus inside you in almost all situations saving the one theoretical one that you want to harp about.
 
Even if that were true, statistically you are saying that the 105 year old chain smoker means that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.

Outliers don't matter.

If you get a positive coronavirus PCR test it means you have live virus inside you in almost all situations saving the one theoretical one that you want to harp about.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Mullis said the PCR test was not intended for diagnosing infections. I have not said anything about outliers.
 
Back
Top Bottom