Kary Mullis PhD : PCR Test Can Find "Almost Anything In Almost Anybody". The guy is Biochemist and the inventor of the PCR test (1 Viewer)

[Alfons]

Any government can launch the second, third, fourth etc. Covid-1984 scamdemic just by the increasing of the amount of tests. Nice, isn't?

Kary Mullis, PhD in Biochemistry, saying that the PCR test (currently the main tool used globally to determine Covid-19 "postive" cases), can find "almost anything in almost anybody".
Biochemist Kary Mullis is the inventor of the PCR test and won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his invention in 1993. Mullis stated in 2013 that PCR was never designed to diagnose disease. The test finds very small segments of a nucleic acid which are components of a virus. According to Mullis, having an actual infection is quite different than testing positive with PCR. According to Mullis, PCR is best used in medical laboratories and for research purposes.
Mullis has said: "PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers. Although there is a common misimpression that the viral load tests actually count the number of viruses in the blood, these tests cannot detect free, infectious viruses at all; they can only detect proteins...".
Covid-19 cases are currently being being determined by a test that is scientifically meaningless, according to its own inventor

Kary Mullis PhD : PCR Test Can Find "Almost Anything In Almost Anybody"

Kary Mullis, PhD in Biochemistry, saying that the PCR test (currently the main tool used globally to determine Covid-19 "postive" cases), can find "almost anything in almost anybody". Biochemist Kary Mullis is the inventor of the PCR test and won the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his invention...

www.bitchute.com

 

[Good4Nothin]

Mullis is very outspoken and doesn't give a hoot what anyone thinks. I value his opinion. Most medical scientists right now are afraid to say anything against the ruling authorities, so we really cannot trust the MSM.

Also, I am increasingly starting to think the pandemic is being used as an opportunity to centralize power in the US, and in the world. It might even have been created intentionally, altho I wouldn't go out on that limb.

 

[mike2810]

We will never really know what Mullis stance is with his test and covid-19. He is dead. Died in 2019.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/kary-mullis--inventor-of-the-pcr-technique--dies-66256

 

[Good4Nothin]

We will never really know what Mullis stance is with his test and covid-19. He is dead. Died in 2019.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/kary-mullis--inventor-of-the-pcr-technique--dies-66256

We know what he said about PCR and viruses in general. This is a virus.

 

[jaeger19]

We know what he said about PCR and viruses in general. This is a virus.

Yep...problem with all this is lay people don;t understand what the heck it meant by it.

PCR is not a "test for covid 19"... its a TECHNIQUE.... that looks for specific proteins.

’s likely only since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic that you have heard of PCR testing. But, unlike many of the newer tests used to detect COVID-19, PCR testing has been relied upon for accurate medical diagnostics for almost 30 years.

Before that point, laboratories had a difficult time detecting a virus or bacteria in a specimen, because there was simply too little of it. Cloning took weeks or months. Scientists needed a way to increase the detectability of small amounts of pathogens in less time.

At about this time, 1983, Kary B. Mullis, who was working as a chemist at Cetus Corporation, a biotechnology firm in California, was actually looking for another way to create new diagnostic tests. As a side effect of one of his experiments, he had unintentionally doubled the DNA of the pathogen.

After a long week at the lab, he was driving to his mountain cabin in Mendocino County when the idea occurred to him. If he could repeat the steps and double the DNA each time, he would raise the detectability of the pathogen.

“There were diagrams of PCR reactions on every surface that would take a pencil or a crayon in my cabin,” Kary remembers in a video from Biosearch Technologies, the company who makes the DNA synthesizer Mullis used to test his hypothesis. “I woke up in a new world.”

He called it Polymerase Chain Reaction or PCR. It relied on enzymes and temperature cycling, increasing and decreasing the temperature over and over, to generate millions of copies of DNA in a comparatively short time.


Since then, PCR has undergone many improvements. The discovery of a new enzyme that could withstand high temperatures de-necessitated adding new enzymes with each heat cycle. That innovation and the engineering of new enzymes made the process faster, easier, and more specific. Additional chemical innovations made the reaction even more specific and safer for the scientists who use it.

PCR has revolutionized diagnosis of genetic defects, AIDS, and Hepatitis B and C. It is used to find E.coli, a harmful bacteria, during food safety testing. In 2009, it was used to monitor the H1N1 pandemic, and by 2012, the FDA had approved more than 100 PCR-based molecular diagnostic tests for use in improving cancer care. And the list goes on. PCR has been used to detect salmonella, malaria, and the tick-borne disease babesiosis. It is used to identify genetic and autoimmune diseases.

 

[mike2810]

We know what he said about PCR and viruses in general. This is a virus.

Mayo Clinic states it is an accurate test
"PCR test. This COVID-19 test detects genetic material of the virus using a lab technique called polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Also called a molecular test, a health care worker collects fluid from a nasal or throat swab or from saliva. Results may be available in minutes if analyzed onsite or a few days — or longer in locations with test processing delays — if sent to an outside lab. PCR tests are very accurate when properly performed by a health care professional, but the rapid test can miss some cases.

COVID-19 diagnostic testing - Mayo Clinic

www.mayoclinic.org

 

[Good4Nothin]

Mayo Clinic states it is an accurate test
"PCR test. This COVID-19 test detects genetic material of the virus using a lab technique called polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Also called a molecular test, a health care worker collects fluid from a nasal or throat swab or from saliva. Results may be available in minutes if analyzed onsite or a few days — or longer in locations with test processing delays — if sent to an outside lab. PCR tests are very accurate when properly performed by a health care professional, but the rapid test can miss some cases.

COVID-19 diagnostic testing - Mayo Clinic

www.mayoclinic.org

Doesn't matter what the official statement is. Mullis invented the test. He said it is meant to find ANY amount of protein from a particular virus, even if that amount is too small to cause any infection.

I would trust his opinion more than mainstream medical news.

The PCR test could be showing positive results for millions of people who are not infected. But isn't that what they want? Another big scary surge, to keep us huddled and under control?

 

[jaeger19]

Doesn't matter what the official statement is. Mullis invented the test. He said it is meant to find ANY amount of protein from a particular virus, even if that amount is too small to cause any infection.

I would trust his opinion more than mainstream medical news.

The PCR test could be showing positive results for millions of people who are not infected. But isn't that what they want? Another big scary surge, to keep us huddled and under control?

Well first.. Mullis invented ... .Just like Alexander Graham Bell.. invented the telephone

The PCR test has evolved much faster in that 35 years that the PCR was invented.. .. than probably the phone has.

Would you listen to alexander Graham bell to be the authority on cell phones? Why not.. he invented the phone.

Mullis giving his opinion.. on the PCR for covid (which he can;t because he is dead)...
Would be like Graham Bell giving his opinion on how a cell phone works.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Well first.. Mullis invented ... .Just like Alexander Graham Bell.. invented the telephone

The PCR test has evolved much faster in that 35 years that the PCR was invented.. .. than probably the phone has.

Would you listen to alexander Graham bell to be the authority on cell phones? Why not.. he invented the phone.

Mullis giving his opinion.. on the PCR for covid (which he can;t because he is dead)...
Would be like Graham Bell giving his opinion on how a cell phone works.

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.

 

[mike2810]

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.

The PCR test can tell if a person has covid19. It does not tell how severe the illness is. That is why other tests are done to check lungs, heart, etc. What other symptoms does the person exhibit are also taken into consideration.

A person may be asymptomatic and feel fine. Yet they can be contagious and give the virus to someone who may not be so lucky.

Quit looking at things with binders on.

 

[Good4Nothin]

The PCR test can tell if a person has covid19. It does not tell how severe the illness is. That is why other tests are done to check lungs, heart, etc. What other symptoms does the person exhibit are also taken into consideration.

A person may be asymptomatic and feel fine. Yet they can be contagious and give the virus to someone who may not be so lucky.

Quit looking at things with binders on.

When we hear reports of case numbers, we are not told what kind of tests they were.

 

[jaeger19]

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.

Sure.. it can also detect proteins from virus thats dead which is why you can test positive for covid 19 for 3 months after infection and recovery. None of these facts deter from the fact that pcr testing for covid 19 is an effective tool to decrease viral spread. So 10 people enter the er and test positive..for covid. 10 people now are told to isolate..making them much less likely to spread the disease.
Now let's say that 1 of them tests positive but his viral load is too low to infect. Okay..perhaps he shouldn't have had to isolate....or he is beginning the infection and three days after testing he now has enough virus to be infectious..but since he isolated..no one got sick.
I mean is your premise really that we shouldn't use the pcr..because its better to not know that any people may be infectious????

 

[jaeger19]

When we hear reports of case numbers, we are not told what kind of tests they were.

So?.
This is so frustrating having to keep explaining this.
Look..its called statistics...every medical test has an error to it. But that error rate is known..and constant.
Shoot
If you have 100 tests done..different tests done each with a margin of error.
And 10 people test positive..
And the next week you test 100 people the same different tests with margin of error..
And 50 people test positive...you know the virus is spreading because the testing parameters were the same week to week. Despite there being different tests.

 

[Good4Nothin]

So?.
This is so frustrating having to keep explaining this.
Look..its called statistics...every medical test has an error to it. But that error rate is known..and constant.
Shoot
If you have 100 tests done..different tests done each with a margin of error.
And 10 people test positive..
And the next week you test 100 people the same different tests with margin of error..
And 50 people test positive...you know the virus is spreading because the testing parameters were the same week to week. Despite there being different tests.

No, it's frustrating having to explain this to YOU, again. Increasing case numbers can reflect increased testing, or increased false positives. So it is not meaningful statistic unless combined with other numbers, such as hospitalization of serious cases, or death.

 

[jaeger19]

No, it's frustrating having to explain this to YOU, again. Increasing case numbers can reflect increased testing, or increased false positives. So it is not meaningful statistic unless combined with other numbers, such as hospitalization of serious cases, or death.

Yes..it can reflect incr

No, it's frustrating having to explain this to YOU, again. Increasing case numbers can reflect increased testing, or increased false positives. So it is not meaningful statistic unless combined with other numbers, such as hospitalization of serious cases, or death.

Actually..increasing numbers would be very concerning with increased testing. As testing increases..the positivity rate should go down..as you generally expect your number of negative tests to be higher than your positive tests. And as testing criteria change to less symptomatic people..you should also see positivity rates drop. If you do not..you have a real problem.
The effect of false positives won't change because the rate of false positives will remain the same since its constant from test to test.
Hospitalizations ate an important number as well as it tells the stress on the healthcare system. However increase positivity rate and increase numbers of people positive are predictors of hospitilizations since generally a portion of those will end up in the hospital.
Deaths actually don't tell you much about whats happening in the community because a death today could be from a patient that contracted covid 2 months ago.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Yes..it can reflect incr

Actually..increasing numbers would be very concerning with increased testing. As testing increases..the positivity rate should go down..as you generally expect your number of negative tests to be higher than your positive tests. And as testing criteria change to less symptomatic people..you should also see positivity rates drop. If you do not..you have a real problem.
The effect of false positives won't change because the rate of false positives will remain the same since its constant from test to test.
Hospitalizations ate an important number as well as it tells the stress on the healthcare system. However increase positivity rate and increase numbers of people positive are predictors of hospitilizations since generally a portion of those will end up in the hospital.
Deaths actually don't tell you much about whats happening in the community because a death today could be from a patient that contracted covid 2 months ago.

ARE YOU KIDDING???? You really don't understand that increased testing finds cases that would not otherwise have been counted?

 

[Alfons]

Mullis is very outspoken and doesn't give a hoot what anyone thinks. I value his opinion. Most medical scientists right now are afraid to say anything against the ruling authorities, so we really cannot trust the MSM.

Also, I am increasingly starting to think the pandemic is being used as an opportunity to centralize power in the US, and in the world. It might even have been created intentionally, altho I wouldn't go out on that limb.

You're wrong.
Covid-1984 scamdemic is only about the 'vaccine'; they destroy our industries and force us to accept it. Thereafter most of humans will die, it's VEERY GOOOOD for the climate protection and leftist agenda.

 

[Alfons]

We will never really know what Mullis stance is with his test and covid-19. He is dead. Died in 2019.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/kary-mullis--inventor-of-the-pcr-technique--dies-66256

A coincidence?
Tellingly were the preparation works to Covid-1984 started ten years ago

 

[Good4Nothin]

Yep...problem with all this is lay people don;t understand what the heck it meant by it.

PCR is not a "test for covid 19"... its a TECHNIQUE.... that looks for specific proteins.

Yes I know. And this technique will find evidence of the virus even if it is not enough to cause infection. So it can greatly exaggerate the number of cases.

 

[jaeger19]

ARE YOU KIDDING???? You really don't understand that increased testing finds cases that would not otherwise have been counted?

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.

 

[jaeger19]

Yes I know. And this technique will find evidence of the virus even if it is not enough to cause infection. So it can greatly exaggerate the number of cases.

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.

 

[joko104]

Mullis is very outspoken and doesn't give a hoot what anyone thinks. I value his opinion. Most medical scientists right now are afraid to say anything against the ruling authorities, so we really cannot trust the MSM.

Also, I am increasingly starting to think the pandemic is being used as an opportunity to centralize power in the US, and in the world. It might even have been created intentionally, altho I wouldn't go out on that limb.

No so-called expert is allowed by the super rich massively profiting off their covid-19 bioterrrorism campaign that will not say what the super rich wants the person to say. REAL experts are not allowed on TV, in the newspaper or on the Internet.

 

[joko104]

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.

Wow, was absurd logic. To make a worthless test valuable is to use it more - your bizarro Democratic logic.

 

[Helix]

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.

 

[jaeger19]

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.

Raises hand...