Why aren't we starting our own media companies for when they fall? Honestly, could do a lot of good and even make a little money to use for good causes instead of pocketing to satanic ceo baby murders and traitors wiling to sell us out and brainwash us until we are all killed.
So mail in ballots = Trumps win according to anti-Trumpers? Is this some 4d chess shit?
>Get on twitter and confront him like a man
I have a question.. If no one yet has mapped and sequenced Covid-19 and completely isolated and purified the virus.. How is any testing even accurate at all?
And what would you say would be the best indicator of proving a certain virus is inside someone? What is the proof of a positive test? What does positive mean?
The Gold Standard of testing to identify a virus is called the PCR - Polymarese Chain Reaction. This is used to sequence genetic material of DNA to a level that is detectable. Once they detect it.. they call that a mapped sequence.
Since there is no FULL genetic map of the coronavirus.. because we are just swabbing people and comparing what they find to already mapped viruses? How do we know what we even have is a Covid-19? What is Covid-19? Right now there is an international consortium dedicated to mapping the virus, meaning it is not mapped, meaning we don't even have a basic template to say Ah yes, this is really this virus and this test proves it because we have an agreed upon fully genetic map of something called Covid-19
So far, we only have around 4,400 fully mapped genomes of viruses as of 2015 anyway… When they say they have identified Covid-19 and mapped it's genome, they mean they have conducted a metagenomic analysis. Meaning they analyzed a partial genetic code of a virus they swabbed from someone that was diagnosed from physical symptoms. Basically guesswork. So then they compare this to other people they have diagnosed and say well this must be the covid. Covid is called SARS-COV-2. So basically they say this virus is 87.23% similar to SARS from 2003.
Now lets talk a little bit about PCR and what it does. They measure a DNA or RNA sequence by replicating it over and over again until it is detectable. There are factors that make it extra difficult to be accurate when it comes to RNA. Most notably is the fact that when viruses replicate, they are very prone to errors. This means when they are replicating a RNA sample to test it and see if it matches a piece of genome, it can have many many errors because they recreate the RNA or DNA sample up to millions of times for a PCR test. Basically because they mutate so damn much (RNA type viruses) it is super fucking hard to get a very lengthy genome mapping (basically counting how many times you replicate a piece of RNA until it is detectable) that genome length and accuracy are extremely limited.
DNA is fairly easy to test and pretty stable. RNA however, is not.
ample acquisition and purification of its RNA mark the initial step of every qRT-PCR assay, and the quality of the template is arguably the most important determinant of the reproducibility and biological relevance of subsequent qRT-PCR results. Any problems that affect reproducibility, and hence the relevance of results, are likely to have originated here.7 Many samples, especially biopsies of human tissue, are unique; hence, a wasted nucleic acid preparation means that the opportunity to record data from that sample is irretrievably lost. A separate consideration concerns the waste of money, as one of the distinguishing features of real-time PCR assays is their outrageous running cost. It is therefore prudent to expend extensive efforts on getting every stage of this process absolutely right, starting with consistency when collecting, transporting, and storing samples. This continues with rigorous adherence to protocols when extracting nucleic acids and with the appropriate storage of purified material; continued care must be exercised every time the sample is taken out of storage for analysis.
Unlike DNA, which is as tough as old boots, RNA is extremely delicate once removed from its cellular environment. Therefore, its purification is much trickier than that of DNA and a template suitable for inclusion in an RT-PCR assay must fulfill the following criteria:
It must be of the highest quality if quantitative results are to be relevant.
It should be free of DNA, especially if the target is an intronless gene.
There must be no copurification of inhibitors of the RT-step.
It must be free of nucleases for extended storage.
So accepting the genome from China, excuse me but I don't trust it to identify an actual virus when we are just getting snippets of information and trying to piece it together and saying we know what we are talking about when clearly we have no fucking idea.
The resolving power of RT-PCR is also limited by the efficiency of RNA-to-cDNA conversion, which depends on the enzyme used. However, the conversion efficiency is significantly (greater than 3-fold) lower when target templates are rare and it is negatively affected by nonspecific or background RNA present in the RT reaction.28 Of course, considerations of linearity of the RT step are just one side of the equation. Another consideration concerns the “Monte Carlo” effect, an inherent limitation of PCR amplification from small amounts of any complex template due to differences in amplification efficiency between individual templates in an amplifying cDNA population.29 Every template has a certain probability of being amplified or being lost and, once diluted past a certain threshold, copy number will display large variations in amplification. The Monte Carlo effect is dependent upon template concentration: The lower the abundance of any template, the less likely its true abundance will be reflected in the amplified product. One model for this phenomenon considers primer annealing to any individual template molecule during each PCR cycle as a random event. Under conditions of primer excess, the probability of primer annealing is dependent upon annealing temperature, annealing time, and the number of available templates. If the number of molecules of a particular template is limiting, then that template within a complex mixture will have slight and random differences in amplification efficiencies depending upon whether the primers were able to anneal. If these differences occur early in the PCR assay, large variations in final product concentration can be produced during the exponential phase of the amplification reaction. cDNAs of lower abundance will be more likely to experience the Monte Carlo effect, since their probability of primer annealing is lower.
Unfortunately, this situation is difficult to resolve, since many experiments are designed to identify very low target mRNAs. One solution is to use mRNA, rather than total RNA preparations. This may improve primer-binding efficiency, as it would reduce significantly the complexity and quantity of unrelated template present during primer/target annealing. However, preparation of mRNA involves additional steps, may lead to the loss of some mRNA, and it is more difficult to assess the quality of the final product. Nevertheless, if ultimate sensitivity is the main consideration, the use of mRNA may be advisable. In addition, all assays quantitating very low target copy numbers should be run in triplicate and be repeated at least once, so that any problems with reproducibility become immediately apparent. Nevertheless, it is worth emphasising that real-time RT-PCR, like any other assay, will not generate quantitative results at the limits of its sensitivity. One of the major advantages of including a standard curve with every run is that its highest dilutions provide an immediate benchmark for the assessment of the quality of the results obtained from the unknown samples. The highest dilution of the standard curve to report consistently concordant Ct values delineates the lowest copy number that can be quantitated with confidence. If the Ct values recorded by any unknowns translate into copy numbers lower than that benchmark, they should be recorded as qualitative (yes/no) results.
Go to:
DATA ANALYSIS
The Ct has become the parameter most conveniently and most frequently quoted when reporting qRT-PCR results. However, it is important to consider carefully what the Ct actually reveals and to ask whether quoting a Ct is sufficiently informative to allow a confident assessment of any conclusion drawn from a real-time RT-PCR experiment.
The threshold cycle (Ct) is defined as the cycle when sample fluorescence exceeds a chosen threshold above calculated background fluorescence. The critical word is “chosen,” since background fluorescence is not a constant or absolute value but is influenced by changing reaction conditions. Hence, if background fluorescence varies, the value of a Ct recorded for any particular sample is also going to be variable. Since the Ct is central to an appropriate understanding of the real-time assay, and at the same time is frequently misunderstood, it is important to spell out the parameters governing its value. The Ct is at the heart of the qRT-PCR assay, as it is used to determine copy numbers, which is of course the whole point of carrying out a quantitative assay. A positive Ct (defined as a fluorescence reading of less than the final cycle number) can arise due to genuine amplification, but some Ct values are not due to genuine amplification and some genuine amplification does not record a Ct.
So basically the best test we have to authenticate if someone has SARS-COV-2 (Covid-19) Is a method of replicating RNA and watching it in real time with dyes. RNA are known to error very frequently when they replicate, and how the original sample is collected is the most important part of the test called RT-PCR. This is the one the CDC uses by the way. If they convert it to DNA then a whole host of other accuracy issues come up just converting it to DNA. Then they set their own threshold (guessing) to match the times it replicates and compare that to other tests like this done. It measures the amount of times it replicates and they match that to specific sequence (fancy way of saying how many times they counted replication in other tests) and then say aha we have a match.
This is how they do the test. https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
They turn it into cDNA. Then the problem of tester set thresholds that can differ by laboratory.. Plus the issue of a sample of RNA needing to be collected with the upmost care and concern for preserving and making sure there is no other genetic material contaminating it such as DNA. So it makes you wonder how shoving a swab up someone's nose will meet the standards and address the problems I copy and pasted from studies that address the limitations and many issues that come up with first, mapping the genomes of viruses and the many, many issues that has, and then trying to do the test to try and match to just a small snippet of the genome that has been reported in patients who literally were diagnosed by being looked at and saying hmm I think he has COVID-19.