The PCR test is widely used to confirm Covid-19 infections, but does it actually work? The writer quotes the Nobel laureate who invented the PCR test, Karry Mullis, to answer this question:
PCR is intended to identify substances qualitatively, but by its very nature is unsuited for estimating numbers [of viruses]. 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 that are believed, in some cases wrongly, to be unique to [the disease agent]. The tests can detect genetic sequences of viruses, but not viruses themselves.
I interpret this to mean that the PCR test may be an effective diagnostic tool for Covid-19 IF the protein it detects is in fact unique to SARS-Cov-2. There are two main issues in this: First, we must know that SARS-Cov-2 is real. Second, we must know that the protein the Covid PCR detects belongs to SARS-Cov-2 and to no other biological agent.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Scamdemic is the best description of what happened to us.
LikeLike
Tell that to the dead folks’ families.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Scamdemic . . .”
Thanks, I was going to point out what kind of intellect you bring to the party after your Comintern nonsense in another post, but now I do not have to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Still pushing the idiotic narrative that Covid is fake? And digging into the depths of depravity known as the internet to find garbage that feed that narrative?
I have come to the conclusion that you really need to get a life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Still pushing the idiotic narrative that Covid is fake?”
Today I’m pushing the narrative that the PCR test doesn’t actually function in the way many people assume it does.
LikeLike
Based on the lack of existence of the virus.
You left out idiotic.
LikeLike
“First, we must know that SARS-Cov-2 is real”
Okay, done and dusted. It is real. The fact that testing for it presents challenges does not provide any evidence that it is not real. Duh!
LikeLike
RE: “The fact that testing for it presents challenges does not provide any evidence that it is not real.”
No, it doesn’t. So what?
LikeLike
So what?
Raising the question of whether SARS-Cov-2 is real or not is – let me put this politely – idiotic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Raising the question of whether SARS-Cov-2 is real or not is – let me put this politely – idiotic.”
How did I raise that question? I made an epistemological observation that is relevant to the functioning of the PCR test.
LikeLike
“First, we must know that SARS-Cov-2 is real.”
Your OWN words and not from the idiocy you posted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, I see. An “epistemological observation.” Not one of two “main issues” at all. Even though you said it was?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe that the epistemological observation qualifies as a “main issue” in understanding how the PCR test works. The inventor of the test made the same point.
LikeLike
But first you have to deal with the “issue” – Does the universe really exist? And how can we know that it does? Only, then – after dealing with these “issues” – can you move on to the “issue” of whether the virus that has killed over 500,000 Americans is real.
Epistemology is such a bummer!
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Only, then – after dealing with these ‘issues’ – can you move on to the ‘issue’ of whether the virus that has killed over 500,000 Americans is real.”
Not really. Perhaps you are confusing metaphysics with epistemology. In any case, your comments are barking up the wrong tree.
Whether or not the universe exists is pretty much irrelevent to the whether the virus exists, but whether the virus exists is highly relevent to understanding the PCR test. I have not argued that the virus doesn’t exist.
LikeLike