Dr. Dan Wilson, Covid-19 Mask Science |490|

Yes, Eric is somewhat different from most conspiracy deniers. He, to an extent, can be called a rare remnant of the Old Right - the Right that supported the system and approved the authority, while the Old Left attacked it relentlessly.

Interestingly, nowadays the sides has swapped their roles - the New Left tends to be as pro-system and pro-authority as it gets, while the New Right is the system's and authority's principled enemy.

It's good to be an Anti-Centrist like me - no need to show loyalty or allegiance to any dogma or movement whatsoever.

Without a system, you have nothing. The very fact that you are typing on a computer and utilizing the internet is evidence that you are system dependent. You're fooling yourself into thinking you are not.

We cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. America - as conceived by the founders and laid out in the Constitution - is the best system for the most people ever conceived of by humans. Evolution to polish rough edges must happen cautiously and incrementally with an understanding that every perceived gain comes with a cost, usually to our freedoms.

Science is the same. Materialism has brought us amazing advancements that are taken for granted far too often. I can understand why some defend the paradigm tooth and claw. The same rot that has been attacking our form of government since the 1960s, with great acceleration in the last 20 years, could also attack material science. I do not want to live in a cave in Mad Max world and neither do you. I get it. Spirituality - meaning true spiritual exploration as opposed to official religions - has always been relegated to a few unique individuals or small communities. It has to be that way. Most of society can't handle it and doesn't want to. They are operating at a different level wherein addressing physical needs, breeding, being physically and mentally secure is their prime directive. That is how we are built - or, perhaps, created to be. Who are you to condemn it?
 
My impression is that Russia would like to stop the arms race - and indeed the whole East-West stand-off, but the Neo Cons want to keep it going. As things stand, they probably do want America weak.

David
Yes.

And Russia does not want to be absorbed into a globohomo one big socialist cabal government. They are a proud and traditional people. They only recently got rid of socialism. They don't want to go back to it, especially if it is externally controlled.
 
Last edited:
I've always wondered why the PCR wouldn't pick up the various long known coronaviruses that cause the common cold and other similar illnesses.

Can someone explain to me why other corona viruses aren't a problem for false positives?

Back on topic...……..I'm still waiting
 
The used car salesman and the finance team at the dealership selling you a lemon is a conspiracy. The guy cheating on his wife with the divorcee next door is a conspiracy. We all live with and by conspiracies. Society itself is a conspiracy as it is a plot to get everyone to agree to what reality is and is not, what values count, how to live our lives. I know that just about everything is a conspiracy.

A secret government cabal blowing up buildings and killing thousands of Americans on 9-11 to further the Illumanti's master plan for world domination is a stupid camp fire story. Generally, connecting dots to find conspiracies to explain incompetency as a sinister plot is to misunderstand humanity. Blaming bad science on conspiracies to take over the world is not accurate either. Most of the time it's just people being people; screwing up, taking advantage, using, fearing, adhering to faulty ideologies, indulging in group think, etc. You give government midwits and jet setters more credit than they deserve. They are not that smart or capable.

Amazing levels of nuance. lol
 
No, obviously not. Base sequences are not random. It says over and over and over again in the various papers I linked that the sequences for primers and probes target genes that are unique to SARS CoV, including searches for sequence homologues. So none of that "huge variety" will be amplified or detected by SARS CoV rt PCR.

I'd really like to have a constructive discussion with you - let's try to do it :)

A sequence of 20 nucleotides corresponds to a minute part of a gene - coding for just 6 amino acids and part of a seventh. I don't see how anyone can possibly claim that all the biological entities on the planet (except COVID) have genomes that do not include that particular sequence!

The fact that that sequence of 20 nucleotides targets a gene in SARS CoV does not mean that it can't target something other gene entirely! This is the essence of what Kary Mullis was trying to say. I mean if you use PCR on lab samples that are not contaminated, that is one thing, and it is very useful for replicating DNA. However, if you go to the absolute opposite of a lab sample, and scout around in snot or even anal samples (which the Chinese have suggested), the number of organisms and mutants of organisms will be vast, and I think it is reasonable to use probability theory to work out the chances of a match.

I think they are testing for false positives against pure lab samples of various viruses - which is really irrelevant to what happens in real life.

The problem, of course, is that if they take a realistic sample (say mucus from an animal that doesn't get COVID) and it comes up positive, I suppose they can plausibly suggest that the sample was indeed contaminated with a COVID virus!

To give you a feel for why false positives are important, consider the latest data in the UK for one day. 1,614,145 tests were done, and 4,618 people were positive (and are now referred to as COVID cases). Thus approximately 0.3% of the tests came back positive, so a false positive rate of 0.3% could explain the entire result!

I think this is exactly why Kary Mullis said that PCR is not suited for searching for a particular disease.

David
 
Last edited:
Blaming bad science on conspiracies to take over the world is not accurate either.
I don't quite agree with that (at least as you wrote it), because there are devious people who know full well that there is bad science, but encourage it - e.g. with big grants - if they can use its bogus message. Climate Change is an obvious example.

David
 
Ah. I was curious. Thank you.

Moderating is a lot of work, and not fun.

Welcome to the hoi polli! Now you can take the gloves off and joyously duke it out with the rest of us hooligans! :)
Actually, most of the time, moderating here is no work at all - you are all so well behaved! However, when something happens there can be a cascade of nonsense to sort out.

David
 
I'd really like to have a constructive discussion with you - let's try to do it :)

I don't see how, given that you refuse to look at any of the science. I mean, I've asked you to look at the science for each of the claims you make below. I've even spoon fed you some of it. Yet you continue to use the same series of false premises.

Do the primers and probes contain 20 nucleotides? No. They contain a variety of numbers of nucleotides, most more than 20. Many of the papers I linked list the sequences - all you have to do is count. And a single match of 20 nucleotides won't give you a positive test, for the reason I mentioned earlier (a sequence which matches the probe won't get amplified, a sequence which matches a primer won't trigger the probe).
[/QUOTE]
The problem is, I don't work in biology at all, and I'd really like to know which sequence length is used in most of the tests that are out there.
I have read scientists on other forums quote the figure of 20 nucleotides. Also the article I linked to suggested a figure of 18 to 30 nucleotides. I want to emphasise that I am really reporting what others have written, except the calculations of the probabilities which are mine. What figure should I use for the sequence length?

How much do the tests actually vary - I think most people, including politicians, assume there is just one or two COVID tests.
That argument is dead in the water, so why are you still bringing it up?
Well as I say, give me a better figure - preferably with a reference that indicates it relates to a large percentage of the tests in use.
Nobody is claiming it's not possible for other organisms to match, but all the biological entities on the planet are not present in the human mouth or anus.
That is true, but remember I am not just talking about one swab. Most come back negative, but different people will contain different bugs - so at least we should consider all the relevant bugs in the UK, say.
And the human body and its colonizing organisms are the ones we know the most about (that's a guess, but it makes the most sense to me). And again, the probability calculations are vastly more unlikely than a 20 nucleotide match - you need at least 3 matches to generate a "positive" test.
And for many of the tests, you have to get 6 or 9 matches to generate a "positive" test.
You see, the numbers seem to shift a bit, and I'd really like something that I can calculate from. I mean with large numbers like this you really need to calculate. Also, I tell you, a lot of scientists have been effectively shut out of the COVID debate, and that doesn't help. For example, A number of senior scientists ended up posting on an obscure website because they were being 'cancelled' on youtube:

https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic

This is a disgrace, take for example J.P Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis

But his contribution was cancelled!


Yes, it would seem that the tests contain multiple tests run in parallel - the number again seems amazingly variable. The only problem with that, is that if each individual test is overwhelmed by the numbers of genomes it encounters, combining the results together may not be much better. Using longer sequences would obviously make more sense - unless there are technical reasons not to do that.
Your claim that they test for false-positives against pure lab samples of various viruses is false. Every paper I've seen on how they test the tests includes tests against clinical samples (I even listed a bunch of actual examples, taken from the papers, in my response to you). I linked to 6 of them, and they were simply the first six links which came up when I googled sars cov 2 rt PCR (or something like that). So again, why are you still sitting on that claim?
Because I don't see how anyone can circumvent Kary Mullis' objection - which is that if you do millions of tests, you will encounter a vast number of different genomes - I don't see how you can fix that.
That's an excellent example of what was mentioned in the ONS article you linked to. Let's assume that all of the positives were false positives. That means that the worst the false-positive rate could be is 0.3%. So later, when using the same test, you are getting positivity rates of 5, 10, 15%, etc., you know that at the very worst, almost all of those tests must be true positives.
True, but by now vast numbers of tests are being performed - so those figures came 'live' from a UK data stream. A 0.3% false positive rate would mean that there are no more new cases of COVID in the UK - we are being locked down for nothing!
I think this is exactly why Kary Mullis said that PCR is not suited for searching for a particular disease.
Who gives a shit? Isn't that the very essence of appeal to authority? Ignore what the considerable science and testing shows. Ignore what all the people with actual expertise in the area are saying about the tests. Instead, hang your hat on the misinterpreted word of a single individual who once won a Nobel prize?

Well I certainly give a shit because he obviously gave a lot of thought as to what you could do with PCR, and presumably, he would have been only too happy to have seen an additional use for it, but he warned against it. He speaks in a strange sort of way, and it took me a while to grasp what he is really saying - but it is fairly obvious when you think about it.

In conclusion, the real problem for both of us, is that the composition of those tests seems so fluid. Discussing or criticising them is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

Tell me, is there a simple reason why longer sequences are not used as a matter of course? Is it a matter of expense, or what?

Maybe you can answer this. RT-PCR obviously starts by converting the RNA to DNA, but does the extraneous DNA in the sample stay in at that point, or can it be removed? Obviously, if it is removed, much of my argument would disappear.

David
 
Last edited by a moderator:
a
I don't see how, given that you refuse to look at any of the science. I mean, I've asked you to look at the science for each of the claims you make below. I've even spoon fed you some of it. Yet you continue to use the same series of false premises.

Do the primers and probes contain 20 nucleotides? No. They contain a variety of numbers of nucleotides, most more than 20. Many of the papers I linked list the sequences - all you have to do is count. And a single match of 20 nucleotides won't give you a positive test, for the reason I mentioned earlier (a sequence which matches the probe won't get amplified, a sequence which matches a primer won't trigger the probe).
The problem is, I don't work in biology at all, and I'd really like to know which sequence length is used in most of the tests that are out there.
I have read scientists on other forums quote the figure of 20 nucleotides. Also the article I linked to suggested a figure of 18 to 30 nucleotides. I want to emphasise that I am really reporting what others have written, except the calculations of the probabilities which are mine. What figure should I use for the sequence length?

How much do the tests actually vary - I think most people, including politicians, assume there is just one or two COVID tests.

Well as I say, give me a better figure - preferably with a reference that indicates it relates to a large percentage of the tests in use.

That is true, but remember I am not just talking about one swab. Most come back negative, but different people will contain different bugs - so at least we should consider all the relevant bugs in the UK, say.

You see, the numbers seem to shift a bit, and I'd really like something that I can calculate from. I mean with large numbers like this you really need to calculate. Also, I tell you, a lot of scientists have been effectively shut out of the COVID debate, and that doesn't help. For example, A number of senior scientists ended up posting on an obscure website because they were being 'cancelled' on youtube:

https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic

This is a disgrace, take for example J.P Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis

But his contribution was cancelled!


Yes, it would seem that the tests contain multiple tests run in parallel - the number again seems amazingly variable. The only problem with that, is that if each individual test is overwhelmed by the numbers of genomes it encounters, combining the results together may not be much better. Using longer sequences would obviously make more sense - unless there are technical reasons not to do that.

Because I don't see how anyone can circumvent Kary Mullis' objection - which is that if you do millions of tests, you will encounter a vast number of different genomes - I don't see how you can fix that.

True, but by now vast numbers of tests are being performed - so those figures came 'live' from a UK data stream. A 0.3% false positive rate would mean that there are no more new cases of COVID in the UK - we are being locked down for nothing!
I think this is exactly why Kary Mullis said that PCR is not suited for searching for a particular disease.


Well I certainly give a shit because he obviously gave a lot of thought as to what you could do with PCR, and presumably, he would have been only too happy to have seen an additional use for it, but he warned against it. He speaks in a strange sort of way, and it took me a while to grasp what he is really saying - but it is fairly obvious when you think about it.

In conclusion, the real problem for both of us, is that the composition of those tests seems so fluid. Discussing or criticising them is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

Tell me, is there a simple reason why longer sequences are not used as a matter of course? Is it a matter of expense, or what?

Maybe you can answer this. RT-PCR obviously starts by converting the RNA to DNA, but does the extraneous DNA in the sample stay in at that point, or can it be removed? Obviously, if it is removed, much of my argument would disappear.

David[/QUOTE]

It seems like posts from 2 different people have somehow been merged... a mite confusing!
 
I like these thoughts, especially re; quantum physics, Shane. Guess you are a thinker after all.

Anecdotally, I have always been blessed with robust health, but I have occasionally become temporarily ill. I used to stress a lot and work too hard. At some point I would feel very "run-down", meaning my energy levels were extremely low. Those periods were accompanied by negative thoughts and feelings. That is when I might "catch a cold" if I didn't take a break and rest. OTOH, if I'm well rested and happy with high energy levels and positive thoughts, it doesn't seem to matter what kind of crud is going around, I don't come down with it.

I've noticed that pattern, above, my entire life. I have also noticed in others something like a total health collapse. This seems to be a cascade of symptoms and diagnosis that starts one day and goes from bad to worse to, often, death. Someone has a problem and goes to the doctor. The doctor checks out the patient for the first issue and also finds some other, potentially more determinantal, latent health issue. As soon as the new latent issue is identified, it manifests in full bloom. Now the patient is truly ill, but more problems develop in other bodily systems and the patient is now a train wreck. Pneumonia and/or some other viral or bacterial pathogen sets in and that's about it for the patient.

Now, as most here know, I am convinced of psi, life after death and a lot of related phenomena. Sometimes I wonder if there isn't some "voodoo" aspect to some illnesses. Seriously. Once a health threat is identified and one is made to feel vulnerable to it, one can succumb to it. Otherwise, out of sight, out of mind, no threat. I mean I know it doesn't 100% work like that, but maybe there is enough of an effect that it is still meaningful. Just pondering and not ruling it out.

What it all means, I don't know. I think your comment, Shane, touches on something important relevant to the underpinnings, though.

This is all very fascinating to me on so many different levels.
I like these thoughts, especially re; quantum physics, Shane. Guess you are a thinker after all.

Anecdotally, I have always been blessed with robust health, but I have occasionally become temporarily ill. I used to stress a lot and work too hard. At some point I would feel very "run-down", meaning my energy levels were extremely low. Those periods were accompanied by negative thoughts and feelings. That is when I might "catch a cold" if I didn't take a break and rest. OTOH, if I'm well rested and happy with high energy levels and positive thoughts, it doesn't seem to matter what kind of crud is going around, I don't come down with it.

I've noticed that pattern, above, my entire life. I have also noticed in others something like a total health collapse. This seems to be a cascade of symptoms and diagnosis that starts one day and goes from bad to worse to, often, death. Someone has a problem and goes to the doctor. The doctor checks out the patient for the first issue and also finds some other, potentially more determinantal, latent health issue. As soon as the new latent issue is identified, it manifests in full bloom. Now the patient is truly ill, but more problems develop in other bodily systems and the patient is now a train wreck. Pneumonia and/or some other viral or bacterial pathogen sets in and that's about it for the patient.

Now, as most here know, I am convinced of psi, life after death and a lot of related phenomena. Sometimes I wonder if there isn't some "voodoo" aspect to some illnesses. Seriously. Once a health threat is identified and one is made to feel vulnerable to it, one can succumb to it. Otherwise, out of sight, out of mind, no threat. I mean I know it doesn't 100% work like that, but maybe there is enough of an effect that it is still meaningful. Just pondering and not ruling it out.

What it all means, I don't know. I think your comment, Shane, touches on something important relevant to the underpinnings, though.

I can see that you are a good man, Newhill, and I am sorry for ever speaking negatively to you. There are things regarding psi, life after death, and a lot of phenomenon that I should perhaps share with you.
 
Dude,
You're unhinged sometimes.

I have repeatedly stated that sometimes there are conspiracies - like the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Just not that everything is a conspiracy, and especially not all of the crap that you think is going on. Conspiracy should not be the default position as you and Alex want it be.

I have been consistently clear that I despise socialism and that our country is being taken over by that ideology because the ideology has always been attractive to third world idiots and first world do-gooders. I have added that I think the Chinese are jumping on that train and have infiltrated our government and businesses. I further have been clear that, IMO, other countries, like Russia, are working information ops to perpetuate the move to socialism, not because they believe in it any longer, but because it makes America weak. How you construe any of that to be denying that conspiracies occur, escapes me entirely.

Oh, that's right. You don't do nuance very well and you don't understand that all of the ideologies have always existed and rise and fall in societies organically when conditions are right. Then opportunists swoop in to direct the arising ideologies to assist with their own profits. You're a religious fundamentalist, but your religion is paranoia. You think everything happens by intelligent design. Well, it doesn't. Then you besmirch anyone who doesn't buy into your fundamentalism as being ignorant of history, in on the conspiracy, etc. Well, you don't know me or what I know, have studied, have lived...….

Charlie is a real bad ass and brilliant, and Newhill is smart as fuck. I think we need to continue these dialogues with each other a la the style that Alex created. He created a format that has brought all these contentious, creative minds together. Let's do what we can to thank Alex for that.
 
David Bailey said:
The problem is, I don't work in biology at all, and I'd really like to know which sequence length is used in most of the tests that are out there.
I have read scientists on other forums quote the figure of 20 nucleotides. Also the article I linked to suggested a figure of 18 to 30 nucleotides. I want to emphasise that I am really reporting what others have written, except the calculations of the probabilities which are mine. What figure should I use for the sequence length?

Why are you asking me? I don't know any more than you. The only difference is that I went out and looked for some examples and counted. There's no reason you can't do the same.

Well as I say, give me a better figure - preferably with a reference that indicates it relates to a large percentage of the tests in use.

Huh? I don't know the figures any better than you. Why don't you look? All I did was give you a plethora of examples to show you that you were wrong about your premises. It's up to you if you want to correct your premises.

That is true, but remember I am not just talking about one swab. Most come back negative, but different people will contain different bugs - so at least we should consider all the relevant bugs in the UK, say.

Okay. So do you have any reason to think they don't? If it occurs to you - someone with no experience or relevance to the field - won't that already have occurred to everyone actually working in the field? Maybe that's why you can find, in all the papers I've looked at, descriptions of the results of testing the COVID-19 tests against relevant bugs?

You see, the numbers seem to shift a bit, and I'd really like something that I can calculate from. I mean with large numbers like this you really need to calculate.

Calculate based on what? Are you actually trying to suggest that base sequences are random?

Also, I tell you, a lot of scientists have been effectively shut out of the COVID debate, and that doesn't help. For example, A number of senior scientists ended up posting on an obscure website because they were being 'cancelled' on youtube:

https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic

Wow, is that it? That's a minuscule number considering all the scientists in the world. And all of those statements are extremely outdated (and proven wrong, since). Who cares if a tiny handful of scientists were wrong early in the debate? There's no reason to think that there hasn't been ongoing active, vigorous and critical debate.

This is a disgrace, take for example J.P Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis

But his contribution was cancelled!


Well, I'm definitely not taking your word on that given how wrong you seem to be about most everything. And seriously??? I went and looked at Google Scholar and Ioannidis has already published 26 papers in 2021, over a third of which are on COVID-19. This includes papers published in major medical journals, and includes papers critical of certain assumptions about COVID-19 vaccine benefits (for example). It's the exact opposite of being shut out of the debate.

True, but by now vast numbers of tests are being performed - so those figures came 'live' from a UK data stream. A 0.3% false positive rate would mean that there are no more new cases of COVID in the UK - we are being locked down for nothing!
I think this is exactly why Kary Mullis said that PCR is not suited for searching for a particular disease.

Not really. It tells us the worst-case scenario, but everything else about the testing tells us that this worst-case scenario doesn't apply. It's all outlined in the article you linked to (under Methods).

In conclusion, the real problem for both of us, is that the composition of those tests seems so fluid. Discussing or criticising them is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

Us? The composition doesn't seem fluid. All the papers I've looked at have been very specific. The problem is that you pulled something out of your ass, it was wrong, and now you're trying to salvage your argument, instead of trying to understand the subject. Your only goal here is to be a contrarian, and normally you probably don't get challenged on it. It seems pretty echo-chamberie to me, on this site.

Tell me, is there a simple reason why longer sequences are not used as a matter of course? Is it a matter of expense, or what?

Maybe you can answer this. RT-PCR obviously starts by converting the RNA to DNA, but does the extraneous DNA in the sample stay in at that point, or can it be removed? Obviously, if it is removed, much of my argument would disappear.

David

I don't know. Why don't you try finding out something about the subject before you criticize it?

I mean, I know why you don't. But, still. Don't ask some random dude on the internet.
 
A forgotten story from the mainstream media noting some limitations of PCR technology
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html

For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.

Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.
Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test that led them astray.

Infectious disease experts say such tests are coming into increasing use and may be the only way to get a quick answer in diagnosing diseases like whooping cough, Legionnaire’s, bird flu, tuberculosis and SARS, and deciding whether an epidemic is under way.

In this instance, there is a definitive test, growing the bacterium. Unfortunately with covid-19, the "gold standard" test is PCR.
 
Unfortunately with covid-19, the "gold standard" test is PCR.

No, the gold standard test is viral culture. I learned that from my reading. I now know much more about PCR COVID-19 tests than I ever thought I wanted to know. :)
 
I can see that you are a good man, Newhill, and I am sorry for ever speaking negatively to you. There are things regarding psi, life after death, and a lot of phenomenon that I should perhaps share with you.

Apology accepted - and likewise.

I come to this forum because I have had a wide range of "paranormal" experiences over my life - in fact the older I get, the closer I feel on a daily basis to realities beyond the material world. I want to be able to relate to others and learn what they think about these matters.

I guess that's why I react negatively to all of the conspiracy theory emphasis that has become the norm at Skeptiko; that and because I have worn a few different hats/different careers that have given me insight into how the halls of power work (or not work) - and I have family, friends and associates also from such realms. This breadth of personal knowledge/personal close contact knowledge ranges from the military, military intelligence, the intelligence community, through the corporate world right up to the old "captains of industry", as they were once called.

Invading Iraq on false premises? Social media harvesting your data and selling it? Media messaging to the point of brainwashing? Sure. I know those kinds of conspiracies happen every day - and, here's the thing, each is demonstrably provable in any court of law. The Illuminati? Attacking our own country on 9/11? The government/Cosa Nostra killing Kennedy? Nope. Ain't happening. No way, if for no other reason than because they aren't feasible from a successful operations standpoint. But those "theories" also ignore human nature. Think about it, if there was an Illuminati, there'd soon be a competing group, and another and another. Like the Cost Nostra, they'd sometimes cooperate and sometimes viciously compete. They'd all keep each other in check and each group would represent a different set of interests. Each would stake out its territory.

The "world" is a big place full of much diversity. To control the whole thing is infinitely more impossible than a single Cost Nostra "family" trying (and failing) to control just one city like New York. The self-organization of binding ideologies should be studied. It explains things far more than conspiracies. Study how Christianity took over Rome and became the dominant - heck the only - religion in Europe. Long before there was Pope in Rome, Christianity had conquered Europe via self organization. The Pope could only control Christianity - and not for long; e.g. Protestants - as long as the ideology was firmly rooted in the populace before his arrival as an official. This is similar to Alex's familiar quip about the feminist movement being infiltrated by the CIA. The conspiracy theorist believes the CIA created the feminist movement for some nefarious purpose. I assert they infiltrated it because, like Christianity almost two millennia ago, it was an organically arising ideology that the officials wanted to understand and control.

The socialist movement in the US and its current government partnership is much like the above. The socialist movement arose and the govt wanted to co-opt it like the Pope co-opted Christianity. That is how they think they can a) control it b) ride on the wave for personal gain/power.

It's a dangerous risky/uncertain cat and mouse game that must be played. There is no secret cabal in charge. The conspiracy is that the government isn't telling us what this game is all about (because they can't politically) - not that a cabal architected the movement and is now intentionally forwarding it.

EDIT: They have to play that game because in a democracy/constitutional republic you can't just round up political enemies and shoot them. So a need for persuasion, co-opting, deal making with emerging ideological movements becomes paramount.

That is the nuance Charlie doesn't get.

EDIT 2: What I said also goes for things like MK-ULTR, a minor, inconsequential operation which conspiracy theories love to point to for some weird reason. Psychedelics were emerging as a cultural ingredient. The CIA and military had long wanted a "truth serum". So they got involved with looking at psychedelics, primarily for that purpose. I mean getting the truth out of sources, covertly, is ancient. It used to be satisfying sex and the pillow talk afterwards and/or alcohol. Hardened professionals are usually immune to those techniques. So they wanted something more effective. Additionally, the Chinese had used some more or less effective brainwashing techniques on captured US troops. They looked at all kinds of substances. A little compartment got carried away, did some unethical things, got caught and were the subject of congressional hearings. Also, psychedelics were a component of the youth movement in 1960s. So that scene was also infiltrated and studied. Of course it was. Anyone here charged with the security of the US would have done the same. MK-ULTRA was and is a big nothing, but a totally understandable big nothing. Hardly a paradigm shattering revelation. People that watch too many movies want to believe that Manchurian killer zombies were created. There is 0 evidence for that. Fun camp fire story, though.
 
Last edited:
No, the gold standard test is viral culture. I learned that from my reading. I now know much more about PCR COVID-19 tests than I ever thought I wanted to know. :)

Are you aware of any country that makes large scale use of virus culturing to confirm covid-19 infection rates?

Are you aware of any studies that use virus culturing to confirm the accuracy of PCR testing results?

Here is one meta-study I found https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33270107/

Methods: We searched LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar and the WHO Covid-19 database for Covid-19 to 10 September 2020. We included studies attempting to culture or observe SARS-CoV-2 in specimens with RT-PCR positivity. Studies were dual extracted and the data summarised narratively by specimen type. Where necessary we contacted corresponding authors of included papers for additional information. We assessed quality using a modified QUADAS 2 risk of bias tool.

Conclusion: Complete live viruses are necessary for transmission, not the fragments identified by PCR. Prospective routine testing of reference and culture specimens and their relationship to symptoms, signs and patient co-factors should be used to define the reliability of PCR for assessing infectious potential. Those with high cycle threshold are unlikely to have infectious potential.

Others may weigh in on whether virus culturing is dependent on isolation and whether that has been achieved. My concern is with the broad use of PCR for diagnosis and the accuracy of that approach.
 
Are you aware of any country that makes large scale use of virus culturing to confirm covid-19 infection rates?

No (but I don't know what each country is doing), and I can't imagine why any would. Virus cultures take a lot longer (days to weeks), plus I think they are a lot more expensive and resource intensive (because of the need for tissue culture and the biohazard risk). It would be a pretty poor way to try to deal with a pandemic.

Are you aware of any studies that use virus culturing to confirm the accuracy of PCR testing results?

Here is one meta-study I found https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33270107/

All the studies on accuracy of specific lab tests I looked at included testing of cultured virus. I looked earlier for studies comparing virus culture to cycle thresholds of PCR positivity, using virus culture as an indicator of infectivity. I think those are the kinds of studies in your link, since the ones I found are in the included studies list.

Others may weigh in on whether virus culturing is dependent on isolation and whether that has been achieved. My concern is with the broad use of PCR for diagnosis and the accuracy of that approach.

As are the public health officials. It looks like there is a lot of ongoing attention paid to this. As I mentioned earlier, I found pages and pages and pages on Google of studies on the accuracy of PCR testing results, including ongoing monitoring of tests in current use.
 
Back
Top