Good post. But you appear to have missed the industrial scale PCR fraud being done in the UK lighthouse labs. There single gene positives were taken as diagnostic of covid, when 2 from 3 was the WHO and manufacturer standard. Up to 65% of positives at any one time were FALSE, and listed as such in ONS reports online.
It is odd that we are all repeatedly shining the spotlight on PCR covid test fraud but not questioning in any way the use of PCR to detect flu. When covid came on the scene the multiplex kits were all updated to include flu and covid. Then flu disappeared. Odd that.
"but not questioning in any way the use of PCR to detect flu"
Personally I've never encountered a PCR test for flu prior to the pandemic, or even during it. I would argue the same objections apply if they do exist. You may also note that RSV (the 'new' disease they're peddling) are also lumped together with SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests on some of the NHS FOIA forms.
I will confess I was not familiar with the lighthouse labs (I know of them but know little about their internal processes), and my main focus was demonstrating PCR fraud within hospitals and with regards to deaths, as it builds a crucial bridge towards a future article I'm working on.
I will pin your comment. I imagine there will be many other instances of testing fraud, and the article is supposed to be a light(!) introduction to PCR fraud for those who are new to the domain space whilst making a watertight case. If it was exhaustive my two weeks would have been two months.
Mar 26, 2023·edited Mar 26, 2023Liked by The Underdog
You did well for a presumably non scientist. Very clear. The implications are that there’s no pandemic at all, and officials KNOW it.
Why else fake cases and misattribute cause of death?
Martin is right to highlight industrial scale cheating.
A friend worked in a lighthouse lab for a few weeks. He’s personally run lab PCR for decades.
They are private, newly set up (in 2020) and UNINSPECTED.
The technical staff are UNACCREDITED.
The conditions of work are so bad that my friend called in the HSE, who did an inspection. Their report was devastating. When HSE tried to inspect again, a call from someone very senior told them to more or less “sling their hook”. Unprecedented.
It’s taken me a while but I wrote up why I’m sure there’s never been a respiratory virus pandemic. It’s all lies,
Of course the implications are that every “measure” taken, huge numbers of care home & hospital deaths were murders. Seriously.
Care homes: given drugs to slow them stop their breathing. Hospitals: placed inappropriately on ventilators and dosed with kidney toxic drugs. A few days later they were mostly dead.
Then the “vaccines”. These were MADE TO BE DELIBERATELY TOXIC in order to injure, maim & kill.
The global fraud has the effect of a global COUP D’ETAT.
Next: closing the prison gates. Digital ID. Cashless central bank digital currency.
You LOSE ALL FREEDOMS permanently. If they want you to get another jab, you’ll do it, or your ID goes invalid. No food shopping for you.
Imagine those extra jabs are lethal injections. DEPOPULATION.
Yes, the main point of the PCR fraud is that, as Drosten admitted, 'no virus material was available' when the primers were designed, only sequences on a database. The test couldn't be validated (as could be done for a test detecting something physically available in test tubes) and he can't therefore claim that the PCR (regardless of the number of cycles or alleged 'gene' loci) detects a virus. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/there-is-no-covid
To my knowledge, the first flu/SARS-CoV-2 to receive FDA EUA in the U.S. was the CDCs test, approved July 2, 2020. Many more followed and were ready for the 2020-21 season.
My humble opinion is that symptoms for flu and COVID-19 were so heavily overlapped, that any practitioner would have classified any suspected case as C19 'to be on the safe side'.
Couple with the PCR Cycle thresholds fraud basically positive matching anybody, and any referrals to 'distinguish' would have nearly always been positive.
Given we don't even know what genetics they're even looking for in PCR to determine a positive result, they could have pointed it at an extremely common genetic material element found in most or nearly all viruses.
Or even... at a specific element of human DNA (I.E. always true for a specific set or subset of humans).
Getting close- we don't know what genetics the PCR is looking for! Exactly. We don't know because the samples from patients that were fed into the genomics computer were not purified into viral material only, the genetic sequences could come from anywhere. There are only hypothetical 'genomes' of viruses available on the net indicating what 'viral genomes' should look like. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/x-ray-crystallography-and-3d-computer
And yes the common detox symptoms of covid are indistinguishable from 'flu' or pneumonia etc etc because they aren't separate diseases with separate causes at all 🙏🏽
I don't know of anyone testing for flu in the UK, I just assumed that deaths (murders) in care homes that would previously go down as flu were put down as covid, and that people with common detox symptoms of inflammation etc who would previously that say they had flu said they had covid.
What sequences are the flu tests amplifying and what are they alleged to code for. anyway? There doesn't seem to be any standardisation. You could just set cycles at really low if you wanted to make a non existent virus disappear.
It’s worth noting that the effects of any cross-contamination will combine synergistically with these insanely high Ct values.
Ramping up complex molecular biology as if they were making widgets in a matter of weeks, using essentially untrained staff, will have guaranteed myriad operational problems including cross contamination.
I managed to get through the pandemic without using one of these things. Some school kids were getting swabbed daily which means they were overdosing on a carcinogen Ethylene Oxide. Of course Reuters Factcheck claim they were safe, which is true for one-off use, but daily?
I leave that as an exercise to my American counterparts as it is quite a mammoth challenge.
Even the FOIAs here don't cover the entire NHS. There's over 200 NHS Trusts. And I will bet every single one that responded here slow-rolled by 3 months or more. Someone once described FOIAs as like 'extracting teeth' and without vast numbers of the public filing it is a painstaking thing for one individual to do.
The work by "Mr F" puts to blast the idea they ever used 35 or less cycle thresholds as nothing more than a retroactive handwave deception.
I remember news a while back after the vaccine rollout, about the CDC recommending a significantly lower threshold of 28 cycles for vaccinated individuals. This article from May 3, 2021 covered that and how it varies quite a bit but tends to be on the higher side in general: https://sentinelksmo.org/cdc-maximum-28-ct-for-post-vaccine-covid-pcr-tests/
A good article but you have missed some important points.
When using qpcr ( often called rtpcr) the researcher will ensure that the cDNA ( a single stranded DNA) is at the same concentration across all samples. Furthermore, this cDNA concentration is decided by running a number of preliminary tests.
You want to see at what CT value your target gene sequence is present and as your article states you are ideally looking between 20 and 25ct values. This is important as the primers that bind to the cDNA will not perform efficient copying ( each cycle produces another copy of the DNA) across the entire number of CT cycles.
Furthermore, the primers , which initiate the copying/duplicating of the dna, will also produce non specific DNA sequences especially at high CT values. At 35 cycles this will be high enough to interfere with the result. For example , though you may have a positive test this may be a false positive.
To check this the sample will be first analyzed by checking the melt curve of the qpcr product. Your gene of interest will have a unique pattern. The next test is to run some of the qpcr end product on an Agarose gel to check that the coloured dna is the correct length. It is then sent to be sequenced to be 100% certain that what you are looking at is correct. On a large experiment you may conduct this every 300 samples or so.
If you were to submit a paper using the qpcr data produced during covid it would be rejected as the qpcr data would not meet the minimum guidelines.
Adding on to your gene remark, the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test is based upon the SARS PCR patent.
The original SARS PCR patent requires at a minimum four comparison genes to vastly reduce the risk of false positive. The patent identifies at least three that are required; the E, N and S genes.
The tests specified by the NHS only use two genes, E and N.
May 11, 2023·edited May 11, 2023Liked by The Underdog
I would be willing to bet that private contractors cut that down to one gene and failed to run the necessary controls.
There was the incident where a number of people were given a negative result which wear later tonne to be incorrect. This could only happen if the positive and negative controls were missing which is exactly what you would do if you wanted to increase throughput/make more money.
Can anyone explain to me how my friend (RN) became severely symptomatic while working in the Long Term Health Care Facility where she was employed, prior to the jab roll out? In addition, 95% of the employees on her shift tested positive via "PCR" and most were NOT symptomatic. My friend (non-smoker) became severely debilitated for approx 18 months. Here are my notes based on her experience:
As Martin Neil hints at above in his comment, the smoking gun is not that these responses say they used a threshold of 40, but that they were only looking for one gene. The critical response comes from the table provided by East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust. That chart reveals a positive was detected when 2 things happen:
1. The N gene is found with a Ct below 35.
2. No other genes are found, not even at cycles above 40.
This critical info explains why the other groups claimed Ct values of 40 were used, namely that they ran 40 cycles to make sure NOTHING was found.
So the problem is they were looking for only 1 gene, not that they used CT values above 35.
Actually, the ESNE NHS FT FOIA is looking for two genes.
Quoting from the FOIA:
"The following algorithm of Ct (cycle threshold) values are used to confirm the initial positive result depending upon the Ct of the detected COVID- gene identification (E gene & N gene) targets from 14/07/21 to date:"
E isn't 'everything'.
Further, this statement only applies to the 'Cepheid GeneXpert Singleplex COVID-19 assay', however Trusts used multiple PCR analysers, including ThermoFisher's, and none of the others explained what they were doing. It would be difficult to factually project ESNE's response to the others given they're the only ones doing this.
There is no need to "prove" there is "nothing there" beyond 35 cycles because that is what you already presume when you don't detect anything, even by the US government's own advisor's words, and ThermoFisher's remarks.
The table that ESNE provided, and which you include in your article, describes their algorithm, and lists only 1 option for a "detected" status. That option has E at 0, <40, >40 and SPC 0, <40, >40. Only the N gene is shown <35.
It is true it might be wrong to say all the others did the same, as there is evidence of inconsistent lab work. However I doubt the response given to the FOIA requests mean as you take them here in your article. As ESNE is the only response that provided enough detail to make sense of the answers, it is possible the others meant similarly.
What is certain is that multiple labs were testing for only 1 gene, and in particular not the s-gene (SGTF= S-gene target failure). This was definitely the case in India: "Currently, the tests in India test E, N and Rd Rp genes and if one of these genes is identified as positive, the test result would be positive. "
That conveniently ignores the indeterminate settings, which results in additional PCR tests, and a human interpreter (who at that stage is just going to rubberstamp a yes).
The focus isn't just on N gene as E gene factors on the indeterminates. In-fact, a not-detected requires either absolutely nothing or >40 for E, but as Fauci says, anything 35 onwards won't produce a virus.
Beyond 35 - which they are doing - they're looking for chance discoveries ('indeterminate') which they then spin up again, rather than doing the right thing and treating anything beyond 35 as false.
" ESNE is the only response that provided enough detail"
The ESNE response is incomplete and only addresses one type of analyser. One Trust uses 5 different types. You're attempting to project properties to other domains that aren't even there.
I'm not sure what motivates you to debate me by dissecting sentences that have little to no import to my main point. My main point is that it's a huge problem that they admit to testing for only 1 gene.
I ran the ESNE table by an acquaintance that is a virologist with plenty of lab experience. She confirmed the table means exactly as I read it: they consider it a positive result if only the N-gene is found.
Feel free to dissect and debate every other sentence to your heart's content. This issue is my point, and it stands at the heart of all the PCR issues.
It's weird you keep ignoring the indeterminate categories that promote repeat testing (which would be double the number of cycles) and then subjective human interpretation, where if you notice carefully, there's a distinction between the two indeterminate results, governed by the E gene ("< 35" for the first, and essentially any for the second).
I notice you did not ask your virologist friend about the interpretation for the indeterminate results (which notice are not being classified as negative as they should be). Yes, single gene for positive is terrible, but it isn't the sole positive outcome - we've also got this 'keep testing until it is positive', 'best out of 3' aspect going on with a subjective human at the end.
"1st indeterminate result, patients are re-swabbed for repeat testing
2 nd Indeterminate result goes for Consultant Virologist/Microbiologist report comment"
It is unclear if the Trust means the first indeterminate result *in the table rows* means being re-swabbed (which would lead to a possible infinite loop?), or if it means the first indeterminate result *in series* of repeat tests, in which case either indeterminate category, if it keeps repeating, turns up for a subjective interpretation for a >40 threshold.
And, no, I wouldn't call this "dissecting". I'm expanding on your context. Emotional wordplay isn't going to change the subjective indeterminate aspect of the tests as well.
I did try to pull up some Kary Mullis interviews, but I found he sort of, shall we say, took the scenic route to reach his point? At one point he went from PCR to Buddhist concepts to molecules to matter back to PCR.
It was very difficult to find an appropriate in-context evidenced quote that didn't look like I went 'Edward Scissorhands' on his statements, and the 'scenic route' meant people could interpret wording laterally, which I didn't think would necessarily benefit the article.
I omitted on the grounds of brevity as I'd be proving what he said in effect anyway.
Good post. But you appear to have missed the industrial scale PCR fraud being done in the UK lighthouse labs. There single gene positives were taken as diagnostic of covid, when 2 from 3 was the WHO and manufacturer standard. Up to 65% of positives at any one time were FALSE, and listed as such in ONS reports online.
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n208/rr-3
Full paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.11612
It is odd that we are all repeatedly shining the spotlight on PCR covid test fraud but not questioning in any way the use of PCR to detect flu. When covid came on the scene the multiplex kits were all updated to include flu and covid. Then flu disappeared. Odd that.
"but not questioning in any way the use of PCR to detect flu"
Personally I've never encountered a PCR test for flu prior to the pandemic, or even during it. I would argue the same objections apply if they do exist. You may also note that RSV (the 'new' disease they're peddling) are also lumped together with SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests on some of the NHS FOIA forms.
I will confess I was not familiar with the lighthouse labs (I know of them but know little about their internal processes), and my main focus was demonstrating PCR fraud within hospitals and with regards to deaths, as it builds a crucial bridge towards a future article I'm working on.
I will pin your comment. I imagine there will be many other instances of testing fraud, and the article is supposed to be a light(!) introduction to PCR fraud for those who are new to the domain space whilst making a watertight case. If it was exhaustive my two weeks would have been two months.
You did well for a presumably non scientist. Very clear. The implications are that there’s no pandemic at all, and officials KNOW it.
Why else fake cases and misattribute cause of death?
Martin is right to highlight industrial scale cheating.
A friend worked in a lighthouse lab for a few weeks. He’s personally run lab PCR for decades.
They are private, newly set up (in 2020) and UNINSPECTED.
The technical staff are UNACCREDITED.
The conditions of work are so bad that my friend called in the HSE, who did an inspection. Their report was devastating. When HSE tried to inspect again, a call from someone very senior told them to more or less “sling their hook”. Unprecedented.
It’s taken me a while but I wrote up why I’m sure there’s never been a respiratory virus pandemic. It’s all lies,
Of course the implications are that every “measure” taken, huge numbers of care home & hospital deaths were murders. Seriously.
Care homes: given drugs to slow them stop their breathing. Hospitals: placed inappropriately on ventilators and dosed with kidney toxic drugs. A few days later they were mostly dead.
Then the “vaccines”. These were MADE TO BE DELIBERATELY TOXIC in order to injure, maim & kill.
The global fraud has the effect of a global COUP D’ETAT.
Next: closing the prison gates. Digital ID. Cashless central bank digital currency.
You LOSE ALL FREEDOMS permanently. If they want you to get another jab, you’ll do it, or your ID goes invalid. No food shopping for you.
Imagine those extra jabs are lethal injections. DEPOPULATION.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/why-i-dont-believe-there-ever-was-a-covid-virus/
https://off-guardian.org/2023/03/24/40-facts-you-need-to-know-the-real-story-of-covid/
Yes, the main point of the PCR fraud is that, as Drosten admitted, 'no virus material was available' when the primers were designed, only sequences on a database. The test couldn't be validated (as could be done for a test detecting something physically available in test tubes) and he can't therefore claim that the PCR (regardless of the number of cycles or alleged 'gene' loci) detects a virus. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/there-is-no-covid
Jo
Correct regarding the multiplex tests.
To my knowledge, the first flu/SARS-CoV-2 to receive FDA EUA in the U.S. was the CDCs test, approved July 2, 2020. Many more followed and were ready for the 2020-21 season.
Given Australia's wonky flu test curve that summer, I have to wonder what test they were using https://twitter.com/EWoodhouse7/status/1637623787821625344?s=20
Also wondering what tests were being used in Togo and other places. Also note Iran's short-live 3-week positive test disappearance in early 2020. https://twitter.com/EWoodhouse7/status/1636577935522930690?s=20
I’ve always assumed sabotaged flu PCR tests was the most likely cause of flu disappearing.
My humble opinion is that symptoms for flu and COVID-19 were so heavily overlapped, that any practitioner would have classified any suspected case as C19 'to be on the safe side'.
Couple with the PCR Cycle thresholds fraud basically positive matching anybody, and any referrals to 'distinguish' would have nearly always been positive.
Given we don't even know what genetics they're even looking for in PCR to determine a positive result, they could have pointed it at an extremely common genetic material element found in most or nearly all viruses.
Or even... at a specific element of human DNA (I.E. always true for a specific set or subset of humans).
Getting close- we don't know what genetics the PCR is looking for! Exactly. We don't know because the samples from patients that were fed into the genomics computer were not purified into viral material only, the genetic sequences could come from anywhere. There are only hypothetical 'genomes' of viruses available on the net indicating what 'viral genomes' should look like. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/x-ray-crystallography-and-3d-computer
And yes the common detox symptoms of covid are indistinguishable from 'flu' or pneumonia etc etc because they aren't separate diseases with separate causes at all 🙏🏽
But there’s the matter of disappearing flu tests for the 2020-21 season, which began with the abrupt cut-off of the 2019-20 season. (Here’s my thread about 2019-20 https://twitter.com/EWoodhouse7/status/1635856560026009600?s=20)
I don't know of anyone testing for flu in the UK, I just assumed that deaths (murders) in care homes that would previously go down as flu were put down as covid, and that people with common detox symptoms of inflammation etc who would previously that say they had flu said they had covid.
It looks like the kits for testing covid were already to go before 2019 https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/the-corona-fake-dating-dossier actually having a virus is not essential in anyway to making a kit.
What sequences are the flu tests amplifying and what are they alleged to code for. anyway? There doesn't seem to be any standardisation. You could just set cycles at really low if you wanted to make a non existent virus disappear.
That’s my belief as well, based on my review of documents, timeline, and of CDC phone call transcripts.
It’s worth noting that the effects of any cross-contamination will combine synergistically with these insanely high Ct values.
Ramping up complex molecular biology as if they were making widgets in a matter of weeks, using essentially untrained staff, will have guaranteed myriad operational problems including cross contamination.
I managed to get through the pandemic without using one of these things. Some school kids were getting swabbed daily which means they were overdosing on a carcinogen Ethylene Oxide. Of course Reuters Factcheck claim they were safe, which is true for one-off use, but daily?
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-eo-swabs-idUSL1N2LU1H0
Disbelieve anything the Fact Chokers say.
They’re crooks and are in on the globalist crimes.
I'd like to see the cycle thresholds used in the US - State by State, hospital by hospital, clinc by clinic, lab by lab...
I leave that as an exercise to my American counterparts as it is quite a mammoth challenge.
Even the FOIAs here don't cover the entire NHS. There's over 200 NHS Trusts. And I will bet every single one that responded here slow-rolled by 3 months or more. Someone once described FOIAs as like 'extracting teeth' and without vast numbers of the public filing it is a painstaking thing for one individual to do.
The work by "Mr F" puts to blast the idea they ever used 35 or less cycle thresholds as nothing more than a retroactive handwave deception.
The date this was written and taught is very interesting: 9/5/2001
https://www.siumed.edu/sites/default/files/u174/bioterrorismppt.pdf
https://archive.org/details/bioterrorismprep0000unse/page/n8/mode/1up?q=Plotkins++
I remember news a while back after the vaccine rollout, about the CDC recommending a significantly lower threshold of 28 cycles for vaccinated individuals. This article from May 3, 2021 covered that and how it varies quite a bit but tends to be on the higher side in general: https://sentinelksmo.org/cdc-maximum-28-ct-for-post-vaccine-covid-pcr-tests/
Of course the effect of this criminally insane policy is that UNVACCINATED people are much more likely to “test positive” than unvaccinated people.
This fake data was used to attempt to show that “the vaccines are working”, whereas in reality THEY DID NOTHING USEFUL AT ALL, only harm people.
CDC test EUAd early on was 40 ct
yeah that double standard for the vaccinated afterward really raised everyone's suspicions
thank you
Don't thank me, thank my paying subscribers.
I hope one day this becomes financially viable.
Thanks for your hard earned reporting . . .
A good article but you have missed some important points.
When using qpcr ( often called rtpcr) the researcher will ensure that the cDNA ( a single stranded DNA) is at the same concentration across all samples. Furthermore, this cDNA concentration is decided by running a number of preliminary tests.
You want to see at what CT value your target gene sequence is present and as your article states you are ideally looking between 20 and 25ct values. This is important as the primers that bind to the cDNA will not perform efficient copying ( each cycle produces another copy of the DNA) across the entire number of CT cycles.
Furthermore, the primers , which initiate the copying/duplicating of the dna, will also produce non specific DNA sequences especially at high CT values. At 35 cycles this will be high enough to interfere with the result. For example , though you may have a positive test this may be a false positive.
To check this the sample will be first analyzed by checking the melt curve of the qpcr product. Your gene of interest will have a unique pattern. The next test is to run some of the qpcr end product on an Agarose gel to check that the coloured dna is the correct length. It is then sent to be sequenced to be 100% certain that what you are looking at is correct. On a large experiment you may conduct this every 300 samples or so.
If you were to submit a paper using the qpcr data produced during covid it would be rejected as the qpcr data would not meet the minimum guidelines.
Adding on to your gene remark, the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test is based upon the SARS PCR patent.
The original SARS PCR patent requires at a minimum four comparison genes to vastly reduce the risk of false positive. The patent identifies at least three that are required; the E, N and S genes.
The tests specified by the NHS only use two genes, E and N.
I would be willing to bet that private contractors cut that down to one gene and failed to run the necessary controls.
There was the incident where a number of people were given a negative result which wear later tonne to be incorrect. This could only happen if the positive and negative controls were missing which is exactly what you would do if you wanted to increase throughput/make more money.
Will we ever know the truth? Probably not :(
Can anyone explain to me how my friend (RN) became severely symptomatic while working in the Long Term Health Care Facility where she was employed, prior to the jab roll out? In addition, 95% of the employees on her shift tested positive via "PCR" and most were NOT symptomatic. My friend (non-smoker) became severely debilitated for approx 18 months. Here are my notes based on her experience:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y8RfZCzAkY77cLiYA-Di2oYemQCqs094DQ85bawJTuo/edit?fbclid=IwAR3DvdZlKFdWdXOvIb1dJrebYPcrHSRfOw0CsF4Wi3ineuXQddn1ixegIOE#heading=h.u1rsann76oyh The jabs were not rolled out as of her hospitalization and near death experience. For the life of me I cannot solve this puzzle.
https://www.siumed.edu/sites/default/files/u174/bioterrorismppt.pdf
As Martin Neil hints at above in his comment, the smoking gun is not that these responses say they used a threshold of 40, but that they were only looking for one gene. The critical response comes from the table provided by East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust. That chart reveals a positive was detected when 2 things happen:
1. The N gene is found with a Ct below 35.
2. No other genes are found, not even at cycles above 40.
This critical info explains why the other groups claimed Ct values of 40 were used, namely that they ran 40 cycles to make sure NOTHING was found.
So the problem is they were looking for only 1 gene, not that they used CT values above 35.
Actually, the ESNE NHS FT FOIA is looking for two genes.
Quoting from the FOIA:
"The following algorithm of Ct (cycle threshold) values are used to confirm the initial positive result depending upon the Ct of the detected COVID- gene identification (E gene & N gene) targets from 14/07/21 to date:"
E isn't 'everything'.
Further, this statement only applies to the 'Cepheid GeneXpert Singleplex COVID-19 assay', however Trusts used multiple PCR analysers, including ThermoFisher's, and none of the others explained what they were doing. It would be difficult to factually project ESNE's response to the others given they're the only ones doing this.
There is no need to "prove" there is "nothing there" beyond 35 cycles because that is what you already presume when you don't detect anything, even by the US government's own advisor's words, and ThermoFisher's remarks.
The table that ESNE provided, and which you include in your article, describes their algorithm, and lists only 1 option for a "detected" status. That option has E at 0, <40, >40 and SPC 0, <40, >40. Only the N gene is shown <35.
It is true it might be wrong to say all the others did the same, as there is evidence of inconsistent lab work. However I doubt the response given to the FOIA requests mean as you take them here in your article. As ESNE is the only response that provided enough detail to make sense of the answers, it is possible the others meant similarly.
What is certain is that multiple labs were testing for only 1 gene, and in particular not the s-gene (SGTF= S-gene target failure). This was definitely the case in India: "Currently, the tests in India test E, N and Rd Rp genes and if one of these genes is identified as positive, the test result would be positive. "
https://m.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/what-is-sgene-how-will-it-confirm-the-presence-of-omicron-covid19-variant-1638425372-1
"only 1 option for a "detected" status"
That conveniently ignores the indeterminate settings, which results in additional PCR tests, and a human interpreter (who at that stage is just going to rubberstamp a yes).
The focus isn't just on N gene as E gene factors on the indeterminates. In-fact, a not-detected requires either absolutely nothing or >40 for E, but as Fauci says, anything 35 onwards won't produce a virus.
Beyond 35 - which they are doing - they're looking for chance discoveries ('indeterminate') which they then spin up again, rather than doing the right thing and treating anything beyond 35 as false.
" ESNE is the only response that provided enough detail"
The ESNE response is incomplete and only addresses one type of analyser. One Trust uses 5 different types. You're attempting to project properties to other domains that aren't even there.
I'm not sure what motivates you to debate me by dissecting sentences that have little to no import to my main point. My main point is that it's a huge problem that they admit to testing for only 1 gene.
I ran the ESNE table by an acquaintance that is a virologist with plenty of lab experience. She confirmed the table means exactly as I read it: they consider it a positive result if only the N-gene is found.
Feel free to dissect and debate every other sentence to your heart's content. This issue is my point, and it stands at the heart of all the PCR issues.
It's weird you keep ignoring the indeterminate categories that promote repeat testing (which would be double the number of cycles) and then subjective human interpretation, where if you notice carefully, there's a distinction between the two indeterminate results, governed by the E gene ("< 35" for the first, and essentially any for the second).
I notice you did not ask your virologist friend about the interpretation for the indeterminate results (which notice are not being classified as negative as they should be). Yes, single gene for positive is terrible, but it isn't the sole positive outcome - we've also got this 'keep testing until it is positive', 'best out of 3' aspect going on with a subjective human at the end.
"1st indeterminate result, patients are re-swabbed for repeat testing
2 nd Indeterminate result goes for Consultant Virologist/Microbiologist report comment"
It is unclear if the Trust means the first indeterminate result *in the table rows* means being re-swabbed (which would lead to a possible infinite loop?), or if it means the first indeterminate result *in series* of repeat tests, in which case either indeterminate category, if it keeps repeating, turns up for a subjective interpretation for a >40 threshold.
And, no, I wouldn't call this "dissecting". I'm expanding on your context. Emotional wordplay isn't going to change the subjective indeterminate aspect of the tests as well.
A great report on the covid testing scam!
I did try to pull up some Kary Mullis interviews, but I found he sort of, shall we say, took the scenic route to reach his point? At one point he went from PCR to Buddhist concepts to molecules to matter back to PCR.
It was very difficult to find an appropriate in-context evidenced quote that didn't look like I went 'Edward Scissorhands' on his statements, and the 'scenic route' meant people could interpret wording laterally, which I didn't think would necessarily benefit the article.
I omitted on the grounds of brevity as I'd be proving what he said in effect anyway.
I think this one is pretty succinct. Of course he’s talking about HIV not SARS.
https://youtu.be/iWOJKuSKw5c