Killing chickens because they have H5N1—an influenza which has about 60% lethality in humans if they catch it—is a little different than millions of chickens being burned to death because of an accident. Poor things. They don't have H5N1. They are using PCR with an excessive number of cycles again to generate the false positives they need to kill our food, just like the used it to generate false positives at the beginning of the COVID-1984 Plandemic to justify the lockdowns and masks and forced vaccinations.
Kary Mullis, the guy who invented the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and got a Nobel Prize for it, said it should NEVER be used as a diagnostic test. Run enough PCR cycles and you can amplify anything to get a false positive on anything you want.
All of his statements about it have been purged from the Interwebs. If you have two brain cells in a row you should recognize this means he was telling the truth.
https://search.brave.com/search?q=kary+mullis+diagnostic&source=web
They don't have H5N1. They are using PCR with an excessive number of cycles again to generate the false positives they need to kill our food, just like the used it to generate false positives at the beginning of the COVID-1984 Plandemic to justify the lockdowns and masks and forced vaccinations. That is not how PCR works. Having designed and run thousands of PCR assays, I think I have a fairly good understanding of the subject.
A PCR assay is designed to detect a certain length of DNA contained within a specific genome. Even if you run a PCR assay out to 40 cycles, you will not get products of that length. You *might* start to see spurious products caused by the primers annealing to each other, but those products will be very short and will not match the sequence the assay was designed to detect. Furthermore, during PCR development, we take a number of steps to reduce the chance of primers annealing to each other and causing these spurious products.
In addition, when we run PCR, we always run a negative and a positive control. If there is a problem with primer dimers, the negative control will also show a spurious product, along with all of the samples that contain the same primer set. The result we are looking for is a completely blank negative control, a product of the correct size in the positive control, and samples with or without product, meaning they contained the target genome or they didn't.
If the target sequence is not present in the PCR reaction, most reactions will show absolutely nothing no matter how many cycles you run. In practice, we usually run the PCR out for 20-35 cycles, no more. If the target is there, it will show up. If not, it won't.
As for the video you linked alleging that Kary Mullis said that PCR cannot be used as a diagnostic, I found this at the link: This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines. So I surmise that the video did not actually quote Kary Mullis as saying that PCR cannot be used for diagnostic purposes, but twisted something that he actually said into something else. What he really said was that PCR cannot be used to determine the disease burden in HIV patients. That is vastly different than claiming that one of the most common and specific diagnostic tests we have today cannot actually diagnose.
Do you understand that each species of organism has its own unique genome? That it is, in fact, possible to tell the difference between virus species using PCR? PCR is extremely specific. To say that it cannot be used as a diagnostic when it is specific enough to be able to detect variants within a single species is ludicrous.