“The PCR does not indicate cause - it was designed to indicate ‘minute existance’ in a sample, and if obtained from swabs, it can falsely identify any number of irrelevant pathogens, particularly ones the immune system defeats.”
By your definition there are no diagnostic tests for microbial infections. The throat is not sterile. There are ALWAYS bacteria there, but when you have an infection the numbers of the pathogen are always MUCH greater than the background. Before PCR, throat swab were used to spread samples onto growth media to see what grew and then identify it and determine what antibiotics (if any) to which it is resistant. PCR does the same thing in a different way, only faster and more definitively. When diagnosing a throat infection the non pathogenic bacteria the “immune system can defeat” are likely low in number and will not be detected in the early cycles like the organism causing the infection. PCR can and is used to amplify minute quantities (generally DNA oligos for cloning), but thats not usually how it’s used in infectious disease diagnostics.
| In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Labcorp has ramped up FAKE fraudulent Bird Flu tests in the U.S. | the PCR process is not a diagnostic test, but is used to create pandemics on demand. , Brooklyn Attitude wrote: |
“The PCR does not indicate cause - it was designed to indicate ‘minute existance’ in a sample, and if obtained from swabs, it can falsely identify any number of irrelevant pathogens, particularly ones the immune system defeats.” By your definition there are no diagnostic tests for microbial infections. The throat is not sterile. There are ALWAYS bacteria there, but when you have an infection the numbers of the pathogen are always MUCH greater than the background. ~~~ ransomnote: Covid used the nasal swab. Maybe 'often greater' than background, with exceptions. Onset and departing viral infections have less than background. I think it should be put forward that the PCR and any other 'guestimate' technology helps doctors guess better if properly trained and paired with symptoms, but that it is not accurate enough to lockdown or deny treatment, or impose Remdesivere or declare a pandemic. It's more a screening tool, not a definitive diagnostic test. Before PCR, throat swab were used to spread samples onto growth media to see what grew and then identify it and determine what antibiotics (if any) to which it is resistant. PCR does the same thing in a different way, only faster and more definitively. ~~~ ransomnote: I would not say 'more definitively' but would agree faster. This assay is best used in low risk situtuations, which could still miss serious contagions, because it's too vague for high stakes. Onset has low presence but can be rationalized as not present 'enough' as can resolution, or simple exposure. When diagnosing a throat infection the non pathogenic bacteria the “immune system can defeat” are likely low in number and will not be detected in the early cycles like the organism causing the infection. PCR can and is used to amplify minute quantities (generally DNA oligos for cloning), but thats not usually how it’s used in infectious disease diagnostics. ~~~ The Pharmas and CDC had time to isolate the Covid virus to perform definitive testing, but they didn't. Instead they pushed the belief that the PCR was a reliable diagnostic tool. The culture and terminology needs to change. PCR should be discussed for use and offered to patients based on its potential to screen but not to diagnose. |