covidpol
@furgar @LukeAlmighty there have been more than a few of those kiwi failures. other countries also tried papaya fruits, goat dna, one laboratory tested purified water, one of the early test kits actually said on the inserts that it couldn't differentiate The Coronavirus from any random coronavirus already endemic in nature.
but yes people do tend to cope by just going "oh well it's obviously within the p-value (whatever that is this week)"
but yes people do tend to cope by just going "oh well it's obviously within the p-value (whatever that is this week)"
covidpol
@icedquinn See @furgar ? Some people truly believe it is a good argument... 
re: covidpol
@LukeAlmighty @furgar depends how many samples are inhuman controls.
you do know laboratory equipment is supposed to be calibrated against reference materials right
you do know laboratory equipment is supposed to be calibrated against reference materials right
Follow
re: covidpol
@icedquinn @furgar
I think it is a mute point, since you are testing thing indirectly.
You cannot measure human pulse directly, but you can measure slight movements under skin.
But if you put the same device on a car engine, it won't say "that is a car", it will say, that that guy has the strongest pulse ever recorded.
re: covidpol
@icedquinn @furgar
Alright, that does sound reasonable. 
re: covidpol
@LukeAlmighty @icedquinn @furgar learn the difference between sensitivity and specificity. you lack the most basic knowledge of the technology involved yet you have the audacity to call people retarded
re: covidpol
@LukeAlmighty @furgar
yes if one puts a seismograph on a car it’s going to say the car shakes.
we’re talking about a test that amplifies samples of biology so you can study the structure of it. so putting different biological samples ought to have obvious differences.
if i put a chicken in an xray the result is different from putting a donkey in the xray.
its already established that the setup they use is so over-amplified and unreliable that it cannot even distinguish variations of covid at all. on a true positive sample, it can’t tell you which strain exists. there is too much noise. MSM agrees https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fact-check-genomic-sequencing-not-pcr-testing-detects-covid-19-variants/ar-AAMMW4W
so now we’ve established even in the true positive case, it can’t tell different cronoaviruses apart. that’s a bit of a problem.
ok so we’re left with what if we put something that is not human in there? purified water is a damning reference sample because by definition it contains no DNA. the process of steaming the water and pulling the steam out leaves you with 90%+ pure H2O. It should test negative for any biological things. It didn’t.
Fruit plants aren’t even capable of carrying respiratory diseases so how does it appear in their samples? The plans which literally cannot host the disease, and water that has been completely burned off and recaptured should have none in it.
So what the people in these stories did was mix in a couple reference samples with the real ones and subjeted the labs to an informal random controlled placebo trial. The labs failed it.
this leaves us with a couple outs:
The lab didn’t run the test and just marked everything as covid for the money
The lab contaminated the samples
The PCR test is unreliable for diagnosis
We already had labs saying the last one is obviously true https://bpa-pathology.com/covid19-pcr-tests-are-scientifically-meaningless/
this kind of thing could actually be the subject of a peer review study if we cared about doing a good job with these things.