And what are your specific complaints about PCR?
The Last Covid-19 Megathread v. Hopefully...
- Thread starter mal3volent
- Start date
Well aside from the wonky computer generated sequence injected in to it.. would probably be the fact that it isn't a diagnostic test, yet it was claimed as such by the media right from the start without ever clarifying how it actually works.
As per Kary Mullis, the Nobel laurate who invented it;
It can literally amplify a single segment of genetic material to a point where it is measurable, that's it's purpose, and it is completely irrelevant therefore as a diagnostic tool. You could have one segment of this arbitrary code in your body sample, code that is then matched against a computer generated viral sequence patched together, a sequence that in turn was born out of the virologic cell culture methodology which is a complete mish-mash of cellular debris. It's completely meaningless.
And even if that single segment was actually from a virus.. it does not tell you that you're actually sick.. only that you have a fragment of it in your body.
This was the basis of labelling people as 'covid positive', and keeping the pandemic ball rolling. Complete and utter nonsense.
As per Kary Mullis, the Nobel laurate who invented it;
It can literally amplify a single segment of genetic material to a point where it is measurable, that's it's purpose, and it is completely irrelevant therefore as a diagnostic tool. You could have one segment of this arbitrary code in your body sample, code that is then matched against a computer generated viral sequence patched together, a sequence that in turn was born out of the virologic cell culture methodology which is a complete mish-mash of cellular debris. It's completely meaningless.
And even if that single segment was actually from a virus.. it does not tell you that you're actually sick.. only that you have a fragment of it in your body.
This was the basis of labelling people as 'covid positive', and keeping the pandemic ball rolling. Complete and utter nonsense.
4DQSAR
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2025
- Messages
- 1,237
Kary Mullis and Michael Smith were jointly awarded a Nobel Prize in chemistry but as I understand it, Mullis was the chemist, Smith the biochemist i.e. the person whose field was disease. But that aside, it wasn't in physiology or medicine.
Nobelitis (Nobel Disease) isn't new. People appear to think that a Nobel prize makes a person experts on a raft of other subjects. The fact that various Nobel Laureates went on to spout all manner of unlikely stuff is on record.
Asserting that a Nobel laureate said something isn't the overwhelming argument those not conversent with science may imagine. Mullis was into astrology and the paranormal wasn't he? In fact, he seemed to assert opinions on a large range of topics.
alumni.berkeley.edu
Even his own university has written of the various unusual positions and behaviors his life appeared to consist of.
I think it worth noting that the Nobel Prize has some serious issues. The fact that only three people can share a prize being the most glaring. Often it's a matter of seniority rather than input that decides the names and the fact that the decision is made by a single national institution may suggest that it's not the most appropriate people deciding on who gets a prize. But in the end, it's a side show. A person may not be stripped of an award even when later analysis shows their work to have been fraudulant. That last point being a significant issue. Thomas Südhof was the example I alluded to in an earlier post but he isn't unique. But to be clear, I am not asserting malice.
In FLICC terminology asserting someone holding a prize in one discipline as proof of their understanding of a different discipline is referred to as 'appeal to false authority' or just 'Fake Experts'. The need to even assert they are a Nobel laureate sort of suggests that usage. Just cite the papers (checking they haven't been retracted) - that's then a neutral submission of data.
As a side-note, the rest of us appear to be able to engage in a topic without the need to insult others. If this were 'The Dive' then OK, that's fine. But calling on others to attack a person merely for disagreeing? I'm pretty sure that it isn't OK. Ad hominem attacks aren't scientific or ever justified.
Nobelitis (Nobel Disease) isn't new. People appear to think that a Nobel prize makes a person experts on a raft of other subjects. The fact that various Nobel Laureates went on to spout all manner of unlikely stuff is on record.
Asserting that a Nobel laureate said something isn't the overwhelming argument those not conversent with science may imagine. Mullis was into astrology and the paranormal wasn't he? In fact, he seemed to assert opinions on a large range of topics.
Intolerable Genius: Berkeley's Most Controversial Nobel Laureate - Cal Alumni Association
Kary Mullis revolutionized biology and pissed everyone off. Now that he’s dead, how should we remember him?
alumni.berkeley.edu
Even his own university has written of the various unusual positions and behaviors his life appeared to consist of.
I think it worth noting that the Nobel Prize has some serious issues. The fact that only three people can share a prize being the most glaring. Often it's a matter of seniority rather than input that decides the names and the fact that the decision is made by a single national institution may suggest that it's not the most appropriate people deciding on who gets a prize. But in the end, it's a side show. A person may not be stripped of an award even when later analysis shows their work to have been fraudulant. That last point being a significant issue. Thomas Südhof was the example I alluded to in an earlier post but he isn't unique. But to be clear, I am not asserting malice.
In FLICC terminology asserting someone holding a prize in one discipline as proof of their understanding of a different discipline is referred to as 'appeal to false authority' or just 'Fake Experts'. The need to even assert they are a Nobel laureate sort of suggests that usage. Just cite the papers (checking they haven't been retracted) - that's then a neutral submission of data.
As a side-note, the rest of us appear to be able to engage in a topic without the need to insult others. If this were 'The Dive' then OK, that's fine. But calling on others to attack a person merely for disagreeing? I'm pretty sure that it isn't OK. Ad hominem attacks aren't scientific or ever justified.
Last edited:
And what relevance does your several hundred word character assassination of Kary Mullis have to do with the actual underlying points I raised about PCR? Nothing.
Mullis was into the paranormal. So what? Newton was into the occult, what's your point? That people aren't allowed to have non-approved ideas and beliefs, to think outside the box? This is just a poor attempt at character assassination.
Mullis was into the paranormal. So what? Newton was into the occult, what's your point? That people aren't allowed to have non-approved ideas and beliefs, to think outside the box? This is just a poor attempt at character assassination.
4DQSAR
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2025
- Messages
- 1,237
And such people are noted for their unsual positions. But it was not I who named anyone nor pointed out that they were a Nobel laureate. I merely noted that it isn't unique for Nobel laurates to hold beliefs outside their field and not based on scientific evidence. I certainly didn't suggest they weren't a very able chemist. I did however provide fuller disclosure by way of pointing that two researchers shared that Nobel prize and the catagory of the prize awarded was chemistry rather than physiology or medicine.
I also invited you to provide appropriate references.
But thanks for pointing out that those were beliefs - not based on scientific evidence. That is the knot that needs to be untied. Those positions arrived at by experimentation compared with positions arrived at through nothing more than bias. People are free to believe what they wish, they are not free to assert a belief as a fact. I don't think they would even qualify as conjectures because even a conjecture is an extrapolation of axioms.
I also invited you to provide appropriate references.
But thanks for pointing out that those were beliefs - not based on scientific evidence. That is the knot that needs to be untied. Those positions arrived at by experimentation compared with positions arrived at through nothing more than bias. People are free to believe what they wish, they are not free to assert a belief as a fact. I don't think they would even qualify as conjectures because even a conjecture is an extrapolation of axioms.
Last edited:
I don't disagree with your last point - there's an illusion of choice "you can have a or b - see you have options!". This is the crux of the social contract - freedom vs. security. Some cultures lean into security and coersion while others more towards freedom. My guess is that you are frustrated by the suggestion that liberal democracies are rooted in freedom, while subtly increasing the unspoken demands that you must agree with in order to continue to participate. Enshittification at a societal level. Akin to signing up for internet service at an introductory rate of only 40$ a month, but after a year it's 100$/month and you have no other providers to chose from, so you just pay more for the same service, but on a nation sized level. I get your frustration.
Legally (in the US anyway) parents have the authority to consent to medical treatment for their children. As a teenager, there are some things that children are allowed to decide on their own without involving parents (STI testing is an example), as long as they're able to 'appreciate and understand the issue at hand' - this is often decided by medical professionals based on their interactions with the child. The vaccination requirements for schools may differ state to state, and I am not sure whether vaccination is required for university students seeking an online degree. There are plenty of kids who have not been vaccinated (see texas and measles right now) so it's obviously feasible for children to attend schooling without being vaccinated, I just don't know what the process/limits etc. are.
Whether it is 'right' is a different question and one I'm not trying to argue; only what 'is'.
Vaccines are the most direct and effective means of preventing communicable diseases. I haven't seen evidence that they are unsafe, increase the risk of things like autism or other health issues, or cause issues with natural immunity. I'm open to being wrong and I'd change my stance if there were compelling evidence to the contrary. If anything, RFK is seeking to prove that and is directing NIH to study these things right now. I don't have a problem with vaccines; I'm glad I was given them and I will continue to chose to do so. I wish the issue wasn't so political.
I couldn't agree with you more. It's one of the reasons I eat a plant-based diet. Factory farming is inhumane and contributes to everything from disease, to hormone irregularities, and to antibiotic resistance. I personally believe that it contributes to cognitive and behavioral impacts on developing brains, and environmental contamination as metabolized drugs are excreted by animals and get into the water/food supply.
Maybe - the life expectancy of a working class American is 10-15 years less than that of the wealthy class (this was explored in an article in the Atlantic recently, and I've also read this elsewhere). I don't disagree with you. Interestingly - when CoVID first hit - there was a very high rate of positive but asymptomatic infection amongst shelter-bound people within our homelessness system. Seemed they were much less likely to get sick despite being infected by the virus. My guess is that there was some type of built up immunity due to chronic exposure to similar pathogens that spread quickly through people in congregate living shelters.
Sorry - who are you saying did this - clarifying who you meant by 'we'
If you are directly responsible for inventing something, which is recognized at the Nobel level, I think that gives you license to have an opinion on the general subject area. Kary was not talking about paranormal or astrological things, so you can stop right now trying to reframe it that way.. he is more than entitled to give his opinion on the subject area associated with his invention, so his comments about PCR and wider comments about HIV are perfectly valid.
The appeal to authority argument is so boring. If we stuck religiously to that notion we'd all still be Roman Catholics thinking the Earth is the centre of the Universe!
The appeal to authority argument is so boring. If we stuck religiously to that notion we'd all still be Roman Catholics thinking the Earth is the centre of the Universe!
4DQSAR
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2025
- Messages
- 1,237
Indeed - but your opinion is worth no more and no less than anyone else's opinion.
And as you say, opinion. Not experimentaly tested.
If you choose to believe an opinion then fine, but it's just that, an opinion.
It still sounds like appeal to false authority AKA fake experts.
Surely logic would dictate you find appropriate references and share them? You won't convince others something is a fact by stating someone else's opinion.
And as you say, opinion. Not experimentaly tested.
If you choose to believe an opinion then fine, but it's just that, an opinion.
It still sounds like appeal to false authority AKA fake experts.
Surely logic would dictate you find appropriate references and share them? You won't convince others something is a fact by stating someone else's opinion.
Last edited:
One of the core issues with psychology as a 'science' is that it attempts to define subjective experiences using objective measures. Also, it puts the impetus on the individual to be responsible for functioning rather than the society they live within.
A person talking with spirits and hearing the voice of god would have been a prophet 2000 years ago - today they're standing outside of a subway station with a cup and a sign.
This was a strategy used heavily in the USSR - anyone who spoke against the party was diagnosed with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders. This discredited the individual legally and served to deem them untrustworthy by others who might otherwise listen to them. That Swedish guy who killed all of those kids at a summer camp a decade ago refused to accept insanity as a defense at trial for this reason, as he believed that his actions were part of an authentic expression of political violence. I'm not someone who understands violence as an act of expression, and I also can understand someone who has chosen that course of action also rejecting the label of insanity since that would be the main takeaway as to why they did what they did.
I'm not disputing what you're saying here (even if I don't see it the same way, as established) - just indicating that the inverse can also be true. If the medical paradigm is accurate and vaccinations do prevent disease, and if someone chose to forgo getting them in a way that contributed to more spread and more death, should they feel guilty? Isn't that also a moral failing?
Personally - I chose not to view these things through a moral lense as morality (to me) is relative. I do the best I can with the information I have, and I make choices based on that information as well as my own values. Sometimes you can do the wrong thing for the right reasons - it's part of being imperfect and existing within a constant state of unknowability. We can critique the past because we have more information about how things played out in the interim, but the same luxury doesn't apply to the present. Sometimes there are variables that we cannot know or account for. I personally have learned a lot more from failure than I have from success.
Did I say my opinion was worth more than anyone elses? No.
References. Yeah. Ok. Have you ever had an original thought in your life? Have you got a citation for that? A peer review? You know you are allowed to hold a dissenting opinion on scientific matters, right? That that is healthy and actually a good thing for science, because otherwise it just becomes a religion?
There were plenty of credentialed people opposing the way PCR was used. The vaccination. The masks. Every single aspect of the pandemic response was criticized by those entitled, in your view, to have an opinion.
I'm not here to convince you, or anyone else who sits on the mainstream narrative viewpoint. Absolutely pointless to even try. My position is to simply put the perspective out there, so its not drowned out by the efforts of the establishment to control the narrative.
4DQSAR
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2025
- Messages
- 1,237
So opinions are equal? Yes, that's the way it is. Because it is merely opinion. Not fact. I see you are unfamiliar with the rhetorical statement...
You keep asserting facts without feeling the need to provide evidence. So being scientific, skepticism is the appropriate postion.
Don't forget Hirchen's Razor - that which may be assered without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
If you simply make excuses for not providing evidence, it does sort of suggest that you don't have any evidence. I mean, prove me wrong by all means. I keep asking for appropriate reference only to recieve diatribes in response... but oddly, no evidence whatsoever. It just seems odd. You are happy to assert evidence exists... but are unwilling to share. One has to ask 'why?'. I think any rational person would be suspicious of someone who suggests they have evidence but won't share it.
Wishful thinking is another stalwart of FLICC. Asserting what you would like to be true as opposed to that which had been demonstrated.
If I repeat myself, it's because it appears that stating something once doesn't appear to sink in although it is quite amusing when I point our a bias only for you to display that same bias in a response. We are ALL subject to bias and we need to be aware of the fact. I'm in no way pointing this out as a 'gotcha' but it's happened so often, is pointed out so often and yet appears to go unaddressed is, again, sort of odd. Anyone can look back at the thread to see this.
You keep asserting facts without feeling the need to provide evidence. So being scientific, skepticism is the appropriate postion.
Don't forget Hirchen's Razor - that which may be assered without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
If you simply make excuses for not providing evidence, it does sort of suggest that you don't have any evidence. I mean, prove me wrong by all means. I keep asking for appropriate reference only to recieve diatribes in response... but oddly, no evidence whatsoever. It just seems odd. You are happy to assert evidence exists... but are unwilling to share. One has to ask 'why?'. I think any rational person would be suspicious of someone who suggests they have evidence but won't share it.
Wishful thinking is another stalwart of FLICC. Asserting what you would like to be true as opposed to that which had been demonstrated.
If I repeat myself, it's because it appears that stating something once doesn't appear to sink in although it is quite amusing when I point our a bias only for you to display that same bias in a response. We are ALL subject to bias and we need to be aware of the fact. I'm in no way pointing this out as a 'gotcha' but it's happened so often, is pointed out so often and yet appears to go unaddressed is, again, sort of odd. Anyone can look back at the thread to see this.
Last edited:
I asked chatgpt to outline the issues with your arguments:
Searching for SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence
I need to find a source that includes early sequence data of the SARS-CoV-2 genome. Checking here, I think starting with a search directly related to the early sequences should help. This could provide me with reliable data either from reputable databases or studies. Once I have that info, it should help clarify any specifics or dependencies for the task at hand! Let me see what turns up.
Searching for cycle threshold protocols
I need to find a reliable source that covers cycle threshold protocols. This is important to ensure the details are correct when explaining or using them in the context. Given that this is critical for things like PCR testing and diagnostics, accuracy is key. I’ll start by searching for reputable guidelines or studies that provide this information. Once I have that info, I can present it clearly for any necessary context. Let's see what I find.
Searching for Mullis quote context
I need to find an article or resource that explains the context of the Mullis quote. This will help me understand its full meaning and how to properly present it. Once I find a reliable explanation, I can make sure to share the most accurate and relevant details with the user. It’s important to get the context right, so I’ll search for any articles or resources that might clarify it! Let’s see what I can find.
Thought for 30 seconds
Core facts
1. RT‑PCR is formally cleared as a diagnostic worldwide; the FDA alone has issued >200 Emergency‑Use Authorizations for SARS‑CoV‑2 RT‑PCR kits citeturn0search0.
2. Kary Mullis’ 1997 comment was about the limits of using PCR to quantify HIV viral load, not about detecting a virus at all, and long predates COVID‑19 citeturn4search1.
3. The SARS‑CoV‑2 genome was first published from direct patient samples on 11 Jan 2020 (GenBank MN908947) and has since been confirmed by millions of independent sequences—hard evidence, not “computer code” citeturn1search1.
4. A positive PCR indicates the presence of viral RNA; laboratories apply validated cycle‑threshold cut‑offs to minimise noise and correlate results with clinical context citeturn5view0.
Fallacies in the post
| Fallacy | How it’s used | Why it fails |
|---|---|---|
| Appeal to authority | “Mullis said…” | Quote is out of context and doesn’t negate PCR’s diagnostic use. |
| Straw man | Redefines “diagnosis” as “proving you’re sick.” | Medical diagnostics detect pathogens; disease severity is assessed separately. |
| False premise | Claims genome is “computer‑generated.” | Empirically disproved by thousands of matching clinical sequences. |
| Cherry‑picking / Misquote | Selects a single Mullis line, omits the rest. | Ignores decades of PCR clinical validation. |
| Conspiracy inference | “Kept the pandemic ball rolling.” | No evidence; PCR trends mirrored hospitalisations and excess deaths. |
Bottom line: PCR, when run under clinical protocols, is a precise tool for detecting infection; misquotations and unsupported claims do not overturn extensive regulatory and empirical validation.
1. Authorities make a lot of proclamations. Doesn't make them correct.
2. I posted the quote directly, he was talking about the limits of PCR and specifically how it is not a diagnostic tool. The quote is self-evident.
3. Wrong. I've been through the methodology on here before, I'm not going to go digging it out again.
4. Positive PCR.. lol
What a load of guff. I don't care what GPT thinks either.
The people who fought to improve the various aspects of our living situation, from water quality to sanitation. There was a big push by those types of reformers at the start of the 20th century, along with the public itself who began to demand these things by dealt with after recognizing how they were essentially trading their health for others profit. Mainstream history loves to give the overview that 'government reform' did this, but that's not accurate.. they would have just kept rolling with it if it weren't for the pressure.. just like how it is now.
No, they shouldn't. If it were true, if contagion were real, that is not anyone's responsibility or burden to bear. It would be a natural facility of nature that serves a specific purpose, even if we can't conceptualize it from our limited vantage point. There would be no moral failing because that would be human projection over the top of natural order, an order which supersedes any imaginary projection of our own.
The moral failure would be on the powers that be, just as with the industrial revolution, that conspires to increase their wealth and power at the expense of everyone else's ability to stay healthy in the first place by depriving them of access to their own land and freedom. Disease is a natural consequence of living out of balance with yourself and your environment, which is why the big diseases of the 18/19/20th.C all diminished and were trending to zero before the vaccinations came along.. because it was the improvement of living situation at the start of the 20th century that put us more in alignment/balance again.
Like the battery chickens, it is not a moral failure of your own if you aren't even given the opportunity to live properly in the first place. Putting the blame on the individual for the failure of the herd master is the only immorality in the whole equation, and quite sick indeed.. because it's a lie that causes great suffering.
You don't seem to care what anyone besides yourself thinks
Awww. Did I hurt GPT's feelings? As always.. when there is nothing to say, deflect by turning the discussion into a personal jibe
On this topic, no I don't really care what other people think. Why? Because the consequences of the "thinking" did, and still are, directly impacting my life i.e. the cost of living caused by printing billions and shutting down the world.
I was fortunate in that I managed to dodge the vaccine, but it was clear that this "thinking" could have quite easily pushed us into a scenario where that liberty would be taken from me, where I would be violated by the state as a direct consequence of this "thinking". And as I implied in my discussion with @tryptakid , why the fuck should I give a shit about anyone who contributes to that with their "thinking".. you are a threat, an enemy, not a friend or fellow human.
I was also fortunate not to be a young person. The psychological damage done to them is incalculable. Or an old person in a care home, deprived of contact in their final moments. The whole thing is absolutely sickening, and it was all supported by other peoples "thinking".
I didn't say anything about chatgptAwww. Did I hurt GPT's feelings? As always.. when there is nothing to say, deflect by turning the discussion into a personal jibe
On this topic, no I don't really care what other people think. Why? Because the consequences of the "thinking" did, and still are, directly impacting my life i.e. the cost of living caused by printing billions and shutting down the world.
I was fortunate in that I managed to dodge the vaccine, but it was clear that this "thinking" could have quite easily pushed us into a scenario where that liberty would be taken from me, where I would be violated by the state as a direct consequence of this "thinking". And as I implied in my discussion with @tryptakid , why the fuck should I give a shit about anyone who contributes to that with their "thinking".. you are a threat, an enemy, not a friend or fellow human.
I was also fortunate not to be a young person. The psychological damage done to them is incalculable. Or an old person in a care home, deprived of contact in their final moments. The whole thing is absolutely sickening, and it was all supported by other peoples "thinking".
4DQSAR
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2025
- Messages
- 1,237
The classic ad hominem attack, AGAIN. A very sad attempt to provoke someone who actually went to the trouble to find data. The problem is, far from strengthening any argument, ad hominem attacks weaken a person's position as it demonstrates lack of any rational response.
Still no sign whatsoever of evidence on the part of the person so keen on ad hominam attacks. Surely this could all somply be solved if the person complaining were to cite THEIR sorces, in the absence of sources, a person can hardly complain if others have to use more modern methodolgies.
All the while bleating on about who knows what - since without any citations and a distinct lack of any clear statement it's hard to tell. Merely assetting others are wrong without ever presenting evidence to support AND statement is more than faintly ridiculous.
I think by now any rational person has concluded who is attempting to provide evidence and who is indulging in wishful thinking. I actually have to ask if maybe this person is acting in bad faith and the object isn't concen for the manifold topics they have touched on and after being refuted rapidly shifts the goalposts to another hobby horse. I think we have been through half a dozen conspiracy theories in the last four days. No evidence ever supplied by one person... everyone else has.
People can read back the whole thread and I'm sure will come to their own conclusions. Cerainly one can play 'FLICC bingo' and will rapdily assimilate a 'full house' in short order.
Last edited:
It was in direct response to this:
I was happy bringing up points but he decided to twist in a personal direction so.. you get what you give.
Nowhere did he actually provide any data. A summary by GPT isn't even his own thoughts or effort either, nor is it really substantial in its own right. For example:
This is just straight up bollocks. It's not a precise tool for detecting infection at all! It's a method for amplifying genetic material, that's all it is.. period. The fact GPT couldn't even get that part correct tells you all you need to know. The Kary Mullis quote captures the essence succinctly of why that is the case; just because you found 1 fragment of some arbitrary gene sequence does not mean you have an active infection or whatever else you wish to ascribe to it.. all it tells you is that particular gene fragment was present. That's all. Anything else is inference.
"eXteNsiVe rEguLatOry bla bla bla".. this is just guff. Neither GPT nor the poster can actually argue the case, argue the very simple point that; when you amplify up some genetic material that does not mean the genetic material is sign of disease.. nor does the absence of it indicate the absence of disease.
You take this rubbish to its conclusion and you end up with reGulAtoRy eXpeRtS literally wading through human shit at treatment works, looking for fragments of polio. Completely oblivious to the fact that waste material is going to contain genetic fragments from just about every type of living organism: human, animal, bacterial, fungal. You could find just about anything in that scenario, it means the square root of fuck all.