The latest BS on @biorxivpreprint
This paper tries to makes claims of RT-qPCR sensitivity with a LLOQ of 372,800 molecules/ml as their lowest limit of Quantiation.
As a comparison, most clinical HIV RT-qPCR tests pick up 50 molecules/ml.
Hence they have very optimistic clearance rates.
biorxiv.org/content/10.648…
0.00085ng/ml is 372,800 copies.
Check for yourself
4284bp mRNA at 0.00085ng = 3.728x10^5 molecules.
nebiocalculator.neb.com/#!/ssrnaamt
@JesslovesMJK @dryostradamus @YoureTheVoiceEF @DJSpeicher @RWMaloneMD @weldeiry @KUPERWASSERLAB @KMilhoanMDPhD @Jikkyleaks @DrJBhattacharya @NicHulscher
They even try to refute people who measured this before at Yale and Pattersons lab are mistaken as they didnt differentiate C19 from Vax Spike? Thats odd?
open.substack.com/pub/anandamide…
What I find laughable about the paper is that there is no RT-qPCR methods section! No Primers, No cycling conditions, no CT scores, No CT conversion equations, no triplicates, no multiple targets, No 3X dilutions, no Fluorometry or ONT validation?
All things we did in our preprint measuring their vaccines that BioRXIV censored.
How does @biorxivpreprint explain this bias?
You censor papers using 27 qPCR assays per data point with clear methods sections that eventually get published but let method free papers from Moderna parade around the site?
@SenRonJohnson @RobertKennedyJr @MaryanneDemasi
journalofindependentmedicine.org/articles/v02n0…
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.