Elaboration Jaap van Dissel from @RIVM on question @WybrenvanHaga about the PCR test.
Let's evaluate the answer from @RIVM.
Let's evaluate the answer from @RIVM.
Testing was mostly done on only 1 target gene! The E-Gene.
https://twitter.com/PerpetualValue/status/1398651110018146315
RIVM says that this doesn't have an effect on the number of positives, which obviously is a lie. The test gets more strict when more (specific) target genes are added.
They only test on the non-specific E-Gene and then assume to have found SARS-CoV-2.
They only test on the non-specific E-Gene and then assume to have found SARS-CoV-2.
https://twitter.com/PerpetualValue/status/1398651529255587850
Normally multiple target genes have to test positive after amplification (preferably 3 or more).
https://twitter.com/PerpetualValue/status/1398651739247714305
As @StephenABustin, the corrupt peer reviewer of the Corman-Drosten PCR protocal has confirmed.
https://twitter.com/PerpetualValue/status/1398655644811632640
RIVM says that cycle cut-off value has no impact on # positives.
Another obvious lie!
For example, 100 tests
Ct 15-30: 10
Ct 30-35: 5
Cut-off 30: 10 PCR+
Cut-off 35: 15 PCR+
No effect? Another lie.
Another obvious lie!
For example, 100 tests
Ct 15-30: 10
Ct 30-35: 5
Cut-off 30: 10 PCR+
Cut-off 35: 15 PCR+
No effect? Another lie.
https://twitter.com/PerpetualValue/status/1398652627668320257
the change between one or multiple target genes went 'fluently' and therefore couldn't explain a sudden rise of cases.
https://twitter.com/PerpetualValue/status/1398653318814224393
@RIVM, you just lied that the amount and type of target genes wouldn't make a difference? And no there was no 'sudden rise', because the transition was 'fluent'?
Why don't we just use saliva? Much less invasive. Plus we can skip the swabs that contain ethylene-dioxide
https://twitter.com/PerpetualValue/status/1398653694837673988
Conclusion RIVM:
types target genes -> irrelevant
# cut-off value cycles -> irrelevant
No effect on # on PCR+ and thus 'C19 infections'
RIVM is always correct.
types target genes -> irrelevant
# cut-off value cycles -> irrelevant
No effect on # on PCR+ and thus 'C19 infections'
RIVM is always correct.
My conclusion:
RIVM lies straight in our face and it doesn't seem to fall heavy on them.
This was already clear on multiple occasions, for example, when they showed us frightening graphs in order to justify lockdowns or the curfew without incorporating the seasonality effect.
RIVM lies straight in our face and it doesn't seem to fall heavy on them.
This was already clear on multiple occasions, for example, when they showed us frightening graphs in order to justify lockdowns or the curfew without incorporating the seasonality effect.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
