Just to clarify.
This is the Nanopore coverage Map.
Lowest point in the trough in the center looks like 2,000X coverage.
Highest point on the right is ~500,000X coverage.
Obviously full length infective virus can’t be more than the 2,000X and the stuff on the right is non-infect
Non-infectious fragments of RNA known as sub genomic RNA or sgRNA.
Why would you place your PCR assay on the yellow region? You know you are predominately amplifying non-infectious RNA.
Deliberate witch hunting.
Should could target ORF1a (in the trough of the coverage map) that makes less subgenomic RNA but her sensitivity would drop ~200 fold.
But she’s only working with 6-5,800 copies.
Most of the data would be blank.
They’d have to speak for hours...
Into a vacuum tube.
Redonkulus
Interesting detail.
They did not Try to culture the coarse fraction (Over 5um).
That would have been very valuable information.
The diagnostic PCR does have low Ct but that’s PCR with diff assay/ diff lab/ diff time.
130L/min vacuum for 15-30 minutes.
Really shouldn’t say there is anything wrong with the paper....just seeing people use this as evidence for masking kids and it does not follow.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If they can censor your YouTube channel, they will censor your money.
@BretWeinstein@PierreKory@PanData19
The freedom fighters need censorship resistant money.
Here is how we did it.
Open access for everyone to follow.
We applied to a DAO to do this. @Dashpay was excellent to work with but in terms of fundraising, you can accomplish this by publishing any cryptocurrency address on a website you Control. Probably best to have the largest market cap coin involved (Bitcoin).
You will be successful but some safeguards are required to prevent people from spoofing your website to attract donations to a near identical address.
A few folks have asked me to comment on this.
I do not think this is evidence of authorities admitting to qPCR failure.
It is evidence of them attempting to clean up the market ...albeit on very slow timetables.
Let’s review...
The FDA has circulated a set of control templates. They started this in May 2020 and more than a year later we are seeing the results.
Good that they are doing. Bad that it’s enforced over glacial time scales during a pandemic.
No biggie...
Just shuttled some S genes around to see which ones will kill monkey cells.
Let’s do this in a BL2 lab over in China while it’s outlawed here in the States.
In all of my publishing career, I’ve never seen a paper get edited 5 years later to remove references and flip the meaning of critical sentences.
This is a panicked attempt to cover.
For the stats junkies out there trying to make sense of the Vax data.
Fauci used ‘Ethics’ as the excuse vax the control arm of the trial. Now your data is a mess of correlations confounded by age, prior immunity, testing frequency and politics.
Bart sends his love.
Fauci has a history of doing this.
His wife runs the Ethics committee at NIH. When ever he needs a scientific bail out, it becomes unethical to not do it.
See Remdesivir trial goal post shifting.
See HIV history.
Of course, by eliminating the control arm, everyone is left to draw correlations with uncontrolled data and this debate inevitably takes longer and is more controversial. This is a smoke grenade for the public and squid ink for the regulators trying to make sense of it all.