Is Polymerase Chain Reaction a diagnostics instrument?

The inventor strictly said no it’s not and also said fauci is a fraud con artist. Rip Keri Mullis, Nobel prize winner,

I dont think so.the dna code can be anywhere in the chain and be good for health in one location and deadly if located somewhere else.

It's used frequently in cancer diagnostics, so yes. To be used for covid...NO

Could you expand on that?

GLP SAY:

hello google, what is PCR?

Polymerase chain reaction is a method widely used to rapidly make millions to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample, allowing scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it to a large enough amount to study in detail. PCR was invented in 1983 by the American biochemist Kary Mullis at Cetus Corporation; Mullis and biochemist Michael Smith, who had developed other essential ways of manipulating DNA, were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1993. PCR is fundamental to many of the procedures used in genetic testing and research, including analysis of ancient samples of DNA and identification of infectious agents. Using PCR, copies of very small amounts of DNA sequences are exponentially amplified in a series of cycles of temperature changes. PCR is now a common and often indispensable technique used in medical laboratory research for a broad variety of applications including biomedical research and criminal forensics

You're a nob...

no, its a detection instrument. Only doctors can do a diagnostic.

Congrats, you know how to copy/paste...but that quote doesn't really answer the question.

Yes, when you do a biopsy on a "mass" its typically sent to a pathologist for identification. Sometimes the pathologist can't figure out what type of cancer it is or the site of origin (what organ did the cancer originate from). The site of origin is important for the course of treatment. The sample is then sent to a specialty lab for genotyping where they use PCR to amplify the specific parts of the genome in order to sequence it. From this they can tell the site of origin. They use PCR and other tools for this.

Something else they can do is take, let's say lung tissue that is identified as cancer, but they then have to sequence it to figure out the subtype of lung cancer so they can select the appropriate therapy. They amplify specific genes in that cancerous tissue to isolate the genes of interest. They them sequence those genes to see where the mutation occurs and what the specific mutation is. By doing this they can select the appropriate therapy for that specific subtype of lung cancer.

There are literally hundreds of molecular diagnostic commercial labs in the US alone. They provide Dr's with the information that leads to an official diagnosis but the molecular diagnostic test provides the diagnosis by way of pathologists and molecular scientists that work for that lab.

of course it can be used a instrument to aid diagnosis.

if you have symptoms that matches two virus...

then you do a pcr test on both types and one comes back positive..

you going to just ignore that?

of course it's fucking diagnostic.

what about fucking pregnancy test?

are you saying the pregnancy test can't diagnose pregnancy?

Interesting, thank you.

also diagnosis is just latin for "to know thoroughly".

OP, the problem is when PCR is used incorrectly, such as in the case of covid where they amplified the sample to such an extent that they were detecting covid where none really existed in sufficient amounts to cause disease, or they were amplifying "dead" virus 40+ times and saying you have covid. PCR is an amazing technology if used appropriately. In the case of covid it was abused to show something that wasn't there.

Anyone want to balance out that Juan Star or are we just into war these days... ;)

^This. Except his name is spelled "Kary".

You bet. This is what I do for a living.

They also use similar procedures for subtyping all sorts of cancer like breast cancer. For each subtype of lung/breast/pancreatic/etc cancer there are different treatment protocols depending on the specific mutations the patient has in their cancer cells. If you treat lung cancer 1 with the protocol for lung cancer 2 it won't work and only causes harm to the patient.

This is how i've understood it as well...So essentially the DNA result is so far away from the original that the margin of error is almost 100% right?

This, PCR is a barrel scraper

the problem you're really going to face with this question OP... is..

are you talking PRE or POST gold standard?

because as soon as they made a gold standard for covid, for example..

the tests became extremely accurate.

Every amplification cycle doubles the amount. After 40 cycles, assuming you started with 10 fragments of starting material, you would have something on the order of 5x10 to the 12th copies.
5,000,000,000,000

That's a LOT of copies and will lead to false positives

Correct. It's used to amplify DNA, like in cancer dx. Anything connected to COVID (or any other communicable pathogens) would mean they were doing gain of function research. If they're saying it's ONLY a diagnostic tool, they're lying motherf***ers.

So virtually 100% error even @ 20 cycles...

Have we ever thought about whether it is the right thing to DO to multiply DNA like that?

The ramifications...

If DNA is the word of life...

Ouch, yeah, good point

No it wasn't. The gold standard they picked was 40 PCR cycles.

I wouldn't say 100% error. Look, it is good at detecting minute amounts of DNA. But there is a limit on how much you amplify something where it becomes ridiculous. A safe number would be mid 20s for cycle number to get positive results that are meaningful. Above 30 gets you into false positive territory.

I see, thanks for clarifying

It depends how many cycles you run the amplification. A diagnostic test would indicate someone has or does not have an infection be it viral or bacterial. If inert Or partial RNA/DNA strands are in the sample being tested and amplified by 1000x you will most certainly test positive for what ever you are looking for but the likely hood you have symptoms or are infectious could be insignificant or zero. That’s why when the pandemic started most PCR instruments I am familiar with ran 60x amplification cycles and the infection rate was so high but many were asymptomatic. They have since lowered the cycle threshold to 30x and like magic less positives.